It's such a pity {{toomanyboxes}} fell to [[WP:TFD]].

'Tis a pity inclusionists feel the need to make personal attacks all the time. RickK Sean Barrett wrote: David Gerard stated for the record: 'Tis a pity deletionists have no sense of humor.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:32:25 +0100, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote: Ok I'm impressed but on the other hand be glad it didn't have half a dozen stub notices on it. One option would be to put the majority of tags on talk pages. In fact everything except an apology notice (something along the lines of "it has come to our attention that this page is below our normal standards. We apologise this and hope the problem will be fixed soon. If you think you can fix this yourself please click here" ok a bit less coperate sounding would be good), VFD tags and protected tags could be put on talk pages. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

At 09:01 PM 2/4/2005 -0500, Stacey Greenstein wrote: If nothing else, I think the "stub" tags (and associated categories) should go to the talk pages. These stub categories are very "meta", in that they don't group articles based on subject matter so much as they group them based on their characteristics as articles. Things that are only of use to editors should generally stay off the main articles, IMO. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:23:07 +0000, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: I heartily agree with this suggestion. Delightfully simple. At a single move, articles are not cluttered by notices for editors, and the talk page can have as many templates and explanation as needed.

The point is that the current templates are often instructions to editors.

At 07:58 PM 2/11/2005 -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote: Hear hear. Wikimedia has tons of wonderful features for assisting editors, but the actual text of the article that we're using them to write is intended primarily for _readers'_ benefit IMO. The "meta" stuff should be hidden behind-the-scenes wherever humanly possible.

--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Then could you or anybody else who cares about this go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moving_tags_to… and comment? My moving campaign has brought this to a head and may result in a policy one way or the other. -- mav

--- Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote: Like I templates go furthermore, main Neither will I. Some templates, like {{POV}} or {{vfd}} help to warn readers. Others like {{protected}} are temporary in nature. Both of these types of templates are valid to have in the article space. But some like {{expand}} or {{cleanup}} are primarily instructions to writers. For these, the disadvantages of having templates in the article space outweigh the advantages (as I've listed at [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages]]). Thus they should be on talk pages and, if needed, an HTML comment can be left in the article itself. That targets the message to the intended audience while leaving articles with a minimum number of self-referential templates that need to be cleaned-up by third party users or seen by readers.

So? Most of our mirrors run various bots to remove stuff so I wont be a problem for them to remove this. There is also the issue that our mirrors have very different aims to us.

My own working assumption is that writing 'Wikipedia' in Wiki-en's main name space is only acceptable if replacing it anywhere it occurs by 'this encyclopedia' makes good sense.

From: "Bill Konrad" <bkonrad123(a)sbcglobal.net> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:04:51 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: [WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars? Here's the short version, from my perspective. Some users figured out a way to use templates to produce a table of contents for categories. At Wikipedia talk:Categorization, this was generally seen as a very good thing for navigating large categories (and indeed may minimize some of the rationale for creating certain types of sub-categories merely to reduce the size of the parent category). Netoholic took it upon himself to "improve" the templates without much in the way of explanation about what he was doing. I reverted his changes as he seemed to be the only person who saw any problem and and a few other persons also questioned the changes he was attempting to impose. It was only after a few set of reversions that it finally came out that there are dramatic difference in the way that IE and Firefox display the templates. After understanding just how dramatic the differences are, I withdrew my objections to Netoholic's change. This was at 19:58, Feb 11, 2005. The last reversion I made was at 15:45, Feb 11, 2005. However, before this, at 16:17, Feb 11, 2005, Netoholic had filed a complaint about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I don't dispute that I reverted four times to the same version (while Netoholic reverted twice on two separate times to somewhat different versions). Since I generally avoid making multiple reversions, I simply was not paying that close attention to the revert rule and the timing of my reverts -- I was reacting to what appeared to be Netoholic unilaterally imposing changes, without adequately explaining the rationale and despite questions and opposition to his changes. Basically, it looked as though Netoholic was the only person who saw a problem with the templates and was not especially effective in explaining what he saw as the problem. I and others saw Netoholic's changes as clearly inferior (and indeed the second set of changes made the template nearly unusable in Firefox), so I do not feel any compunction about reverting these changes. Once it became clear just how dramatic the differences between IE and Firefox were, I agreed that one of Netoholic's earlier versions was the best choice as being least problematic in both browsers. So that was the end of the reversions. No more edit war. However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic. So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if anyone else saw me as such. Bkonrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?

However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic. So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if anyone else saw me as such.

There needs to be something on the article itself that signals there's an acknowledged problem with a page, because if readers see something that's clearly biased, but it has no dispute tag on it, they'll think Wikipedia is satisfied with the bias. The tag tells them there's an on-going content dispute, which tends to enhance our credibility. The tag might also encourage the reader to try editing the article.

Rick said: If the templates belong there, and it survives VfD, some or all of them will reappear on the article and it will get the attention it needs.

Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com) [050206 10:30]:

{{unreferenced}} has attracted references. Check my talk page.