Creidieki wrote:
[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show??
I assume you're making an argument against the "no claim of notability" speedy criterion? The current article doesn't state notability; it mentions only profession. Being an activist or journalist aren't notable enough to merit automatic inclusion. So [[John Lauritsen]] seems to qualify.
You miss my point. Anyone *remotely* familiar with the topic or the subject of the article (regardless of their opinions or which side of the debate they fall on) knows that notability in this instance is trivial. Only people completely ignorant of the subject would nominate it for speedy delete. Why is "no claim of notability" a crietrion for speedy delete? Why should it even be a criteron for deletion? There is difference between CLAIM OF NOTABILITY in the article and ACTUAL NOTABILITY. In this case, anyone familiar KNOWS the subject is notable, but just because the STUB fails to provide evidence, this is considered enough for speedy delete or delete? What about leaving a message on the original editor's talk page? What about contacting people who know more and allowing a few days to get a response? As it is now, such articles can be started by inexperienced users who aren't aware of the esoteric lawyeristic discussions about AfD, and then the articles deleted simply because they were unaware of those very esoteric lawyeristic discussions. Then, when someone comes around to writing it again, they'll probably say, "well, it was already speedy deleted earlier". Well, no shit, you never bothered to look into it in the first place.
darin
Actually, in this case the speedy claim was "person never existed."
Which is a terrible deletion reason, especially considering that the person did exist. Furthermore, the article was tagged within fifteen minutes of its creation.
We really, really need to put a "And the article is more than 24 hours old" rule for several of the CSD criteria - everything but copyvio and patent nonsense, basically. This would both prevent the atrocity of people who delete without checking the history to see if it's just the current version that's busted, and it would give people who make their articles in a series of smaller edits (Something many people do) a chance to actually write the article before the deleting angels swoop in.
-Phil
On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Brown, Darin wrote:
Creidieki wrote:
[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show??
I assume you're making an argument against the "no claim of notability" speedy criterion? The current article doesn't state notability; it mentions only profession. Being an activist or journalist aren't notable enough to merit automatic inclusion. So [[John Lauritsen]] seems to qualify.
You miss my point. Anyone *remotely* familiar with the topic or the subject of the article (regardless of their opinions or which side of the debate they fall on) knows that notability in this instance is trivial. Only people completely ignorant of the subject would nominate it for speedy delete. Why is "no claim of notability" a crietrion for speedy delete? Why should it even be a criteron for deletion? There is difference between CLAIM OF NOTABILITY in the article and ACTUAL NOTABILITY. In this case, anyone familiar KNOWS the subject is notable, but just because the STUB fails to provide evidence, this is considered enough for speedy delete or delete? What about leaving a message on the original editor's talk page? What about contacting people who know more and allowing a few days to get a response? As it is now, such articles can be started by inexperienced users who aren't aware of the esoteric lawyeristic discussions about AfD, and then the articles deleted simply because they were unaware of those very esoteric lawyeristic discussions. Then, when someone comes around to writing it again, they'll probably say, "well, it was already speedy deleted earlier". Well, no shit, you never bothered to look into it in the first place.
darin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, in this case the speedy claim was "person never existed."
Considering the number of articles that link I feel that claim lacks credibility. Is there a way to add something along the the lines of "Warning: The page you are about to delete is not an orphan:[[What links here]]" to the confirm deletion page? -- geni
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We really, really need to put a "And the article is more than 24 hours old" rule for several of the CSD criteria - everything but copyvio and patent nonsense, basically. -Phil
Issues with mirrors mean that copyvio speedies can only really be done in the first couple of days. Of course I tend to feels the CSD is being streached to far full stop.
-- geni
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:27 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We really, really need to put a "And the article is more than 24 hours old" rule for several of the CSD criteria - everything but copyvio and patent nonsense, basically. -Phil
Issues with mirrors mean that copyvio speedies can only really be done in the first couple of days. Of course I tend to feels the CSD is being streached to far full stop.
--
Indeed - I still strongly support doing copyvio in the first 48 hours.
-Phil
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed - I still strongly support doing copyvio in the first 48 hours.
-Phil
Well going through the critiria for articles:
1.I've never really understood that one. Defintly needs a 24 hour limit though 2.no reason to have a limit on that one 3.no reason to have a limit on that one(a link is a link) 4.not sure 5.Can't be done within 24 hours 6.if this type get missed by RC patrol (shouldn't happen) I don't want to have to waste time taking them through a full AFD 7.Definet 24 clause. 8.already has a 48 hour clause.
Comments? -- geni
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, geni wrote:
Well going through the critiria for articles:
1.I've never really understood that one. Defintly needs a 24 hour limit though 2.no reason to have a limit on that one 3.no reason to have a limit on that one(a link is a link) 4.not sure 5.Can't be done within 24 hours 6.if this type get missed by RC patrol (shouldn't happen) I don't want to have to waste time taking them through a full AFD 7.Definet 24 clause. 8.already has a 48 hour clause.
I would say that 3 should have, if not 24 hours, at least some lag, if only because people start articles in different ways.
-Phil
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, geni wrote:
Well going through the critiria for articles:
1.I've never really understood that one. Defintly needs a 24 hour limit though 2.no reason to have a limit on that one 3.no reason to have a limit on that one(a link is a link) 4.not sure 5.Can't be done within 24 hours 6.if this type get missed by RC patrol (shouldn't happen) I don't want to have to waste time taking them through a full AFD 7.Definet 24 clause. 8.already has a 48 hour clause.
I would say that 3 should have, if not 24 hours, at least some lag, if only because people start articles in different ways.
-Phil
They can recreate it. I can't think of any reason to start an article by just putting up a link and if they do it's hardly a hudge amount of work that has been lost. If people want to create articles in a way that involves them beeing a speedy candidate as some point could they not do it in their user space?
-- geni
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430511201957t789f8ce7y9c255459d19565a4@mail.gmail.com...
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, geni wrote:
Well going through the critiria for articles: 3.no reason to have a limit on that one(a link is a link)
I would say that 3 should have, if not 24 hours, at least some lag, if only because people start articles in different ways.
They can recreate it. I can't think of any reason to start an article by just putting up a link and if they do it's hardly a hudge amount of work that has been lost.
Would they then not run the risk of having their article tagged for Speedy Deletion on the grounds of "recreating an article which was already deleted"?
If people want to create articles in a way that involves them beeing a speedy candidate as some point could they not do it in their user space?
Why should people have to jump through hoops simply to avoid impolite people tromping all over perfectly good articles-in-progress?
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message
news:f80608430511201957t789f8ce7y9c255459d19565a4@mail.gmail.com... If people want to create articles in a way that involves them beeing a speedy candidate as some point could they not do it in their user space?
That is not an acceptable requirement. Wikipedia is a wiki and is specifically intended for creation of works-in-progress. If these works are being deleted by overzealous administrators, then those administrators really should be considering whether they're still interested in the project to create an encyclopedia. If not, they're not welcome here and should find another place to play.
On 11/21/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430511201957t789f8ce7y9c255459d19565a4@mail.gmail.com...
On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, geni wrote:
Well going through the critiria for articles: 3.no reason to have a limit on that one(a link is a link)
I would say that 3 should have, if not 24 hours, at least some lag, if only because people start articles in different ways.
They can recreate it. I can't think of any reason to start an article by just putting up a link and if they do it's hardly a hudge amount of work that has been lost.
Would they then not run the risk of having their article tagged for Speedy Deletion on the grounds of "recreating an article which was already deleted"?
I don't think that is a speedy criteria.
Why should people have to jump through hoops simply to avoid impolite people tromping all over perfectly good articles-in-progress? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
It is harldy jumping though a hoop to ask a person to at least create a substub. If I can't tell something from spam I suggest we have a problem.
-- geni
On 11/20/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Issues with mirrors mean that copyvio speedies can only really be done in the first couple of days.
Surely the broken practices of mirrors are Not Our Problem?
-Matt
On 11/21/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the broken practices of mirrors are Not Our Problem?
-Matt
The problem is that the sandard test for a copyvio is to google it. After a couple of days you start getting results from mirrors which makes things more difficult.
-- geni
--- Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, in this case the speedy claim was "person never existed."
Which is a terrible deletion reason, especially considering that the person did exist. Furthermore, the article was tagged within fifteen minutes of its creation.
We really, really need to put a "And the article is more than 24 hours old" rule for several of the CSD criteria - everything but copyvio and patent nonsense, basically. This would both prevent the atrocity of people who delete without checking the history to see if it's just the current version that's busted, and it would give people who make their articles in a series of smaller edits (Something many people do) a chance to actually write the article before the deleting angels swoop in.
-Phil
I think at least we should be using the "tag and bag" system for speedies. At least there would be two sets of eyes on them. They come and go so fast that they really get no review or accountability....
On 11/21/05, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
I think at least we should be using the "tag and bag" system for speedies. At least there would be two sets of eyes on them. They come and go so fast that they really get no review or accountability....
The deletion log can be view by anyone. I'm not sure we have the rescources to do what you describe.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
I think at least we should be using the "tag and bag" system for speedies. At least there would be two sets of eyes on them. They come and go so fast that they really get no review or accountability....
The deletion log can be view by anyone. I'm not sure we have the rescources to do what you describe.
I'm assuming "tag and bag" means requiring that one person put a speedy-delete tag on an article and wait for someone else to come along and delete it, therefore requiring at least two people to agree that it's speediable rather than letting just one admin decide on his own up front. If so, I don't see how that would take all that much in the way of resources. It's not like having an article tagged for speedy deletion stick around for a few days or weeks or whatever waiting to be stumbled across a second time is going to harm Wikipedia significantly, and if someone wanted to they could do a quick "speedy patrol" going through the category checking out currently tagged articles.
I've speedied articles occasionally myself, and the only situation I can think of where it would have been an actual problem not being able to just click "delete" and be done with it would be when I'm trying to move an article to a location where there's already another article or redirect. This situation could be given an expemption to the "tag and bag" requirement easily. Any other situations come to mind?
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I've speedied articles occasionally myself, and the only situation I can think of where it would have been an actual problem not being able to just click "delete" and be done with it would be when I'm trying to move an article to a location where there's already another article or redirect. This situation could be given an expemption to the "tag and bag" requirement easily. Any other situations come to mind?
with permission images orphan fair use. RC patrol when there is a lot of vandalism going on.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I've speedied articles occasionally myself, and the only situation I can think of where it would have been an actual problem not being able to just click "delete" and be done with it would be when I'm trying to move an article to a location where there's already another article or redirect. This situation could be given an expemption to the "tag and bag" requirement easily. Any other situations come to mind?
with permission images
These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already ("tagged") by the with-permission template.
orphan fair use.
One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again? Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time comes to wipe it.
RC patrol when there is a lot of vandalism going on.
I don't see how this is different from tagging vandalism for speedying when there _isn't_ a lot of vandalism going on. The RC patroller would spot the vandalism, slap a tag on it, and then eventually the article in question would be deleted. Why should there be an exemption to a rule meant to ensure that speedy deletions are given due consideration specifically during a situation where speedy deletions would probably be given less consideration than usual? That would seem to me to be the most important sort of situation to have it in.
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already ("tagged") by the with-permission template.
Not always correctly
One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again? Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time comes to wipe it.
Can IFD cope with 5000 images?
I don't see how this is different from tagging vandalism for speedying when there _isn't_ a lot of vandalism going on. The RC patroller would spot the vandalism, slap a tag on it, and then eventually the article in question would be deleted.
Eventualy? Most people accept rollback of vandalism should be as fast as posible. I see no reason for article creation vandalism to be any different. It is always posible to undelete.
Why should there be an exemption to a rule meant to ensure that speedy deletions are given due consideration specifically during a situation where speedy deletions would probably be given less consideration than usual? That would seem to me to be the most important sort of situation to have it in.
Content of article:
"PERSON X IS GAY"
I think that took me 2 seconds to give due consideration to.
-- geni
On 21 Nov 2005, at 18:31, geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already ("tagged") by the with-permission template.
Not always correctly
One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again? Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time comes to wipe it.
Can IFD cope with 5000 images?
It coped with over 500 the other week.
There is a bot to help with orphaned fair use images which tags them, notifies, waits a week and adds them to a list for deletion. I havent had any complaints from anything I have deleted under this process. They go away if they become used within the week.
Justinc
geni wrote:
On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already ("tagged") by the with-permission template.
Not always correctly
And things that are tagged as candidates for speedy deletion aren't always correctly tagged, either. The whole point of "tag and bag" is to get a second person to take a second look at these things to _find out_ if they're incorrectly tagged. If you run across an article tagged for speedy deletion that you think shouldn't have been, remove the tag rather than just deleting it anyway. We're editors, not bots.
One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again? Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time comes to wipe it.
Can IFD cope with 5000 images?
Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more slowly in the first place or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without overwhelming processing.
If we're having to delete articles without taking adequate care because our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.
On 11/22/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more slowly in the first place or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without overwhelming processing.
5000 links causes issues with page load time. The page would probably be inacesserble on dialup and frankly and meaningful review of that number of images would be imposible.
If we're having to delete articles without taking adequate care because our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.
We did change stuff after that. We redid all our fair use templates. Now we just need to get people to read them.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/22/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more slowly in the first place or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without overwhelming processing.
5000 links causes issues with page load time. The page would probably be inacesserble on dialup and frankly and meaningful review of that number of images would be imposible.
Oh, come on. If you go with my "feed them in slowly" suggestion, then you never get 5000 links in the queue to begin with. If you go with my "put big surges in a backlog so there's time to process them at liesure" suggestion, you can just use the same tried and true approaches that are used in the high-volume AfD process to manage them (eg., split them up over multiple pages). These are perfectly simple answers that you should have thought of considering how long you've been involved in deletion-related discussions here.
If we're having to delete articles without taking adequate care because our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.
We did change stuff after that. We redid all our fair use templates. Now we just need to get people to read them.
As far as I can tell this is a non sequitur. My text above was in response to speedy-deleting orphaned fair-use articles on the basis that they're _orphaned_, after I pointed out that orphanhood can be a result of vandalism on other articles that you can't detect at a glance when you're only examining the image information page. Are you suggesting that changing the fair use notice templates would somehow prevent vandals from deleting the images from articles that use them in valid ways? Vandals, by their very nature, don't pay attention to such things.
My basic point remains. An image should never be speedy-deleted soley because it's an orphan, because with the current software there's no way to tell whether its orphanhood is a temporary state. Such images should be given more careful consideration, at the very least a time delay to allow for the possibility that its orphan status will change in the near future.
On 11/23/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: Oh, come on. If you go with my "feed them in slowly" suggestion, then you never get 5000 links in the queue to begin with. If you go with my "put big surges in a backlog so there's time to process them at liesure" suggestion, you can just use the same tried and true approaches that are used in the high-volume AfD process to manage them (eg., split them up over multiple pages). These are perfectly simple answers that you should have thought of considering how long you've been involved in deletion-related discussions here.
The lists are bot generated. No system we normaly use has shown the ability to kill 1000s of items fast. It was a one off event. No point in trying to fit it into normal processes when we don't have to. All in all we got the job done and very few people complained.
On nov 18 IFD had 14 images added. Now lets assume we decide to delete those 5000 images (the true number is greater) over 50 days. That is stupidly slow but even then we increase the load on IFD by an order of manitude.
As far as I can tell this is a non sequitur. My text above was in response to speedy-deleting orphaned fair-use articles on the basis that they're _orphaned_, after I pointed out that orphanhood can be a result of vandalism on other articles that you can't detect at a glance when you're only examining the image information page. Are you suggesting that changing the fair use notice templates would somehow prevent vandals from deleting the images from articles that use them in valid ways? Vandals, by their very nature, don't pay attention to such things.
Vandals don't seem to have much effect on this area. Most vandalism I see does not ivolve fair use images.
My basic point remains. An image should never be speedy-deleted soley because it's an orphan, because with the current software there's no way to tell whether its orphanhood is a temporary state. Such images should be given more careful consideration, at the very least a time delay to allow for the possibility that its orphan status will change in the near future.
As and when you find us enough admins to do the above we will. Untill then mass deletion is the only tool in the box.
-- geni
On 23 Nov 2005, at 02:51, geni wrote:
Vandals don't seem to have much effect on this area. Most vandalism I see does not ivolve fair use images.
My basic point remains. An image should never be speedy-deleted soley because it's an orphan, because with the current software there's no way to tell whether its orphanhood is a temporary state. Such images should be given more careful consideration, at the very least a time delay to allow for the possibility that its orphan status will change in the near future.
As and when you find us enough admins to do the above we will. Untill then mass deletion is the only tool in the box.
And you (not geni, bryan) didnt bother to read my email that pointed out that the current process notifies the uploader and waits a week after tagging the image is orphaned fair use and then checks it is still orphaned.
This isnt written in the policy but its the current process, because it is easier to operate in fact.
See http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/cgi-bin/ report_orphan_fair_use.py and discussion on WP:FU
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
And you (not geni, bryan) didnt bother to read my email that pointed out that the current process notifies the uploader and waits a week after tagging the image is orphaned fair use and then checks it is still orphaned.
I did read it, but that's exactly the sort of "tag and bag" system Geni was claiming was too slow or unweildy to use. He was arguing that in this case the process should just delete those orphaned images the moment it notices them, and I was telling him why that's a bad idea. I didn't respond to your email because doing it that way is a _good_ idea.
As happens from time to time in these Internet discussions, we're in argumentative agreement with each other. :)
geni wrote:
The lists are bot generated. No system we normaly use has shown the ability to kill 1000s of items fast. It was a one off event. No point in trying to fit it into normal processes when we don't have to. All in all we got the job done and very few people complained.
But those who _did_ complain that images were incorrectly deleted were out of luck, I take it, since image deletion is unrevertable.
We're just going around and around in circles, here. I've explained why I think it's a good idea to take things slow, and also pointed to examples of how we could configure the system so that taking things slow would work, but I don't recall reading an explanation of why it's a good idea to take these things _fast_. What harm is done by having junk stick around for a week or two longer?
On nov 18 IFD had 14 images added. Now lets assume we decide to delete those 5000 images (the true number is greater) over 50 days. That is stupidly slow but even then we increase the load on IFD by an order of manitude.
Why is 50 days "stupidly slow?" What's happening 50 days from now that we have to get this done by?
On November 18 AfD had 151 articles added, so these systems can clearly scale up to handle that amount (discounting of course the fact that many people are arguing that AfD isn't handling that amount _well_. :)
Vandals don't seem to have much effect on this area. Most vandalism I see does not ivolve fair use images.
"Most" implies that some of it _does_. I've seen plenty of page-blankings, it's not like the vandals that do that are going to first check to see if the images on that page are fair use.
As and when you find us enough admins to do the above we will. Untill then mass deletion is the only tool in the box.
I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete them directly myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move operation.
On 11/23/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But those who _did_ complain that images were incorrectly deleted were out of luck, I take it, since image deletion is unrevertable.
No true. It is correct to say it is not easy to revert.
We're just going around and around in circles, here. I've explained why I think it's a good idea to take things slow, and also pointed to examples of how we could configure the system so that taking things slow would work, but I don't recall reading an explanation of why it's a good idea to take these things _fast_. What harm is done by having junk stick around for a week or two longer?
laqwsuits for copyright infindgement loses of focus on the task that kind of thing
Why is 50 days "stupidly slow?" What's happening 50 days from now that we have to get this done by?
Clear failer to remove material that we knew infrindged someone else's copyright.
On November 18 AfD had 151 articles added, so these systems can clearly scale up to handle that amount (discounting of course the fact that many people are arguing that AfD isn't handling that amount _well_. :)
IFD uses a different system to Afd. Notive how WP:CP strugges to cope.
"Most" implies that some of it _does_. I've seen plenty of page-blankings, it's not like the vandals that do that are going to first check to see if the images on that page are fair use.
well eventualism gets you out of that one. The vast majority of "fair use" images on wikipedia can be found on other sources within seconds.
I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete them directly myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move operation.
uh hu and when did you last clear out catigory candidates for speedy deletion? you've just doubled the number of admin hours needed to get things done. -- geni
On 24/11/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete them directly myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move operation.
uh hu and when did you last clear out catigory candidates for speedy deletion? you've just doubled the number of admin hours needed to get things done.
Cat:CSD isn't bad at all. I do it regularly, at random times; I've never seen more than a screenful of stuff there. Pick a swathe, delete about half, leave a quarter tagged but undeleted where I'm unsure, and the rest either untag as not a CSD, resend to AfD or make a rediurect. Quick and simple, and I've never seen much of a backlog - if you're an admin, it's about the simplest maintenance task going.
I delete a small number of articles on sight - ones where the total content is "asdf" or "jimmy sux cok heh heh" but otherwise tag for speedy deletion - it's good practice, it takes a trivial amount of time, and what do we lose by it?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 11/24/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Cat:CSD isn't bad at all. I do it regularly, at random times; I've never seen more than a screenful of stuff there. Pick a swathe, delete about half, leave a quarter tagged but undeleted where I'm unsure, and the rest either untag as not a CSD, resend to AfD or make a rediurect. Quick and simple, and I've never seen much of a backlog - if you're an admin, it's about the simplest maintenance task going.
I delete a small number of articles on sight - ones where the total content is "asdf" or "jimmy sux cok heh heh" but otherwise tag for speedy deletion - it's good practice, it takes a trivial amount of time, and what do we lose by it?
Imagain the catigory getting burried as everyone on RC patrol stops speeding. Add in a few more people like [[User:Zunaid]] and you have a problem. The speedy system works for the most part (it would work better if people stoped trying to apply IAR to it). It is one of the few bits of janitorial work on wikipedia that isn't weighed down by bureaucracy. If you want a second pair of eyes on deletion you are free to add them at [[Special:Log]]. Otherwise ponder the wisdom of meta:instruction creep.
The whole point of speedy deletion is that the cases are striaghtforward enough that they don't require any real judment.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
The whole point of speedy deletion is that the cases are striaghtforward enough that they don't require any real judment.
-- geni
I don't know what kind of judgement they require, but it's pretty clear what kind they get. --Or lack thereof.
- -- Sean Barrett | I'd like to buy the Internet. sean@epoptic.org | Do you know how much it is?
lawyeristic discussions. Then, when someone comes around to writing it again, they'll probably say, "well, it was already speedy deleted earlier". Well, no shit, you never bothered to look into it in the first place.
darin
If something was speedied as no asserting notability it cannot be deleted for being a recreation. It needs to be sufficiently similar or there must have been a discussion on AFD which established it shouldn't have an article at all.
Mgm
On 11/20/05, Brown, Darin Darin.Brown@enmu.edu wrote:
Why is "no claim of notability" a crietrion for speedy delete? Why should it even be a criteron for deletion? There is difference between CLAIM OF NOTABILITY in the article and ACTUAL NOTABILITY. In this case, anyone familiar KNOWS the subject is notable, but just because the STUB fails to provide evidence, this is considered enough for speedy delete or delete?
Because new articles on completely questionable and unknown and usually dubious things are created at the rate of around a hundred a day. The vast majority of articles speedied in this fashion are created by anonymous IPs. High school kids seem to spend all day long creating articles about people in their class that they don't or do like. Sometimes it is pretty hard to tell some articles which later turn out to be "legitimate" topics from the mountain of crap. I usually try Googling but that doesn't always help, especially when the name is fairly common.
What's the worst-case scenario here? If the fellow is really so notable, it is likely someone else will come along and write an article about him in the future with enough information in it to keep it from getting speedied. Just because something gets speedied as not containing enough information to meet the basic standards of stub creation does not mean it is a permanent decision. It is really not that big a deal.
Why don't admins want to "wait a few days" in most instances? Because by that point they've probably forgotten the article ever existed, and it becomes part of the mountain of crap that people delight in pointing out Wikipedia is full of.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Why don't admins want to "wait a few days" in most instances? Because by that point they've probably forgotten the article ever existed, and it becomes part of the mountain of crap that people delight in pointing out Wikipedia is full of.
Templates and categories take care of this quite handily, though. Slap a "notability not established" tag on the article, or whatever, and then eventually someone else can come along doing "notability patrol" to give the article its second look. It won't be lost track of in the interim, and it might even prompt the guy who put it there to fix his own oversight.