-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people
can't come to a general
agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such
in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority.
If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That sounds like a deletionist manifesto.
That seems characteristic of the gang of punks that has been dominating
the deletion process. These fanatics are so obsessed with pushing
their POV through deletions that they have completely lost touch with
anything constructive or creative.
I'm also disappointed in those who are in a position to act against this
clique that just whine and do nothing. Sometimes it takes a little
courage to deal with these disruptive influences. Even if a large
proportion of these articles deserves be deleted that doesn't justify
the inflexible attitude about all the deletions.
If they can't make some effort to reach compromises with others who do
suggest alternatives for problem articles then maybe they should go
troll somewher else.
People DO NOT seem to understand that there are other options to "keep,
notable" and "delete, cruft".
Here's the (full?) range of options:
- Transwiki to (some other GFDL wiki, not neccesarily run by Wikimedia)
- Merge with another article (as Gmaxwell suggests, do NOT use history
merges - use history subpages) and:
- Redirect, OR
- Delete the original article with a nonsense title
- Redirect to another article
- Move to a better page name
- Translate (note, untranslated pages which have remained so for the
specified time can be deleted)
- Slated for cleanup
- Kept
- BJAODN'ed
- Speedied
- Deleted
That's the full range. Before you vote "d, nn." you should ask yourself:
just what other options are there? What would be the best way to
proceed? What will cause the least stress, pain and gnashing of teeth?
I've found that the criteria for speedy deletion are quite useful in
some of these cases; for example, copyvios with minimal wikification
(esp. linking) which are detected within 48 hours can be speedied under
section A8; biographies which make no claim at notability can be
speedied under A7; stuff which has been AFDed and recreated can be
speedied under G4; and so on.
The bottom line is: don't waste yours and everyone else's time voting
"d, nn. US President" or "keep, we need articles on my nose hairs"
when
there are *other, better* options available.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ2Np7bMAAH8MeUlWAQgq3ggAlqB9lIw4RWL6Y4sevoOxS72vWcl6R5A8
ImyZWJAyn+9pBMMYTLh1azxSY8st0ztWVeHmQplIGYcTOxqxSJg8xa7P2pFRMig1
cLREn90xRVbuY7F7DAUjh82ndMVuYcTpvFLP/dPCvuyUpQU0p7EniAkvT0NRRxKD
p5GanvSnRi7b/gqLwwqqzO4U/ym9xfqyG4NfiKnZgZ2NkN3PdizXci7Dwekx8fYJ
J+YvmLlT3XUAWfH4tEMn0s3WJMt4ybRTmLn/gxXLvxKGIv3wkYmkt4eHARShrZ14
B8vDyf45n172+LZwGm+yfHf0yuSa2xs7Pth7E9k4nV37DtxISI4ywQ==
=ocdw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----