http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VFU#R.40ygold_etc. - these articles were speedy deleted with the reason "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". Thanks to VFU being intended as an appeals court, meant to deal with process, only a majority is needed to keep deleted. Goodbye.
On 1/25/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VFU#R.40ygold_etc. - these articles were speedy deleted with the reason "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". Thanks to VFU being intended as an appeals court, meant to deal with process, only a majority is needed to keep deleted. Goodbye.
I saw these on Deletion Review (or Votes for Undeletion as it used to be known). If you have citations to verify *any* of these terms (criminal case reports, court transcripts, newspaper or magazine articles, etc) I will happily undelete the relevant articles with a view to discussing possible keep or perhaps merging to other appropriate articles.
For now I see that ther terms were not verified in the text of the original articles (sample below) and so much for the same reason that I say "fuck process" whenever I see Deletion Review obstructing undeletion of a potentially good article, here I say "fuck process" because Wikipedia is better off without unverifiable articles. I can certainly verify that the keywords named in the articles show up a remarkable amount of "lolita" come-ons, but this isn't really enough for an article.
Sample of one of the deleted articles:
"Hussyfan" is a keyword commonly used to search for or identify child pornography on file sharing networks.
The keyword has become sufficiently well-known that it is rarely used to identify actual child porn; most files with the keyword show legal but young looking performers in an attempt to attract individuals looking for child porn.
The Kazaa file-sharing software does not allow searches for the keyword, but it is allowed by eDonkey/eMule, Shareaza, Limewire, Bearshare, and WinMX.
On 1/25/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VFU#R.40ygold_etc. - these articles were speedy deleted with the reason "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". Thanks to VFU being intended as an appeals court, meant to deal with process, only a majority is needed to keep deleted.
Goodbye.
I saw these on Deletion Review (or Votes for Undeletion as it used to be known). If you have citations to verify *any* of these terms (criminal case reports, court transcripts, newspaper or magazine articles, etc) I will happily undelete the relevant articles with a view to discussing possible keep or perhaps merging to other appropriate articles.
For now I see that ther terms were not verified in the text of the original articles (sample below) and so much for the same reason that I say "fuck process" whenever I see Deletion Review obstructing undeletion of a potentially good article, here I say "fuck process" because Wikipedia is better off without unverifiable articles. I can certainly verify that the keywords named in the articles show up a remarkable amount of "lolita" come-ons, but this isn't really enough for an article.
Sample of one of the deleted articles:
"Hussyfan" is a keyword commonly used to search for or identify child pornography on file sharing networks.
The keyword has become sufficiently well-known that it is rarely used to identify actual child porn; most files with the keyword show legal but young looking performers in an attempt to attract individuals looking for child porn.
The Kazaa file-sharing software does not allow searches for the keyword, but it is allowed by eDonkey/eMule, Shareaza, Limewire, Bearshare, and WinMX. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Try reading the discussion at WP:DRV. I think there's some very good reasons to keep them deleted. Basically those words are just search terms.
Mgm
Search terms for these kinds of things come and go and are only of ephemeral interest. Thus, they should not be in Wikipedia; by the time they get here, they are no longer in use and of interest to nobody. Quite seperately from whether we WANT to be useful for that purpose, of course!
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
Search terms for these kinds of things come and go and are only of ephemeral interest. Thus, they should not be in Wikipedia; by the time they get here, they are no longer in use and of interest to nobody. Quite seperately from whether we WANT to be useful for that purpose, of course!
I see. We now have a cabal that can decide what stays and what goes.
On 1/25/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I see. We now have a cabal that can decide what stays and what goes.
Might be nice if we did, but we don't. That was my expressing an argument for the articles' deletion through process.
-Matt
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Try reading the discussion at WP:DRV. I think there's some very good reasons to keep them deleted. Basically those words are just search terms.
And I think the cabal is real. Want something deleted? Delete it. Only non-admins complain? WHo cares - they don't have the power to undelete!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SPUI stated for the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VFU#R.40ygold_etc. - these articles were speedy deleted with the reason "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". Thanks to VFU being intended as an appeals court, meant to deal with process, only a majority is needed to keep deleted. Goodbye.
I've examined the articles. They should have been speedy-kept because "gives info useful to child pornographers" is an invalid and utterly absurd reason for deletion -- we have articles on an enormous variety of weapons that give info useful to terrorists, but we don't delete them in spasms of self-loathing.
Then the articles should have been deleted because they are unsourced, unverifiable, and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a random collection of code words.
- -- Sean Barrett | A mouse trap placed on top of your alarm clock sean@epoptic.org | will prevent you from rolling over and going | back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.