From: David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put a {{hangon}}).
The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171 A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary, that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:37:52 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith" wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
His intentions were good? That's a first :-)
Guy (JzG)
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:37, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put a {{hangon}}).
The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171 A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary, that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
What "disruption"?
That has to be about the most overused term on Wikipedia.
A single instance of an act is not "disruption".
Well, that's not entirely true... I'd consider deletion of [[Main Page]] to be disruption, for example.
But in this case, I agree. David did nothing wrong. It certainly wasn't disruption.
-Gurch
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Maxwell Weber Sent: 07 December 2006 01:10 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:37, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put a {{hangon}}).
The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171 A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary, that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
What "disruption"?
That has to be about the most overused term on Wikipedia.
A single instance of an act is not "disruption".
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com