I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freehold_Circle "Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurelton_Circl... "I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability derives from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flemington_Circ... "This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Cir... "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete --Aranda56 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"
What the fuck is with people?
SPUI wrote:
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block:
Make that have been blocked, as I forgot when I went to bed last night. 22:01, 29 September 2005 Fvw blocked "User:SPUI" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Freehold Circle)
And rightly so, you reverted that article four or five times. If you don't want a 3RR block, don't break the 3RR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fr...
Cheers, David...
SPUI wrote:
SPUI wrote:
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block:
Make that have been blocked, as I forgot when I went to bed last night. 22:01, 29 September 2005 Fvw blocked "User:SPUI" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Freehold Circle) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contact: Team Bondi Pty Ltd Level 2, 608 Harris Street Ultimo, NSW 2007 Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 8218 1500 Fax: +61 (0)2 8218 1507 Web: http://www.teambondi.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of our firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
why are they invalid vfds, Cindy?
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
SPUI wrote:
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block:
Make that have been blocked, as I forgot when I went to bed last night. 22:01, 29 September 2005 Fvw blocked "User:SPUI" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Freehold Circle) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, and look at the third archive of my talk page to see how well that works.
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Phroziac wrote:
why are they invalid vfds, Cindy?
Because they don't establish deletability. There was a recent discussion on this list about that, but I can't seem to find it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
SPUI wrote:
Phroziac wrote:
why are they invalid vfds, Cindy?
Because they don't establish deletability. There was a recent discussion on this list about that, but I can't seem to find it.
Please add these AfD pages to [[WP:RFC/AfD]]...
he's blocked. You do it. I'm on a wikibreak
On 9/30/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Phroziac wrote:
why are they invalid vfds, Cindy?
Because they don't establish deletability. There was a recent discussion on this list about that, but I can't seem to find it.
Please add these AfD pages to [[WP:RFC/AfD]]...
-- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, SPUI wrote:
Phroziac wrote:
why are they invalid vfds, Cindy?
Because they don't establish deletability. There was a recent discussion on this list about that, but I can't seem to find it.
I remember recently suggesting that any nomination that includes the words "non-notable" or "cruft" ought to be treated as a speedy keep (with the intent of making people work a little harder on explaining why a nomination ought to be deleted), but I can't find my email on the topic either. I also remember someone disagreed about treating "non-notable" in this way, so that is as far as *that* proposal went.
Assuming that there is a consensus concerning use/abuse of the word "cruft", then only one of your Speedy Keeps would be justified on that basis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freehold_Circle "Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Was this deprecation of the word "cruft" pointed out?
Geoff
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freehold_Circle "Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurelton_Circl... "I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability derives from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flemington_Circ... "This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Cir... "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete --Aranda56 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"
What the fuck is with people? _______________________________________________
The majority of the votes on those articles is to delete them. You can't just speedy keep and impose your opinion on others keep it when there isn't even a remote consensus to keep the article.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The majority of the votes on those articles is to delete them. You can't just speedy keep and impose your opinion on others keep it when there isn't even a remote consensus to keep the article.
The consensus of those that actually care about the subject is to keep it. If we listened to the assholes we'd have killed all the Rambot stubs.
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The consensus of those that actually care about the subject is to keep it. If we listened to the assholes we'd have killed all the Rambot stubs.
I don't think there was ever even a straight majority to kill them.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The consensus of those that actually care about the subject is to keep it. If we listened to the assholes we'd have killed all the Rambot stubs.
I don't think there was ever even a straight majority to kill them.
I see there were enough on the side of good.
I hate those rambot stubs. So incredibly useless! I'm sure a lot of these towns couldn't even be expanded much.
On 9/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The consensus of those that actually care about the subject is to keep it. If we listened to the assholes we'd have killed all the Rambot stubs.
I don't think there was ever even a straight majority to kill them.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/30/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I hate those rambot stubs. So incredibly useless! I'm sure a lot of these towns couldn't even be expanded much.
I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, when researching cities I am likely to end up living in. The ability to compare income and population and racial demographics, getting a real "feel" for an area... Thats exactly the kind of thing a '''reader''' finds useful, but an '''editor''' (who will prob never go there) wouldn't. The entire concept of "cruft" is idiosyncratic encyclopedia editor shoptalk, and has nothing to do w the people who read articles, and why.
People read encyclopedias because they present diverse, accurate information. People read the wikipedia because it is even '''more''' diverse. When readers find accurate informationr, thats good. When they don't, its bad. What you personally find "notable" has nothing to do w that. Deletionism fights against that which makes the Wikipedia valuable, even "notable" ;)
I wonder if their is an article on wikipedia in britannica...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I have no problem with cruft. That information would be fine if it was actually in an article, and not by itself.
But....there are thousands of these things Most have little or no information added to them since rambot!
On 9/30/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I hate those rambot stubs. So incredibly useless! I'm sure a lot of these towns couldn't even be expanded much.
I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, when researching cities I am likely to end up living in. The ability to compare income and population and racial demographics, getting a real "feel" for an area... Thats exactly the kind of thing a '''reader''' finds useful, but an '''editor''' (who will prob never go there) wouldn't. The entire concept of "cruft" is idiosyncratic encyclopedia editor shoptalk, and has nothing to do w the people who read articles, and why.
People read encyclopedias because they present diverse, accurate information. People read the wikipedia because it is even '''more''' diverse. When readers find accurate informationr, thats good. When they don't, its bad. What you personally find "notable" has nothing to do w that. Deletionism fights against that which makes the Wikipedia valuable, even "notable" ;)
I wonder if their is an article on wikipedia in britannica...
Jack (Sam Spade) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, when researching cities I am likely to end up living in. The ability to compare income and population and racial demographics, getting a real "feel" for an area... Thats exactly the kind of thing a '''reader''' finds useful, but an '''editor''' (who will prob never go there) wouldn't. The entire concept of "cruft" is idiosyncratic encyclopedia editor shoptalk, and has nothing to do w the people who read articles, and why.
Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100 persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
Oh, and there is also a crossing whos name contain the word "circle" where I live. I would very much like to know if it is because there used to be a traffic circle there. But you won't let me find that info in Wikipedia becase you think it is cruft.
-- mvh Björn
If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to find what their looking for.
The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased
than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100 persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
Oh, and there is also a crossing whos name contain the word "circle" where I live. I would very much like to know if it is because there used to be a traffic circle there. But you won't let me find that info in Wikipedia becase you think it is cruft.
--
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to find what their looking for.
The "Wikipedia isn't paper" argument is just the first item in a long list of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], and that is well worth reviewing. The guiding principle here is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Just because there is room for something in an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that it should be in the article. We are *editors*, and that implies discretion in what we do and do't include.
The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.
Facts and knowledge are not the same thing.
Jay.
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to find what their looking for.
The "Wikipedia isn't paper" argument is just the first item in a long list of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], and that is well worth reviewing. The guiding principle here is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Just because there is room for something in an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that it should be in the article. We are *editors*, and that implies discretion in what we do and do't include.
In the paper days, editors were filters, using their discretion to only let through what they thought was "important enough" because each additional page had a definite cost far in excess of zero. What they also did was use their discretion to sort the information into useful blocks, which became individual articles.
Now that we aren't restricted by the bounds of the printing press, book weight, and shelf storage space, the first half of the editors' jobs above are being deprecated in favor of the second. It still takes discretion and judgement to sort information into articles, so the skill of an editor is still important.
The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.
Facts and knowledge are not the same thing.
Of course they aren't but the "sum total" will always include an awful lot of what looks like trivia, because what is trivia is *always* a POV issue. For example, for some, the KPCOFGS classification of living beings is simply trivia, while for others, it's vital information. It depends on the POV of the reader.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/1/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
If we were making paper encyclopedias, this inclusionism deletionism thing would make sense. Both sides would have a case. But unless the information is false, unusable, or otherwise profoundly unencyclopedic, it should stay, we have enough "room". Possibly some articles will never be used, but thats better than people failing to find what their looking for.
Putting aside the philosophical issues here, wouldn't it be easier, just from a practical standpoint, to merge the information in these traffic circle articles into the articles on the towns that they are in? Info about traffic circles can go into [[traffic circle]], the logical place to put it.
I don't think the information has to go, I just think that in many cases it would be easier (for both editors and readers) to have more information on single pages, than on many smaller ones.
And now the philosophical rant:
The goal is for everyone to have access to the sum total of human knowlege.
Actually no, WP is an encyclopaedia, not a general knowledge base.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100 persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
I know I should be adding this to the articles (though it's somewhat unsourced and POV), but in general the traffic load got too high for the circles, and with the way New Jersey drivers drive a traffic light was safer. No land was saved because [[jughandle]]s were added.
SPUI wrote:
I know I should be adding this to the articles (though it's somewhat unsourced and POV), but in general the traffic load got too high for the circles, and with the way New Jersey drivers drive a traffic light was safer. No land was saved because [[jughandle]]s were added.
This is starting to make me fear that AFD is becoming a tyranny of the majority.
- Ryan
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This is starting to make me fear that AFD is becoming a tyranny of the majority.
- Ryan
Tyranny of the minority. Even if you have a striaght majority to delete that isn't enough.
-- geni
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Even if you have a striaght majority to delete that isn't enough.
Thank god for that.
- Ryan
If a majority would be enough to delete, common sense wouldn't prevail and block voting would be done on both sides of the argument just to get in the deciding vote. It's not merely about the vote. The reasoning someone has for their vote is much more important. Saying "non-notable roadcruft" only shows the nominator doesn't find roads worthy of an article but doesn't explain why *the nominated article* should go based on policy. Saying "this road is not important as it's not heavily travelled and doesn't contain any enyclopedic information." may still be controversial and spark loads of discussion, but at least it explains the nominator's reasoning in more detail.
Take for example whoever has been nominating webcomics the last few days. No doubt that's controversial to the authors and webcomic enthusiasts, but the nominator takes the time to track down Alexa and Google ratings and see how many users their forums have as well as their status within the webcomic community. It may take time, but I'm much easier swayed by well-researched nominations instead of endless debates where both sides scream the other side is pushing POV. --Mgm
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com
Saying "non-notable roadcruft" only shows the nominator doesn't find roads worthy of an article but doesn't explain why *the nominated article* should go based on policy.
Yes, but don't forget that "all roads are notable" or "Wikipedia consensus is that they be kept" or "Jimbo approved keeping all roads" Keep votes are equally useless.
Jay.
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com
Saying "non-notable roadcruft" only shows the nominator doesn't find roads worthy of an article but doesn't explain why *the nominated article* should go based on policy.
Yes, but don't forget that "all roads are notable" or "Wikipedia consensus is that they be kept" or "Jimbo approved keeping all roads" Keep votes are equally useless.
Jay.
I thought I mentioned something to that effect in that post. My apologies if I didn't. I totally agree with that point.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
(stuff)
The problem with saying that "the reasoning is what's important" is that it leaves in up to the discretion of the closing admin to say who had good reasoning and who didn't. That means the admin is basically deciding what the result will be, because anyone who disagrees with his or her reasoning will have "bad reasoning" and their vote discounted. You might as well close AFD and let admins speedy whatever articles they want.
Which is something I'm not entirely averse to, as a system. It might be better than this, where a few people who sit in AFD all day have power over what lives and dies, and their decisions are regarded as final. At least if an admin speedies an article, another admin can restore it. But here, if 20 people vote to delete because of "roadcruft", that decision is legitimated in the eyes of the community. This is why I'm in favor of something like pure wiki deletion, or admin-only pure wiki deletion. Deletion should never have this air of finality that AFD gives to it.
- Ryan
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Which is something I'm not entirely averse to, as a system. It might be better than this, where a few people who sit in AFD all day have power over what lives and dies, and their decisions are regarded as final. At least if an admin speedies an article, another admin can restore it. But here, if 20 people vote to delete because of "roadcruft", that decision is legitimated in the eyes of the community. This is why I'm in favor of something like pure wiki deletion, or admin-only pure wiki deletion. Deletion should never have this air of finality that AFD gives to it.
Admin-only unilateral deletion is something I am in favour of. All it needs is a time delay (say, twelve hours) where anyone can see the information. VFU needs to be about content, not just process. This removes AfD and removes the unfair amount of power AfD regulars have. I doubt it'll happen, because it would smell of cabalism. But that shouldn't be our main concern.
Sam
On 9/30/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Admin-only unilateral deletion is something I am in favour of. All it needs is a time delay (say, twelve hours) where anyone can see the information.
We already have enough problems with admin burnout. Handing more responcibilty to admins is not a good idea.
-- geni
geni wrote:
We already have enough problems with admin burnout. Handing more responcibilty to admins is not a good idea.
Uhh, as it stands, closing AFDs is an enormous headache for admins that can get them into controversies and RFCs for failing to close a 51% delete vote as delete. What you're not noticing here is that /you still need an admin to delete an article/. Pure-admin deletion would make /less/ hassle for admins, not more.
- Ryan
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
We already have enough problems with admin burnout. Handing more responcibilty to admins is not a good idea.
Uhh, as it stands, closing AFDs is an enormous headache for admins that can get them into controversies and RFCs for failing to close a 51% delete vote as delete. What you're not noticing here is that /you still need an admin to delete an article/. Pure-admin deletion would make /less/ hassle for admins, not more.
Pure admin deletion turns the admin group from a service organization to a cabal that you must belong to in order to perform certain actions. It also give people who are otherwise happy with simply editing a tainted motivation to stand for adminship.
Aristocracies are *always* easier for the aristocrats.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 9/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Pure admin deletion turns the admin group from a service organization to a cabal that you must belong to in order to perform certain actions. It also give people who are otherwise happy with simply editing a tainted motivation to stand for adminship.
Aristocracies are *always* easier for the aristocrats.
"Aristocrat" is not always pejorative.
Some things work best as an aristocracy. If it's not difficult to enter the aristocracy (did someone say, "no big deal"?) then it shouldn't be a real problem.
That's why I proposed the system above.
Remember this is discussion as to an alternative to AfD's poison.
Sam
Michael Turley wrote:
Pure admin deletion turns the admin group from a service organization to a cabal that you must belong to in order to perform certain actions.
You don't think that's the case now? You have to be an admin to delete articles, block people, or use rollback. Yet admins are not viewed as a "cabal" because of this.
- Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
Pure admin deletion turns the admin group from a service organization to a cabal that you must belong to in order to perform certain actions.
You don't think that's the case now? You have to be an admin to delete articles, block people, or use rollback. Yet admins are not viewed as a "cabal" because of this.
There is no cabal.
There are TWO cabals.
They are called:
The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
Anyone who claims to be a member (or routinely follows their policies) is subject to a User Conduct Request for Comment.
BRING IT ON, BIATCH.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/1/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
There is no cabal.
There are TWO cabals.
They are called:
The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
Anyone who claims to be a member (or routinely follows their policies) is subject to a User Conduct Request for Comment.
BRING IT ON, BIATCH.
You forgot about...
The Mediation Cabal The Arbitration Committee A few thousand minicabals
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
Pure admin deletion turns the admin group from a service organization to a cabal that you must belong to in order to perform certain actions.
You don't think that's the case now? You have to be an admin to delete articles, block people, or use rollback. Yet admins are not viewed as a "cabal" because of this.
The difference is that now, admins are supposed to serve the consensus of the editing public at large and not their own interest. Pure admin deletion changes them into a group of superusers at large. The only problem with the current adminship model is that some admins don't realize or accept that their responsibilities are a service responsibility and not a blind power grant. Pure admin deletion promotes this latter model of thought when in fact, it is the only real problem in the system.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 9/30/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Even if you have a striaght majority to delete that isn't enough.
Thank god for that.
- Ryan
If a majority would be enough to delete, common sense wouldn't prevail and block voting would be done on both sides of the argument just to get in the deciding vote.
Hence I started [[WP:RFC/AfD]], because I'm sick of the "block voting" where no sane or logical decisions are ever made, just people screaming "OMG school/road/Pokemon/cruft/whatever keep/delete".
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
"SPUI" drspui@gmail.com wrote in message news:433C9D3A.2030005@gmail.com...
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block:
[snip]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flemington_Circ... "This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
Not wanting to inflame the situation or anything, but of the four you listed, only the above-mentioned article looks anything like a keeper.
One article has already gone, having pretty much established consensus, and the others are approaching that: neither is actually a "traffic circle" any more.
What the fuck is with people?
One suspects they are at a loss as to why Wikipedia needs an article on a traffic circle which isn't even there any more, having been replaced by a set of traffic lights. Unfortunately none of the articles (except that for Flemington, which looks interestingly like "Hangar Lane" here in England) manages to establish just WTF is so interesting about these particular traffic circles.
I have to admit the term "roadcruft" is calculated to stimulate extreme rage in a targetted editor: it smacks entirely too much of "I never heard of it so dump it". It's a "lazy bastard" phrase and should be stricken from the record and replaced with something substantive.
To paraphrase something I read in a book somewhere (Miles Vorkosigan IIRC) you don't come to Wikipedia to learn about stuff you already know, you come to learn stuff you **don't** already know.
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
One suspects they are at a loss as to why Wikipedia needs an article on a traffic circle which isn't even there any more, having been replaced by a set of traffic lights. Unfortunately none of the articles (except that for Flemington, which looks interestingly like "Hangar Lane" here in England) manages to establish just WTF is so interesting about these particular traffic circles.
They are local landmarks. People call them by those names even when they no longer exist. Other things are named after them.
To paraphrase something I read in a book somewhere (Miles Vorkosigan IIRC) you don't come to Wikipedia to learn about stuff you already know, you come to learn stuff you **don't** already know.
So you live in Freehold and want to know why an intersection is called Freehold Circle. Too bad, the assholes deleted the article.
I'm not sure if WP:NPA applies to the mailing list, but calling people assholes is uncalled for anyway. If you want to discuss the deletion that's fine, but please don't resort to name calling.
--Mgm
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
One suspects they are at a loss as to why Wikipedia needs an article on a traffic circle which isn't even there any more, having been replaced by a set of traffic lights. Unfortunately none of the articles (except that for Flemington, which looks interestingly like "Hangar Lane" here in England) manages to establish just WTF is so interesting about these particular traffic circles.
They are local landmarks. People call them by those names even when they no longer exist. Other things are named after them.
To paraphrase something I read in a book somewhere (Miles Vorkosigan IIRC) you don't come to Wikipedia to learn about stuff you already know, you come to learn stuff you **don't** already know.
So you live in Freehold and want to know why an intersection is called Freehold Circle. Too bad, the assholes deleted the article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not sure if WP:NPA applies to the mailing list, but calling people assholes is uncalled for anyway. If you want to discuss the deletion that's fine, but please don't resort to name calling.
They are assholes. What should I call them, upstanding citizens?
No, just say nothing or critisize their actions rather than the people personally. Calling someone an asshole (regardless of whether it's true) is likely to cause anger and needless disputes.
--Mgm
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not sure if WP:NPA applies to the mailing list, but calling people assholes is uncalled for anyway. If you want to discuss the deletion that's fine, but please don't resort to name calling.
They are assholes. What should I call them, upstanding citizens? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
SPUI wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
No, just say nothing or critisize their actions rather than the people personally. Calling someone an asshole (regardless of whether it's true) is likely to cause anger and needless disputes.
So is this bullshit voting.
Yes.
Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AfD]].
Given support (and evidence), I will expand this RFC to include anyone who screams blue murder over AfD.