Ray Saintonge
I agree that most things won't draw such a debate, and even if a lot of the articles proposed for deletions really are deletable there is still that small obsessive group determined to preserve our "bodily humours" in the manner of Dr. Strangelove. They need to be more sensitive to the efforts of others, and to understand that many of these most bitter disputes are not about what's in the articles, but about a small group that wants to control the work of others.
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
- d.
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
LOL, that's kind of silly. I guess those are the same contributers that made "Greasy Cannonball", LOL. Seriously though, many of us go to VfD to kill original research and other nonsense and vanity. It would be nice if we had people like you participating there rather than just complaining about the system, as it were :).
Believe it or not, it does work quite well considering the alternatives. Sometimes it takes multiple VfDs, sometimes it ends up on VfU etc.. But eventually it does work - thanks to the work of the people who populate VfD (the people you seem to live to hate, LOL :)).
Hate a little WP:FAITH in the system, it does work quite well. Maybe you should talk about it on the talk page of WP:AfD - its a rather low-traffic talk page comparatively.
Thanks, Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
On 10/4/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
LOL, that's kind of silly. I guess those are the same contributers that made "Greasy Cannonball", LOL. Seriously though, many of us go to VfD to kill original research and other nonsense and vanity. It would be nice if we had people like you participating there rather than just complaining about the system, as it were :).
I have. It's a ridiculous amount of work and the VICIOUS STUPIDITY AND BLATANT IGNORING OF THE ACTUAL DAMN DELETION POLICY DOES NOT STOP. Trying to hold back the waves of poisonous stupidity at VFD is a quick route to burnout. AFD sill needs a dynamite enema.
- d.
On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 03:15 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10/4/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
LOL, that's kind of silly. I guess those are the same contributers that made "Greasy Cannonball", LOL. Seriously though, many of us go to VfD to kill original research and other nonsense and vanity. It would be nice if we had people like you participating there rather than just complaining about the system, as it were :).
I have. It's a ridiculous amount of work and the VICIOUS STUPIDITY AND BLATANT IGNORING OF THE ACTUAL DAMN DELETION POLICY DOES NOT STOP. Trying to hold back the waves of poisonous stupidity at VFD is a quick route to burnout. AFD sill needs a dynamite enema.
As far as I know most of us follow policy quite well, what parts in particular are some of us not following? I'm always listening for improvement :).
Thanks, Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
On 10/4/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 03:15 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10/4/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
LOL, that's kind of silly. I guess those are the same contributers that made "Greasy Cannonball", LOL. Seriously though, many of us go to VfD to kill original research and other nonsense and vanity. It would be nice if we had people like you participating there rather than just complaining about the system, as it were :).
I have. It's a ridiculous amount of work and the VICIOUS STUPIDITY AND BLATANT IGNORING OF THE ACTUAL DAMN DELETION POLICY DOES NOT STOP. Trying to hold back the waves of poisonous stupidity at VFD is a quick route to burnout. AFD sill needs a dynamite enema.
As far as I know most of us follow policy quite well, what parts in particular are some of us not following? I'm always listening for improvement :).
See the current RFC on the subject, or indeed read this list over the last few days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Snowspinner_2
- d.
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
- d.
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
-- geni
On 10/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
- d.
On 04/10/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
"Pro-content" versus "pro-encyclopedia", perhaps? The best bit is that at a glance it's tough to tell which side each is meant to be...
and, hey, content! who doesn't like content? or encyclopedias? perfect...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
David Gerard wrote:
On 10/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
That guy was imprisoned in the 1920s and that gave him the free time to write his literary masterpiec. Let's be thankful that there was no Wikipedia at that time, or he might have used it to write a version of the AFD rules with a clarity that rivals that of the present rules. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
David Gerard wrote:
On 10/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
We could call them HITLER!!!!11!
That guy was imprisoned in the 1920s and that gave him the free time to write his literary masterpiec. Let's be thankful that there was no Wikipedia at that time, or he might have used it to write a version of the AFD rules with a clarity that rivals that of the present rules. :-)
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists suddenly sighed happily....
On 10/4/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists suddenly sighed happily....
Pleaze hitler was the guy who felt that a street thug (horst wessel) was worthy of his own song. As a result we have anb article on this otherwise nn street thug.
-- geni
geni stated for the record:
On 10/4/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of deletionists suddenly sighed happily....
Pleaze hitler was the guy who felt that a street thug (horst wessel) was worthy of his own song. As a result we have anb article on this otherwise nn street thug.
Ooo! Let's have a flame war about whether Hitler would have be an inclusionist or a deletionist! He collected countries, but deleted people ... hmmm....
Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?
On 10/5/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?
Dunno. Was godwin pro-content or pro-encyclopedia?
-- geni
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Is this the first wikien-l thread to get godwinized without outside help?
I can think of numerous lesss entertaining ways that Hitler could be mentioned in a thread.
And if this thread was Godwinized, then who lost? The Encyclopedists or the Contributors?
Geoff
On 10/5/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
And if this thread was Godwinized, then who lost? The Encyclopedists or the Contributors?
Godwin's Law is not, alas, a zero sum game, it's a rough measure of
entropy in internet discussions.
On 10/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The opposed groups are not "inclusionists" versus deletionists, but *contributors* versus deletionists. (This is still the case even though the deletionists contribute elsewhere.) Then the deletionists wonder why the contributors get so damn stroppy.
- d.
Does this mean that the deletionist get to relalable them selves as well? If so can we call it the contributors vs the Encyclopedists ? Or we could go the other way and let both sides relable to the opposeing sides.
I know, I know: how about the Capulets and Montagues? Crips and the Bloods? Yeah! Or the Sharks and the Jets. Then there could be a tender story of children of the warring Associations thrown together by fate and passion, tossed on the winds of information, tenderly editing each others articles, realizing the narrow creed they followed was nothing when it came to verifying AND including their love for another, each one spouting verse on the others talk page in the middle of the night, being bold, breaking the 3RR together, only to be cut down and burned out in a brutal flamewar ending only in tragedy as one takes the poison of AfD and the other falls on his own WP:POINT in a message to all, and eyes are opened by this tragedy, leading to a historic agreement as Jimbo Wales eulogizes over their young but lifeless accounts, complete with tender homilies about community and vision and how he C0ntr0lz Teh Un1v3rs3.
Or not.
smws (Wikipedia:Kiaparowits)
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l