Dear mailing list readers,
I don't know if this is the proper place to turn for help. If it isn't, then please tell me because the matter is urgent. Wikipedia is a fine resource and contains very much useful information. Reading Wikipedia is fun, and every day since I discovered it I've learnt a thing or two by reading it. But its coverage about programming and computer software is a little thin I think. Well, I'm quite knowledgeable when it comes to computer related topics and I love to write. So, therefore I took it upon me to fix this defiancy.
Big mistake it seems, some people didn't like that at all.
Especially not a user by the name RickK, who a few minutes after I had written an initial version of "XFree86 logfile" added it to a page "Votes for Deletion" on which he is currently holding a vote whether that page should be destroyed or not. Naturally, I protested strongly, because I couldn't and still cannot understand why he wants to delete that page. He didn't try to communicate with me and just wrote "Huh?" and then when I asked him why he thought that that page should be deleted he answered "It isn't discussing anything encyclopedic. I THINK it describes a file format, but I'm not really sure."
From that it became obvious to me that he hadn't even read
the article because it should be pretty damn obvious to anyone that an article titled "XFree86 logfile" is about the XFree86 logfile. And that I told him that, whereafter he listed all other six articles I had written:
glDrawElements, glVertexPointer, glDrawArrays, glEnable, GL_QUADS, fbdevhw
And wrote: "I'll ask again. Do we really want articles on subroutines?" Which is really funny since only the four first documents subroutines.
Then quite a few other users also said that they wanted those articles destroyed. No reasons where given except for pointless platitudes like "not encyclopedia material" and "Wikipedia is not (should not be) an API reference".
I tryid arguing and, no offense intened, but it was totally wasted time. Those functions are the essential cornerstones for modern 3d graphics.. Have to realize that some people just have a very different view of things than me. However, I refuse to accept that Wikipedia in general would have such a twisted view of things because then there wouldn't be 250,000+ articles here.
Then I wrote the beginning of an article named pcidata, which is a X module for displaying PCI information. Two minutes after it was submitted a user named Beelzebubs wrote "Speedy deletion" on it and a minute later it was destroyed by DavidWBrooks. It made me quite angry because I had no way whatsoever to even object. And from looking at their respective user pages I deducted that none of them is interested in Linux and therefore (probably) has no idea what pcidata is.
It seems like Wikipedia really isn't a very newbie friendly page. Well, I can't exclude UtherSRG's very friendly message on my talk page. Is this some kind of hazing or are regular users treated like this too? Seems like a calculated move - tease the new guy til they fight back and then accuse them. Especially this little gem by the same user that also accused me of being rude:
"But I'd recommend you leave listing them to users with good contribution records, and the same with discussing this one. AFAIK all the many articles you have written so far have been listed for deletion and will be deleted as unencyclopedic. IMO you aren't entitled to vote on VfD. Sorry." Andrewa....
I need help. Because I don't know what I should do. Either it is so that my work and expertise isn't appreciated or even accepted by Wikipedia. If so, I will leave peacefully and not return. If not so, I would expect an apology from the perpetrators and that my work is not destroyed.
//Björn (aka. Eric B. and Rakim)
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Eric B. Rakim wrote
I don't know if this is the proper place to turn for help. If it isn't, then please tell me because the matter is urgent. Wikipedia is a fine resource and contains very much useful information. Reading Wikipedia is fun, and every day since I discovered it I've learnt a thing or two by reading it. But its coverage about programming and computer software is a little thin I think.
It is not complete (and never will be). It could also do with better organisation.
However ...
Having found [[User:Eric B. and Rakim]], and read the way the VfD debate went, I have less sympathy than at first.
Well, I can't exclude UtherSRG's very friendly message on my talk page. Is this some kind of hazing or are regular users treated like this too? Seems like a calculated move - tease the new guy til they fight back and then accuse them.
No, this is normal; no special treatment.
I need help. Because I don't know what I should do. Either it is so that my work and expertise isn't appreciated or even accepted by Wikipedia. If so, I will leave peacefully and not return. If not so, I would expect an apology from the perpetrators and that my work is not destroyed.
If you are an expert, and can also work within the Wikipedia constraints, that's great.
Charles
It has been repeatedly suggested that this gentleman (these gentlemen?) might be more comfortable working at Wikibooks, but he took this suggestion with scorn and made personal attacks on those who suggested it. *I* am not holding a vote on the subjects, Wikipedia is holding a vote.
And yes, I know what subroutines are, I didn't feel the need to specifically indicate which of the items he had written were subroutines and which were not. They were clear from context.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
And yes, I know what subroutines are, I didn't feel the need to
specifically indicate which of the items he had written were subroutines and which were not. They were clear from context.
RickK
By the way, does this opprobrium also attach to Ed Poor posting articles about scraps of SQL?
Charles
Opprobium? Please quote any opprobrium I posted.
RickK
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
And yes, I know what subroutines are, I didn't feel the need to
specifically indicate which of the items he had written were subroutines and which were not. They were clear from context.
RickK
By the way, does this opprobrium also attach to Ed Poor posting articles about scraps of SQL?
Charles
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year
You are definitely in the right place, althought there are other right places such as the Villge Pump.
On the surface (I am no programmer, but many who read this list are) your arguement is persuasive, but so is the arguement of your opponents who take the position that the level of detail you are going into is inappropriate for an ecyclopedia.
However in many other areas, even more detailed expositions are present and planned for encyclopedia, generally, no town is so small, no King so obscure, and especially, no bird so extinct that it does not deserve an article.
We have a policy, "Don't bite the newbies", but, it is not necessarily followed in spirit. In fact, in your case, the excellence of your article and its very sophistication perhaps works against the policy, as the reaction is more to the imposition of that sophistication rather than to the cluelessness of a newbie.
The suggestion that the article, and others like it, ought to be moved to Wikibooks is one you might take seriously. I see the debate on VfD (Votes for Deletion) as pretty typical and at this point about evenly divided. Which means your article at worst might end up in Wikibooks. This is often the fate of howto material.
The piling on engaged in by Beelzebubs and DavidWBrooks is, of course, inexcusable. I have restored your stub (perhaps it was deleted more due to its stub nature than its content) and suggest you finish working on it, if you have any time and energy with all your other articles up for deletion.
This imperious comment:
"But I'd recommend you leave listing them to users with good contribution records, and the same with discussing this one. AFAIK all the many articles you have written so far have been listed for deletion and will be deleted as unencyclopedic. IMO you aren't entitled to vote on VfD. Sorry." Andrewa....
constitutes a serious and sustained newbie mauling. I suppose the idea is that you should edit a few hundred articles about small towns in America before you jump into the serious stuff.
I hope this helps. A few serious and valuable contributors have been put off, and, eventually driven away, (usually by butting heads with our amateurish qualities) but I hope you are not one of them and will continue to participate in our "Newbie training and socialization process". Made that quote up, but I hope you get the idea.
As far as getting any apologies, considering the damage you have done to the reputation of your tormentors, doubt you can expect any.
You might make your user page [[User:Eric B. and Rakim]] a bit more serious. Perhaps a slight part of your difficulty is due to your joking around there.
Fred
Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:43:44 +0000 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] help me
Dear mailing list readers,
I don't know if this is the proper place to turn for help. If it isn't, then please tell me because the matter is urgent. Wikipedia is a fine resource and contains very much useful information. Reading Wikipedia is fun, and every day since I discovered it I've learnt a thing or two by reading it. But its coverage about programming and computer software is a little thin I think. Well, I'm quite knowledgeable when it comes to computer related topics and I love to write. So, therefore I took it upon me to fix this defiancy.
Big mistake it seems, some people didn't like that at all.
Especially not a user by the name RickK, who a few minutes after I had written an initial version of "XFree86 logfile" added it to a page "Votes for Deletion" on which he is currently holding a vote whether that page should be destroyed or not. Naturally, I protested strongly, because I couldn't and still cannot understand why he wants to delete that page. He didn't try to communicate with me and just wrote "Huh?" and then when I asked him why he thought that that page should be deleted he answered "It isn't discussing anything encyclopedic. I THINK it describes a file format, but I'm not really sure."
From that it became obvious to me that he hadn't even read
the article because it should be pretty damn obvious to anyone that an article titled "XFree86 logfile" is about the XFree86 logfile. And that I told him that, whereafter he listed all other six articles I had written:
glDrawElements, glVertexPointer, glDrawArrays, glEnable, GL_QUADS, fbdevhw
And wrote: "I'll ask again. Do we really want articles on subroutines?" Which is really funny since only the four first documents subroutines.
Then quite a few other users also said that they wanted those articles destroyed. No reasons where given except for pointless platitudes like "not encyclopedia material" and "Wikipedia is not (should not be) an API reference".
I tryid arguing and, no offense intened, but it was totally wasted time. Those functions are the essential cornerstones for modern 3d graphics.. Have to realize that some people just have a very different view of things than me. However, I refuse to accept that Wikipedia in general would have such a twisted view of things because then there wouldn't be 250,000+ articles here.
Then I wrote the beginning of an article named pcidata, which is a X module for displaying PCI information. Two minutes after it was submitted a user named Beelzebubs wrote "Speedy deletion" on it and a minute later it was destroyed by DavidWBrooks. It made me quite angry because I had no way whatsoever to even object. And from looking at their respective user pages I deducted that none of them is interested in Linux and therefore (probably) has no idea what pcidata is.
It seems like Wikipedia really isn't a very newbie friendly page. Well, I can't exclude UtherSRG's very friendly message on my talk page. Is this some kind of hazing or are regular users treated like this too? Seems like a calculated move - tease the new guy til they fight back and then accuse them. Especially this little gem by the same user that also accused me of being rude:
"But I'd recommend you leave listing them to users with good contribution records, and the same with discussing this one. AFAIK all the many articles you have written so far have been listed for deletion and will be deleted as unencyclopedic. IMO you aren't entitled to vote on VfD. Sorry." Andrewa....
I need help. Because I don't know what I should do. Either it is so that my work and expertise isn't appreciated or even accepted by Wikipedia. If so, I will leave peacefully and not return. If not so, I would expect an apology from the perpetrators and that my work is not destroyed.
//Björn (aka. Eric B. and Rakim)
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:56:14 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
You are definitely in the right place, althought there are other right places such as the Villge Pump.
On the surface (I am no programmer, but many who read this list are) your arguement is persuasive, but so is the arguement of your opponents who take the position that the level of detail you are going into is inappropriate for an ecyclopedia.
How do we decide what is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Traditional encyclopedias, such as Britannica, were written on paper, and had intrinsic size constrains to what could be put in. They couldn't hope to cover anything but a small proportion of human knowledge, so they had to be very selective.
Wikipedia faces no such limitations. If we choose to do so, we can make an encyclopedia with a much larger scope than any other. Take, for example living things: science has named about 3 million unique species. Some of these are already in Wikipedia and it's possible that in years to come most of these will be in Wikipedia -- which IMO would be a good thing.
Recipes are another issue which involves the same considerations.
Back to this matter of software APIs, my gut feeling is that they don't really belong in Wikipedia, (but I can see the argument of those who would disagree). It may be that the OpenFacts wiki that I mentioned in another post is a better place for them.
However in many other areas, even more detailed expositions are present and planned for encyclopedia, generally, no town is so small, no King so obscure, and especially, no bird so extinct that it does not deserve an article.
Indeed.
One needs to bear in mind that tradional encyclopedias have tended to prefer academic knowledge to practical knowledge; therefore a long-dead monarch was deemed more important than how to build a brick wall or program a computer.
Fred Bauder wrote:
On the surface (I am no programmer, but many who read this list are) your arguement is persuasive, but so is the arguement of your opponents who take the position that the level of detail you are going into is inappropriate for an ecyclopedia.
I haven't read the articles in question (yet), but I can't believe the depth of an article is an argument for deleting it! Geez! Where are we going with that?! If someone thought there was too much in it, they could have trimmed it down, but even that I would condemn, as this would contradict our own [[Wikipedia:Replies]] where we are explicitly stating that we are not only trying to grow in breadth but also in depth. It even states that if at some point in the future we might have an article on all possible encyclopedic subjects, we won't even have anything else to improve on than the depth!
Additionally, I'm completely baffled by the apparent sentiment that programming-related topics are not encyclopedic?! Why should a well-known often-used subroutine that is essential to three-dimensional graphics -- one of many hot topics in modern technology! -- not have an article?!
Flabbergasted, Timwi
I don't think anybody's said that. However, details of how to write a program or debug one, or articles on individual subroutines and variables should probably be better at Wikibooks.
RickK
Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: Additionally, I'm completely baffled by the apparent sentiment that programming-related topics are not encyclopedic?! Why should a well-known often-used subroutine that is essential to three-dimensional graphics -- one of many hot topics in modern technology! -- not have an article?!
Flabbergasted, Timwi
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year
It can be a bit disconcerting no doubt to drop into the middle of Wikipedia and finding yourself in the crossfire of one of our perennial debates. As to the personal issues, I can only counsel that you stay friendly, forgive those who you fell have trespassed against you, and recognize that everyone is working for the same goal, but that some minor disagreements are inevitable.
As to the article itself, I think [[XFree86 logfile]] is very much a proper topic for an article in Wikipedia. It's a little clumsily written at the moment, but so are many articles on the first revision.
What I would recommend to you on these sorts of articles is to include a bit of preamble, setting the context for editors who may not get what it's all about or why it's important. A little motivational material can go a long way.
It took me 2 clicks from the Wikipedia homepage to find the article "P-adic number". I daresay not more than 1 in 10 of the people reading this list can say what those are, and not more than 1 in 10,000 in the general population.
I did a search for 'P-adic' at Britannica, and they don't even mention it (as far as I can see). So by traditional standards of what an encyclopedia should contain, "P-adic number" is too obscure to be a fit topic for an encyclopedia -- perhaps it's appropriate for a specialist textbook, but not an encyclopedia.
Except, we don't believe that. We think, rightly so, that our mathematical coverage is one of our finest achievements.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
As to the article itself, I think [[XFree86 logfile]] is very much a proper topic for an article in Wikipedia.
For me, one important question in deciding whether something belongs on Wikipedia is:
Does this article have the potential to ever become a featured article?
By that I don't mean that we shouldn't cover obscure subjects -- plenty of articles about obscure subjects have become featured articles. I mean that articles should have the potential to grow into a coherent, independent work that speaks for itself.
I am not very fond of articles that are destined to always remain stubs. I believe such articles would be more appropriately merged into larger pages (with redirects), or in some cases, deleted or moved to another Wikimedia project. I think doing so also helps our credibility when we boast about our article count.
Another test is whether an article is primarily *descriptive* or primarily *instructive*. If it is more of a how-to, it's probably best to put it on Wikibooks.
Applying these two tests to the articles in question I find: 1) The XFree86 logfile is a very complex subject that probably deserves its own article instead of being merged into [[XFree 86]]. 2) The OpenGL subroutine articles should probably be merged and redirected to [[OpenGL]]. 3) /var/log/wtmp should probably be merged and redirected to [[Filesystem Hierarchy Standard]] 4) Individual X modules should be described on [[XFree86]] at first, and only moved out if they get too long.
All articles are borderline in terms of the descriptive/instructive distinction. I think in such cases we can leave it to the original author to decide whether they work on a Wikibook or on the encyclopedia. By leaving this to the author, we also create an incentive for people who want it to be moved to Wikibooks to be nicer to the author. ;-)
Regards,
Erik
Timwi-
One article I wrote was rejected from being featured solely on the grounds of covering too obscure a topic.
That's because people have different ideas of what FA is supposed to be. While I see it as an early stage quality control mechanism (and wanted this to be reflected in the title when Brilliant Prose was renamed), others, at least for now, consider it as little more than the process we use to select articles to introduce readers to Wikipedia. Effectively it's a bit of both. I believe that moving toward a well-defined peer review process which can coexist with the FA selection will solve this problem. I've written a bit about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
All articles are borderline in terms of the descriptive/instructive distinction.
I do not believe a topic is in itself descriptive or instructive, unless it is explicitly a "how to" topic. None of the topics mentioned in the posting that started this thread are. Of course, articles on subroutines can be written in a "how to" (i.e. instructive) way, but they needn't necessarily be, and as such, they should be rewritten in preference to being deleted.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
All articles are borderline in terms of the descriptive/instructive distinction.
I do not believe a topic is in itself descriptive or instructive, unless it is explicitly a "how to" topic. None of the topics mentioned in the posting that started this thread are. Of course, articles on subroutines can be written in a "how to" (i.e. instructive) way, but they needn't necessarily be, and as such, they should be rewritten in preference to being deleted.
I don't even attach much validity to the descriptive/instructive distinction. A "how to" topic needs to be treated like any other. Chocolate cakes and subroutines should not be treated any differently. When the debate is put in terms of delete or include with no middle options improvement becomes impossible.
Ec
On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:43:44 +0000, Eric B. Rakim eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear mailing list readers,
I don't know if this is the proper place to turn for help. If it isn't, then please tell me because the matter is urgent. Wikipedia is a fine resource and contains very much useful information. Reading Wikipedia is fun, and every day since I discovered it I've learnt a thing or two by reading it. But its coverage about programming and computer software is a little thin I think. Well, I'm quite knowledgeable when it comes to computer related topics and I love to write. So, therefore I took it upon me to fix this defiancy.
Big mistake it seems, some people didn't like that at all.
Especially not a user by the name RickK, who a few minutes after I had written an initial version of "XFree86 logfile" added it to a page "Votes for Deletion" on which he is currently holding a vote whether that page should be destroyed or not. Naturally, I protested strongly, because I couldn't and still cannot understand why he wants to delete that page. He didn't try to communicate with me and just wrote "Huh?" and then when I asked him why he thought that that page should be deleted he answered "It isn't discussing anything encyclopedic. I THINK it describes a file format, but I'm not really sure."
From that it became obvious to me that he hadn't even read
the article because it should be pretty damn obvious to anyone that an article titled "XFree86 logfile" is about the XFree86 logfile. And that I told him that, whereafter he listed all other six articles I had written:
glDrawElements, glVertexPointer, glDrawArrays, glEnable, GL_QUADS, fbdevhw
And wrote: "I'll ask again. Do we really want articles on subroutines?" Which is really funny since only the four first documents subroutines.
May I suggest that some of this sort of information might be better located on the Belios OpenFacts Wiki, which is a "free knowledge database about open source software", to quote its front page. You can find it at:
http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Main_Page
Hello Comrade Rakim (and others), I do see a slight problem with this (but i'd have to see the article first), if your article was well-written, and Encyclopedic then it shouldn't be put on VFD. I've had some "problems" with Rick before, I want you to show me this article on and lay out your point of contention on my talk page. However if this articles wasn't encycolpedic as rick said than he was justified in putting it on VFD.
(Now here come part two: the VFD page is terrible, it is so long, a user can't vote on any of the articles they feel pertains to them. I am begging one of the syosps that is most likely reading this PLEASE fix it. Thank You)
User:plato
"Eric B. Rakim" eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com wrote: Dear mailing list readers,
I don't know if this is the proper place to turn for help. If it isn't, then please tell me because the matter is urgent. Wikipedia is a fine resource and contains very much useful information. Reading Wikipedia is fun, and every day since I discovered it I've learnt a thing or two by reading it. But its coverage about programming and computer software is a little thin I think. Well, I'm quite knowledgeable when it comes to computer related topics and I love to write. So, therefore I took it upon me to fix this defiancy.
Big mistake it seems, some people didn't like that at all.
Especially not a user by the name RickK, who a few minutes after I had written an initial version of "XFree86 logfile" added it to a page "Votes for Deletion" on which he is currently holding a vote whether that page should be destroyed or not. Naturally, I protested strongly, because I couldn't and still cannot understand why he wants to delete that page. He didn't try to communicate with me and just wrote "Huh?" and then when I asked him why he thought that that page should be deleted he answered "It isn't discussing anything encyclopedic. I THINK it describes a file format, but I'm not really sure."
From that it became obvious to me that he hadn't even read
the article because it should be pretty damn obvious to anyone that an article titled "XFree86 logfile" is about the XFree86 logfile. And that I told him that, whereafter he listed all other six articles I had written:
glDrawElements, glVertexPointer, glDrawArrays, glEnable, GL_QUADS, fbdevhw
And wrote: "I'll ask again. Do we really want articles on subroutines?" Which is really funny since only the four first documents subroutines.
Then quite a few other users also said that they wanted those articles destroyed. No reasons where given except for pointless platitudes like "not encyclopedia material" and "Wikipedia is not (should not be) an API reference".
I tryid arguing and, no offense intened, but it was totally wasted time. Those functions are the essential cornerstones for modern 3d graphics.. Have to realize that some people just have a very different view of things than me. However, I refuse to accept that Wikipedia in general would have such a twisted view of things because then there wouldn't be 250,000+ articles here.
Then I wrote the beginning of an article named pcidata, which is a X module for displaying PCI information. Two minutes after it was submitted a user named Beelzebubs wrote "Speedy deletion" on it and a minute later it was destroyed by DavidWBrooks. It made me quite angry because I had no way whatsoever to even object. And from looking at their respective user pages I deducted that none of them is interested in Linux and therefore (probably) has no idea what pcidata is.
It seems like Wikipedia really isn't a very newbie friendly page. Well, I can't exclude UtherSRG's very friendly message on my talk page. Is this some kind of hazing or are regular users treated like this too? Seems like a calculated move - tease the new guy til they fight back and then accuse them. Especially this little gem by the same user that also accused me of being rude:
"But I'd recommend you leave listing them to users with good contribution records, and the same with discussing this one. AFAIK all the many articles you have written so far have been listed for deletion and will be deleted as unencyclopedic. IMO you aren't entitled to vote on VfD. Sorry." Andrewa....
I need help. Because I don't know what I should do. Either it is so that my work and expertise isn't appreciated or even accepted by Wikipedia. If so, I will leave peacefully and not return. If not so, I would expect an apology from the perpetrators and that my work is not destroyed.
//Bj�rn (aka. Eric B. and Rakim)
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year
Hello Comrade Rakim (and others), I do see a slight problem with this (but i'd have to see the article first), if your article was well-written, and Encyclopedic then it shouldn't be put on VFD.
If the request was not frivolous but arose from genuine concern, it has every reason to be put on VFD. That's why it's VOTES for deletion, and discussion about whether it should be deleted. Many articles are listed which eventually end up improved because someone noticed them there, and many articles are not deleted.
I've had some "problems" with Rick before
Indeed, you have had problems with Rick- and while several users have had problems with Rick, I believe that you have also had problems with several users. (Part of this may be related to the views you express regarding certain users who have been censured and/or banned in the past).
I want you to show me this article on and lay out your point of contention on my talk page. However if this articles wasn't encycolpedic as rick said than he was justified in putting it on VFD.
I believe that VFD is probably a better place to make the points at this time, for visibility reasons.
(Now here come part two: the VFD page is terrible, it is so long, a user can't vote on any of the articles they feel pertains to them. I am begging one of the syosps that is most likely reading this PLEASE fix it. Thank You)
I believe there is a page about deletion management redesign. You may find it profitable to investigate it. I think User:Angela links to it somewhere. But many have complained about both the deletion management setups we have had; I personally view it as a slight "barrier to entry" to prevent frivolous deletion requests. What exactly do you have in mind for a "fix" and what is the problem?
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote: > >
I believe there is a page about deletion management redesign. You may find it profitable to investigate it. I think User:Angela links to it somewhere.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/deletion_management_redesign
See also: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_the_current_delet... and about 60,000 words in the talk archives of VfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion)
Angela.
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Fennec now i took a look at the article an frankly it is rather un-encyclopedic, it should be moved though rather than be placed on VFD. I don't know wiki books maybe that would qualify to have an article like this.
Now with Rick i was just saying to user that i have had problems with him before nothing else, now my views on certain users have changed yes (i think Michael deserved to be hard-banned), however with others no (In the case of bird i feel he was justified, but we could bring up that subject on the irc).
Now with the vfd page, maybe you sysops should organize it along the days it was put on vfd (I'll discuss this further on the irc also) thanks.
Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Comrade Rakim (and others), I do see a slight problem with this (but i'd have to see the article first), if your article was well-written, and Encyclopedic then it shouldn't be put on VFD.
If the request was not frivolous but arose from genuine concern, it has every reason to be put on VFD. That's why it's VOTES for deletion, and discussion about whether it should be deleted. Many articles are listed which eventually end up improved because someone noticed them there, and many articles are not deleted.
I've had some "problems" with Rick before
Indeed, you have had problems with Rick- and while several users have had problems with Rick, I believe that you have also had problems with several users. (Part of this may be related to the views you express regarding certain users who have been censured and/or banned in the past).
I want you to show me this article on and lay out your point of contention on my talk page. However if this articles wasn't encycolpedic as rick said than he was justified in putting it on VFD.
I believe that VFD is probably a better place to make the points at this time, for visibility reasons.
(Now here come part two: the VFD page is terrible, it is so long, a user can't vote on any of the articles they feel pertains to them. I am begging one of the syosps that is most likely reading this PLEASE fix it. Thank You)
I believe there is a page about deletion management redesign. You may find it profitable to investigate it. I think User:Angela links to it somewhere. But many have complained about both the deletion management setups we have had; I personally view it as a slight "barrier to entry" to prevent frivolous deletion requests. What exactly do you have in mind for a "fix" and what is the problem? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year
N.T. Riche wrote:
(Now here come part two: the VFD page is terrible, it is so long, a user can't vote on any of the articles they feel pertains to them. I am begging one of the syosps that is most likely reading this PLEASE fix it. Thank You)
I am actually pretty disappointed that the current design, which very quickly proved useless, has stayed for this long. It has certainly driven me away from Votes for deletion. I believe it should be changed quickly without much discussion; we can still discuss it to no end, but in the meantime, I would prefer to have something else, and it is really trivial to come up with something that is better than the current design.
Timwi