Hi there,
i am having some difficulties understanding some decisions and need some words of clarification from you people.
I am the lead developer of a project called ActiveQuant, which got deleted recently. There was some notability discussion about this software and i clearly pointed out that delisting ActiveQuant is not only unfair but also unjust in my eyes. A very important other library called QuantLib got delisted, too. The main problem these two projects were suffering from is notability.
Now, as these two projects got deleted, i enforced the same rule (missing notability) on other projects and marked them as to be deleted.
Someone with account HU12 therefore initiated a block against my account and rolled back my delete requests without knowing that these projects of course have exactly the same notability issues and must therefore be deleted, too.
To go even further, he has now removed permission to modify my own talk page, as he accuses me to abuse the method to request unblocking. I still request unblocking of my account and deletion of these other projects (actually most other open source listings on wikipedia suffer from this notability rule), or get rid of this notability rule which doesn't make much sense for most open source software distributed on the internet.
Anyway, to the main point of my email:
Could someone please be so kind and explain to me a) why has my delete-request been removed from those other projects, although it is perfectly valid b) why has my account been blocked
I really can't reason this, i also must admit that there are dozens of other pages that have missing references or notability problems and why has our page (ActiveQuant) been deleted, although there were other people, not only me, complaining about this delete request. I do value the hint from this other guy (can't remember his name right now), that once ActiveQuant has reached notability by i.e. a book about it or a magazine article as a backening it will have no notablity issues anymore and is valid for resubmission! But again, why are other projects that have even less text and information to learn from (software related, i.e. architectural insight) still listed?
Thanks for any shared insight. Ulrich.
On 1/8/08, Ulrich us@activestocks.de wrote:
I am the lead developer of a project called ActiveQuant, which got deleted recently. There was some notability discussion about this software and i clearly pointed out that delisting ActiveQuant is not only unfair but also unjust in my eyes. A very important other library
Probably the first thing you need to understand is we don't even try for "just" or "fair" decisions. The delete/not delete mechanism is basically a big, very fuzzy heuristic that tries to provide the best outcome for our project, by filtering out the least useful articles.
called QuantLib got delisted, too. The main problem these two projects were suffering from is notability.
It's perfectly possible for two similar articles near the threshold of includability to meet different outcomes at "Articles for Discussion". That's basically guaranteed under the consensus mechanism.
Now, as these two projects got deleted, i enforced the same rule (missing notability) on other projects and marked them as to be deleted.
Ooh. You don't want to do that. You don't want to be a crusader for an article that you have a personal stake in. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI
Someone with account HU12 therefore initiated a block against my account and rolled back my delete requests without knowing that these projects
It probably looked like you were trying to game the system...a bad idea when you are a newcomer to the system. Best to leave this kind of thing to established users.
of course have exactly the same notability issues and must therefore be deleted, too.
No. There is no "must". No one can really demand that any article either be or not be deleted. Don't worry about other articles - they're not your concern. Unless, of course you want to become an active participant in Wikipedia.
To go even further, he has now removed permission to modify my own talk page, as he accuses me to abuse the method to request unblocking. I
Unusual.
still request unblocking of my account and deletion of these other projects (actually most other open source listings on wikipedia suffer
As long as you're still gunning for this deletion, you're unlikely to get much sympathy.
Could someone please be so kind and explain to me a) why has my delete-request been removed from those other projects, although it is perfectly valid
Could you provide some URLs? And why you're so concerned about the existence of these articles? Is it a case of sour grapes?
other pages that have missing references or notability problems and why has our page (ActiveQuant) been deleted, although there were other
Because it's not your page. It's our page.
people, not only me, complaining about this delete request. I do value the hint from this other guy (can't remember his name right now), that once ActiveQuant has reached notability by i.e. a book about it or a magazine article as a backening it will have no notablity issues anymore and is valid for resubmission! But again, why are other projects that have even less text and information to learn from (software related, i.e. architectural insight) still listed?
Because Wikipedia is imperfect. Very much so.
Steve
Doubt he is a subscriber to WikiEn-L. Might want to directly copy him on replies.
~Nathan
On Jan 9, 2008 7:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/8/08, Ulrich us@activestocks.de wrote:
I am the lead developer of a project called ActiveQuant, which got deleted recently. There was some notability discussion about this software and i clearly pointed out that delisting ActiveQuant is not only unfair but also unjust in my eyes. A very important other library
Probably the first thing you need to understand is we don't even try for "just" or "fair" decisions. The delete/not delete mechanism is basically a big, very fuzzy heuristic that tries to provide the best outcome for our project, by filtering out the least useful articles.
called QuantLib got delisted, too. The main problem these two projects were suffering from is notability.
It's perfectly possible for two similar articles near the threshold of includability to meet different outcomes at "Articles for Discussion". That's basically guaranteed under the consensus mechanism.
Now, as these two projects got deleted, i enforced the same rule (missing notability) on other projects and marked them as to be deleted.
Ooh. You don't want to do that. You don't want to be a crusader for an article that you have a personal stake in. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI
Someone with account HU12 therefore initiated a block against my account and rolled back my delete requests without knowing that these projects
It probably looked like you were trying to game the system...a bad idea when you are a newcomer to the system. Best to leave this kind of thing to established users.
of course have exactly the same notability issues and must therefore be deleted, too.
No. There is no "must". No one can really demand that any article either be or not be deleted. Don't worry about other articles - they're not your concern. Unless, of course you want to become an active participant in Wikipedia.
To go even further, he has now removed permission to modify my own talk page, as he accuses me to abuse the method to request unblocking. I
Unusual.
still request unblocking of my account and deletion of these other projects (actually most other open source listings on wikipedia suffer
As long as you're still gunning for this deletion, you're unlikely to get much sympathy.
Could someone please be so kind and explain to me a) why has my delete-request been removed from those other projects, although it is perfectly valid
Could you provide some URLs? And why you're so concerned about the existence of these articles? Is it a case of sour grapes?
other pages that have missing references or notability problems and why has our page (ActiveQuant) been deleted, although there were other
Because it's not your page. It's our page.
people, not only me, complaining about this delete request. I do value the hint from this other guy (can't remember his name right now), that once ActiveQuant has reached notability by i.e. a book about it or a magazine article as a backening it will have no notablity issues anymore and is valid for resubmission! But again, why are other projects that have even less text and information to learn from (software related, i.e. architectural insight) still listed?
Because Wikipedia is imperfect. Very much so.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 7, 2008 1:35 PM, Ulrich us@activestocks.de wrote:
Hi there,
i am having some difficulties understanding some decisions and need some words of clarification from you people.
I am the lead developer of a project called ActiveQuant, which got deleted recently. There was some notability discussion about this software and i clearly pointed out that delisting ActiveQuant is not only unfair but also unjust in my eyes. A very important other library called QuantLib got delisted, too. The main problem these two projects were suffering from is notability.
Now, as these two projects got deleted, i enforced the same rule (missing notability) on other projects and marked them as to be deleted.
You may want to have a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT
.
(Of lesser importance, but still relevant to this topic is < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI%3E.)
Someone with account HU12 therefore initiated a block against my account and rolled back my delete requests without knowing that these projects of course have exactly the same notability issues and must therefore be deleted, too.
Nothing "must" be deleted. Community consensus decides what stays and what is deleted, and usually considers several factors, such as the ratio between time spent and benefit to the project. The higher the ratio, the more likely that deletion will happen.
To go even further, he has now removed permission to modify my own talk
page, as he accuses me to abuse the method to request unblocking. I still request unblocking of my account and deletion of these other projects (actually most other open source listings on wikipedia suffer from this notability rule), or get rid of this notability rule which doesn't make much sense for most open source software distributed on the internet.
Notability is a guideline, not policy. It makes an argument but is not a fast rule at all, therefore it doesn't need to be deleted but also doesn't need to be enforced on everything that doesn't meet the criteria presented.
Anyway, to the main point of my email:
Could someone please be so kind and explain to me a) why has my delete-request been removed from those other projects, although it is perfectly valid b) why has my account been blocked
The POINT article I linked above adequately describes my point.
I really can't reason this, i also must admit that there are dozens of other pages that have missing references or notability problems and why has our page (ActiveQuant) been deleted, although there were other people, not only me, complaining about this delete request. I do value the hint from this other guy (can't remember his name right now), that once ActiveQuant has reached notability by i.e. a book about it or a magazine article as a backening it will have no notablity issues anymore and is valid for resubmission! But again, why are other projects that have even less text and information to learn from (software related, i.e. architectural insight) still listed?
Maybe the community thinks that there is more worth in keeping them, especially considering that the principal author in those cases may not be the developer. Pushing for the retention of an article that you are personally involved with raises eyebrows.
I hope this provides some clarification. Let me know if I can help further.