Hi all, I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed. If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be reverted. How does this sound?

James Hare wrote: then author that in PRODed. the There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal? Also, it doesn't *have* to go to AfD. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?

I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.

Jeff Raymond wrote: We do require a reason for prodding.

On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD. (Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to address the issue as best you can.) - d.

You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.

On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Okay, I kind of get the justification part. But I was under the assumption that one actually has to work on the page if they want to take the tag off. A tag says: otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. The former hadn't been done. --Ryan -- [[en:User:Merovingian]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Steve Block wrote: I'm currently seeing 8 on WP:PRODSUM with no reason given. This is admittedly lower than what I usually see during semi-daily patrols. Should I simply remove them?

On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-) - d.

On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p

On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the > > regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of > > silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.

> Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and > delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p

Kept the PROD, added the copyvio. I'm guessing it will just sit there.