RickK wrote:
Wow. When Maveric first "mandated" that the VfD header be included on every article on the VfD page, I objected, claiming that such action was unnecessary. Not one person came to my defense, and I was attacked and excoriated for my lack of support for Wikipedia. Now here I am, having bent my neck and acceded to the will of the Wikipedia, and now I'm attacked for putting the headers ON the articles?
Don't confuse disagreement with attack. I saw no attack. However, I'll add my support: The headers are needed to inform editors and readers of the article that it may be deleted soon. Not having such a header and just deleting the article is a denial of due process to the editors and readers of the article. Please continue to add this header as you see fit.
Will someone please fill me on the rules and when they change? It seems that no matter what I do, it's wrong. Every single time I add something to the Main Page article, Maveric deletes it.
Stubs listed in the Selected Articles section on the Main Page are often replaced by better examples of our content. That is the whole point of the Selected Articles section! There also has to be some criteria to base listing on. For the Anniversaries section much of that is dictated on the relative completeness of the article. Other things to consider are the relative importance of the event. More on Talk:Main Page, Talk:Selected Articles on the Main Page and my user talk page. Once again you are spamming your complaints in multiple places which requires multiple replys.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
From: Daniel Mayer
RickK wrote:
Wow. When Maveric first "mandated" that the VfD header be included on every article on the VfD page, I objected, claiming that such
action
was unnecessary. Not one person came to my defense, and I was attacked and excoriated for my lack of support for Wikipedia. Now
here
I am, having bent my neck and acceded to the will of the Wikipedia,
and
now I'm attacked for putting the headers ON the articles?
Don't confuse disagreement with attack. I saw no attack. However, I'll
add
my support: The headers are needed to inform editors and readers of
the
article that it may be deleted soon. Not having such a header and just
deleting
the article is a denial of due process to the editors and readers of
the
article. Please continue to add this header as you see fit.
All right, I cop to originally taking the VfD header off of a page that (I believe) obviously should not be deleted. When RickK put it back, I moved it to the bottom of the page--since it's a short entry, I wasn't try to hide it, I was just trying to have it not be the first thing someone would read when going to the entry.
RickK continued to say that I was deleting the header and moved it back up to the top; I moved it back down; at that point Fuzheado moved it back up and Haephestos made the symbolic guesture of protecting the page and telling us to stop editing it. I unprotected the page, moved it to the bottom once more, Angela moved it back up and reprotected the page, and asked me to stop unprotecting the page. I've been unprotecting the page every time I see it protected, but I've stopped moving the VfD header to the bottom. Not that there's anything that says that the VfD header has to be up top. I'm not going to compete with several people.
One thing that bothers me about the VfD header is that it's biased: "This article has been listed on Votes for Deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion." Okay, I changed it to a less suggestive form, one which encourages participation.
---tc
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something seriously, deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
In the same way that we trust users to delete pages that should *obviously* be deleted, we should trust users to remove pages from VfD that should *obviously* not be deleted. Entries that have been edited so that there is no doubt that they should be deleted should be able to be removed immediately from the VfD page.
This still isn't the solution that I would propose for the situation, but it would at least be a brake on the current runaway freight train of deletion.
The Cunctator wrote:
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something seriously, deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
In the same way that we trust users to delete pages that should *obviously* be deleted, we should trust users to remove pages from VfD that should *obviously* not be deleted. Entries that have been edited so that there is no doubt that they should be deleted should be able to be removed immediately from the VfD page.
What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support for deletion?
-Mark
From: Delirium
The Cunctator wrote:
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something seriously, deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
In the same way that we trust users to delete pages that should *obviously* be deleted, we should trust users to remove pages from
VfD
that should *obviously* not be deleted. Entries that have been edited
so
that there is no doubt that they should be deleted should be able to
be
removed immediately from the VfD page.
What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting
it
get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support for deletion?
What's wrong with putting up every page that should obviously be deleted on the Votes for Deletion page for 5 days?
How about this: you come up with answers to your question, and I'll come up with answers to mine.
BTW, do you deny that having [[Gene Ray]] on VfD is a sign of something seriously wrong?
The Cunctator wrote:
BTW, do you deny that having [[Gene Ray]] on VfD is a sign of something seriously wrong?
I do deny this. If it were *deleted* I'd think it was something seriously wrong. If it's not deleted, no harm done--someone made a mistake, it was corrected (presuming the page does not get deleted), and the process works as it's supposed to.
-Mark
From: The Cunctator
From: Delirium What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support
for
deletion?
What's wrong with putting up every page that should obviously be deleted on the Votes for Deletion page for 5 days?
At the risk of being a jerk, and bringing some levity into this, but isn't this a "slippery slope" argument? :)
-Fuzheado
The Cunctator wrote in part:
Delirium wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
In the same way that we trust users to delete pages that should *obviously* be deleted, we should trust users to remove pages from VfD that should *obviously* not be deleted. Entries that have been edited so that there is no doubt that they should be deleted should be able to be removed immediately from the VfD page.
What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support for deletion?
What's wrong with putting up every page that should obviously be deleted on the Votes for Deletion page for 5 days?
All right, let's Cunc and Delirium make a deal:
Cunc will retain on VfD pages that should *obviously* not be deleted, and Delirium will list on VfD pages that should *obviously* be deleted. Minimum 5 days. ^_^
-- Toby
PS: I'm not keeping up with Wikipedia very well these days -- very busy. Hopefully nobody has written anything recently on the mailing lists that I need to respond to; but you can mail me personally if you have.
Delirium-
What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support for deletion?
You've got it backwards. For a page to be deleted, there need to be little or no objections against that.
Regards,
Erik
Delirium wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something seriously, deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion. In the same way that we trust users to delete pages that should *obviously* be deleted, we should trust users to remove pages from VfD that should *obviously* not be deleted. Entries that have been edited so that there is no doubt that they should be deleted should be able to be removed immediately from the VfD page.
What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support for deletion?
Nothing except that I don't trust the deletionists.
Ec
Martin wrote the following on [[Dcide]]: Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford stubs. Martin
Is he being facetious, or is this what is counting as a reasonable argument at VfD nowadays?
Cunc-
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something seriously, deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
Pages can only be deleted in consensus, so I doubt there's a real risk that articles like [[Gene Ray]] or [[Realdoll]] will be deleted. I'm not completely opposed to delisting a page, but it's a matter of good judgment. If one or several regulars have voted for deletion, or if a newbie has done so and given a long explanation why he feels that way, you should honor these opinions and let the process do its magic.
On the other hand, if it's just some newbies who haven't read our policies feeling offended by a certain article and voting to delete, you might unlist the page right away, but it would be nice to leave a message on their talk page and explain why you did it.
Regards,
Erik
From: Erik Moeller
Cunc-
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something
seriously,
deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
Pages can only be deleted in consensus, so I doubt there's a real risk that articles like [[Gene Ray]] or [[Realdoll]] will be deleted. I'm not completely opposed to delisting a page, but it's a matter of
good
judgment. If one or several regulars have voted for deletion, or if a newbie has done so and given a long explanation why he feels that way,
you
should honor these opinions and let the process do its magic.
On the other hand, if it's just some newbies who haven't read our
policies
feeling offended by a certain article and voting to delete, you might unlist the page right away, but it would be nice to leave a message on their talk page and explain why you did it.
The current situation is such that if I unlisted a page right away for any reason, Wikipedians such as Fuzheado and Angela would strenuously object and consider my action an egregious breach of protocol.
I strongly believe that just in the same way we formally state that we trust people to immediately delete utter nonsense, we need to formally state that we trust people to immediately take acceptable content off of the Votes for Deletion page.
This will apply to two situations, primarily: the first being the one you mentioned ("some newbies who haven't read our policies feeling offended by a certain article and voting to delete") and the other being when an article has changed due to its listing on Votes for Deletion. Once something has gone from possibly irredeemable gunk to an evidently valid entry it should be delisted from Votes for Deletion.
The Cunctator wrote:
The current situation is such that if I unlisted a page right away for any reason, Wikipedians such as Fuzheado and Angela would strenuously object and consider my action an egregious breach of protocol.
I have never objected to anything you have removed from VfD. However, if you delisted a page when there were still strong feelings that the page ought to be deleted, then I may feel inclined to relist it in order to prevent people feeling their views were being ignored.
The Cunctator wrote:
we need to formally state that we trust people to immediately take acceptable content off of the Votes for Deletion page.
I don't object to that idea, but is removing things from VfD really that important? If someone has mistakenly listed something, then perhaps seeing the comments that people make regarding why the page should be kept will teach them something. Pages which are listed wrongly are can serve some role in developing ideas about what is regarded as suitable.
Angela.
________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
On 11/26/03 4:50 PM, "Angela" sloog77@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
we need to formally state that we trust people to immediately take acceptable content off of the Votes for Deletion page.
I don't object to that idea, but is removing things from VfD really that important?
Yes.
If someone has mistakenly listed something, then perhaps seeing the comments that people make regarding why the page should be kept will teach them something. Pages which are listed wrongly are can serve some role in developing ideas about what is regarded as suitable.
That is true, but those examples should not remain on the VfD page.