As it's the weekend, I thought I might lighten things (if only there was a roolback button ;-) ).
There was an article in the press about a new book this week which says that [[Da Vinci]] hid all his gnostic secrets with mirrors. The discovery channel covered the story here http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/08/davinci-mirror-code.html?dcitc=w19-... . I couldn't really careless what Da Vinci was upto but the image gallery that shows the examples of his esoterica is much more interesting (the link is here http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/08/davinci-mirror-code.html?dcitc=w19-... ).
Discovery in its tabloid historian fashion titles one of the pics "Darth Vader". It certainly does, but I wonder how long it will take for some bright spark to include the "fact" on Wikipedia? The guy who designed the original Darth Vader custome was John Mollo (interestingly enougn he only has a bio on german wikipedia), will someone suggest that he had knowledge of this previously undiscovered da vinci code?
mike
On 1/11/08, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The guy who designed the original Darth Vader custome was John Mollo (interestingly enougn he only has a bio on german wikipedia)...
Sofixit. Actually I might get bored and do it myself. The prose does not appear elaborate enough to be difficult.
—C.W.
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:43 -0600, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 1/11/08, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The guy who designed the original Darth Vader custome was John Mollo (interestingly enougn he only has a bio on german wikipedia)...
Sofixit. Actually I might get bored and do it myself. The prose does not appear elaborate enough to be difficult.
—C.W.
Fixed, working on the article. Anybody care to help? :)
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 14/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:43 -0600, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 1/11/08, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The guy who designed the original Darth Vader custome was John Mollo (interestingly enougn he only has a bio on german wikipedia)...
Sofixit. Actually I might get bored and do it myself. The prose does not appear elaborate enough to be difficult.
Fixed, working on the article. Anybody care to help? :)
I just removed the reflexive speedy deletion nomination.
- d.
On 1/14/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I just removed the reflexive speedy deletion nomination.
I forgot to mention that I knew that was going to happen, I didn't expect the (fucking absurd) argument of "no context" to be used.
Just remember that most of those making frivolous "speedy delete" nominations today will be admins come April.
I should add to my blog a [[List of users who ought never have a "delete" button, ever]].
—C.W.
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 14:49 -0600, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 1/14/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I just removed the reflexive speedy deletion nomination.
I forgot to mention that I knew that was going to happen, I didn't expect the (fucking absurd) argument of "no context" to be used.
Just remember that most of those making frivolous "speedy delete" nominations today will be admins come April.
I should add to my blog a [[List of users who ought never have a "delete" button, ever]].
—C.W.
I agree. Sadly, too many articles get tagged for speedy by people who can't be bothered to do a simple Google search or interwiki search. I think the article should be save now. The guy has worked on so many movies and authored several books, notability should really be no issue here. Need to work on verifiable sources though.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 1/14/08, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
The guy has worked on so many movies and authored several books, notability should really be no issue here.
This isn't about "notability" (nothing ever is). The stated reason was "no context". FSVO of "no context, see [1]:
- No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify
the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh." Context is different than content, treated in A3, below.
Assuming, briefly, that they meant to say "no content" (A3), you'll read on and see that said user is still be barking up the wrong cactus. This means he has either not bothered to read the criteria, or that he knows it's an improper tag but hopes that those reviewing the tag actually are equally ignorant (or simply don't care).
The "good faith" interpretation is that nobody actually bothers to read the CSD policy (yet every day somebody wants to add more to it -- perfect...)
—C.W.
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:33 -0600, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 1/14/08, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
The guy has worked on so many movies and authored several books, notability should really be no issue here.
This isn't about "notability" (nothing ever is). The stated reason was "no context". FSVO of "no context, see [1]:
- No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify
the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh." Context is different than content, treated in A3, below.
Assuming, briefly, that they meant to say "no content" (A3), you'll read on and see that said user is still be barking up the wrong cactus. This means he has either not bothered to read the criteria, or that he knows it's an improper tag but hopes that those reviewing the tag actually are equally ignorant (or simply don't care).
The "good faith" interpretation is that nobody actually bothers to read the CSD policy (yet every day somebody wants to add more to it -- perfect...)
—C.W.
Charlotte et al,
I know it wasn't about notability, I did read the CSD reason and know it was incorrect. The user is inexperienced and is trying to help out, I'm sure he is not doing it for the (public) editcount as they get deleted in theory.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
To play Devil's Advocate, though, here's the initial version that was tagged for speedy deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Mollo&oldid=184320631
And here's the version from 20 minutes later when you'd finished your initial creation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Mollo&oldid=184324785
At the moment, a 20 minute old article would almost have fallen off the bottom of the 100 Newest Pages list. Which means it's virtually impossible to conduct a new pages patrol AND give every article 20 minutes grace to see if it turns out to grow beyond a one-liner with no assertion of notability.
I try to make life easier for the new page patrollers by sticking to Preview rather than Save, until I'm happy the article is in a shape to go live. Or working on it in userspace and then moving it live, if I expect my work to be spread over a couple of sessions.
Cheers, David...
On Jan 15, 2008 8:01 AM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
The guy has worked on so many movies and authored several books, notability should really be no issue here. Need to work on verifiable sources though.
David Carson wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, though, here's the initial version that was tagged for speedy deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Mollo&oldid=184320631
Ah, good point.
At the moment, a 20 minute old article would almost have fallen off the bottom of the 100 Newest Pages list. Which means it's virtually impossible to conduct a new pages patrol AND give every article 20 minutes grace to see if it turns out to grow beyond a one-liner with no assertion of notability.
Seems to me "sofixit" applies here, though -- if that's the way new pages patrol works, it needs fixing. (I would think that new articles ought to be given at least a day before being tagged for speedy deletion, unless they're obvious vandalism. What does CSD say?)
On 14/01/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Seems to me "sofixit" applies here, though -- if that's the way new pages patrol works, it needs fixing. (I would think that new articles ought to be given at least a day before being tagged for speedy deletion, unless they're obvious vandalism. What does CSD say?)
CSD does exactly what it says on the tin. Admins may shoot to kill from the moment of creation.
On Jan 14, 2008 5:45 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
At the moment, a 20 minute old article would almost have fallen off the bottom of the 100 Newest Pages list. Which means it's virtually impossible to conduct a new pages patrol AND give every article 20 minutes grace to see if it turns out to grow beyond a one-liner with no assertion of notability.
If new page patrolers would spend a little more attention on coverage, making sure every pages is patrolled, rather than trying to be quickest on the draw to rack up the tagging points. .. ;) It would be a little easier: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Newpages&hidepatrolled...
I try to make life easier for the new page patrollers by sticking to Preview rather than Save, until I'm happy the article is in a shape to go live. Or working on it in userspace and then moving it live, if I expect my work to be spread over a couple of sessions.
It's true though... the other users are not psychic, they can't guess how good it will be. Preview is your friend. Perhaps we should rewrite the edit button on new page creation to say "submit for review" ?
Tagging points? Where are these tagging points? Man, if we can accumulate points... We need a list, or a category, or both of people with lots of points. And barnstars. If I get 10,000 patrolled deletions, can I get a giant barnstar and be at the top of the list?
On Jan 14, 2008 6:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 5:45 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
At the moment, a 20 minute old article would almost have fallen off the bottom of the 100 Newest Pages list. Which means it's virtually impossible to conduct a new pages patrol AND give every article 20 minutes grace to see if it turns out to grow beyond a one-liner with no assertion of notability.
If new page patrolers would spend a little more attention on coverage, making sure every pages is patrolled, rather than trying to be quickest on the draw to rack up the tagging points. .. ;) It would be a little easier: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Newpages&hidepatrolled...
I try to make life easier for the new page patrollers by sticking to Preview rather than Save, until I'm happy the article is in a shape to go live. Or working on it in userspace and then moving it live, if I expect my work to be spread over a couple of sessions.
It's true though... the other users are not psychic, they can't guess how good it will be. Preview is your friend. Perhaps we should rewrite the edit button on new page creation to say "submit for review" ?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See [[WP:EDITCOUNT]] and [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]] and [[WP:MOSTEDITS]] :P
Stwalkerster
On 14/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Tagging points? Where are these tagging points? Man, if we can accumulate points... We need a list, or a category, or both of people with lots of points. And barnstars. If I get 10,000 patrolled deletions, can I get a giant barnstar and be at the top of the list?