On 11/21/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Nov 20, 2005, at 10:27 PM, geni wrote: Indeed - I still strongly support doing copyvio in the first 48 hours. -Phil

On Nov 20, 2005, at 10:45 PM, geni wrote: 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

"geni" <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f80608430511201957t789f8ce7y9c255459d19565a4@mail.gmail.com... 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"? 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]]

On 11/21/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think that is a speedy criteria. 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 11/21/05, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 11/21/05, Brian Haws <brian(a)bhaws.com> wrote: The deletion log can be view by anyone. I'm not sure we have the rescources to do what you describe. -- geni

On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: with permission images orphan fair use. RC patrol when there is a lot of vandalism going on. -- geni

On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Not always correctly Can IFD cope with 5000 images? 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. Content of article: "PERSON X IS GAY" I think that took me 2 seconds to give due consideration to. -- geni

geni wrote: 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. 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.

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. 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 23 Nov 2005, at 02:51, geni 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. 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

geni wrote: 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? 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_. :) "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. 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 24/11/05, geni <geniice(a)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? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record: 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(a)epoptic.org | Do you know how much it is?