-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism." The article had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes. Savidan made no attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously in-progress article on its talk page.
Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref neologism," whatever that is. Perhaps the full article would deserve to be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike. Perhaps it would belong in Wikipedia. You'll never know now. Nine (9) minutes after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it before its creation had completed.
I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
- -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
Hello, To slightly play devil's advocate, I was recently playing with the anti vandalism tools and several times came across new articles that had been created. One was [[Gortex]], clearly a mis-spelling for [[Gore-Tex]]. So I wiped it and replaced it with a redirect. Fair enough, right?
Another was an apparent copyvio - I added a copyvio template. Still ok?
Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template, or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".
Hence your hurt feelings.
There are a lot of crap articles that created. I don't think tagging them for deletion is necessarily "assuming bad faith" - I believe the Gortex example was an editor working in good faith. It's simply a necessarily brusque way of dealing with a large number of articles of questionable worth.
I did come across another article called "Hook-catch" or something which I probably could have given your description of "apparent nn selfref neologism." It sounded like some term that a couple of kids had made up to describe getting their genitals caught in something - at first glance. I labelled it for deletion, but again, would have been very happy for someone to unlabel it if they had the faintest clue what it was actually about.
Steve
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism." The article had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes. Savidan made no attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously in-progress article on its talk page.
Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref neologism," whatever that is. Perhaps the full article would deserve to be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike. Perhaps it would belong in Wikipedia. You'll never know now. Nine (9) minutes after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it before its creation had completed.
I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7 u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4= =9qCT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template, or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".
There's already such a template it's called {{afd}}. Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}? Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?
The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to leave things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you don't have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will take the speed out of your work.
If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got a lot lower chance of it getting deleted.
Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}? Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?
Answer One: No, I didn't tag it. Frankly, I didn't think of it. I literally: realized my coffee cup was empty; stood up, realized I was using my Windows box so I was in danger of crashing and losing my work, bent over, threw an edit summary in the box, and hit "save." When returned after getting my coffee, I hit "edit," and saw the deletion verbiage at the top of the edit box. Nine (9) minutes had elapsed. Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of Wikipedia might have been destroyed.
I have learned from that mistake. Never again will I add an article to Wikipedia that is not completely and entirely perfect, with multiple insistences of notability and scores of footnotes in place. Wikipedia does not allow works-in-progress; all contributions must be camera-ready for world-wide publication or they will be obliterated on sight.
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine. What difference does that make? Does the burden of defending information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor? Or is the burden on the obliterater to demonstrate why that particular information should be deleted? Actually, the answers to those questions are disgustingly obvious; what I should be asking is /should/ the burden of defending information be placed on the one building Wikipedia? /Shouldn't/ the one who wants to obliterate information be required to at least attempt to communicate with the one who wants to add it?
The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to leave things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you don't have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will take the speed out of your work.
0 NO3Z!!11! DON'T TAKE THE SPEED OUT!!!11!!eleventy-one
If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got a lot lower chance of it getting deleted.
If I never contribute anything until it is utterly perfect, I'll have a lower chance (maybe not a lot lower, I admit) of it getting deleted.
- -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of Wikipedia might have been destroyed.
Nine minutes is unacceptably slow for NP patrol. Looks like we may need more recurets
Does the burden of defending information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?
To a degree. There is a certian minium standard that the article is expected to meet (ie is expected not to look like a speedy candidate). Above that the burned heavily falls on anyone trying to delete the thing
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Does the burden of defending information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?
To a degree. There is a certian minium standard that the article is expected to meet (ie is expected not to look like a speedy candidate). Above that the burned heavily falls on anyone trying to delete the thing
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess that there might be a good reason for the article being in such a state. I just don't see how someone with all of three weeks of WP experience is going to have developed a good sense for what should be in or out.
Stan
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess that there might be a good reason for the article being in such a state.
How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?
I just don't see how someone with all of three weeks of WP experience is going to have developed a good sense for what should be in or out.
Stan
which is why they don't have the delete button.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess that there might be a good reason for the article being in such a state.
How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?
All of them, of course - don't you? :-) The name of the editor is the most useful way to triage a long list of changes - known trustworthy editors almost always make good edits, everybody else needs a closer look.
Stan
geni wrote:
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess that there might be a good reason for the article being in such a state.
How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?
All the more reason for that newbie to check the person's edit history before taking drastic action.
Ec
Sean Barrett wrote:
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to be no incentive for them to learn.
Stan
I suppose the thing that surprises me about this is the fact that people tag work without taking a look at who the author is. Sure, if you see something brand new by an anon or by a redlinked name, you may want to take a careful look at it. If, on the other hand, you see something by Sean, you take for granted that established contributors tend not to write "selfref neologisms". If you see something like that from someone like Sean (or like Dunc, which was what sparked a mess a few months ago) you give them the benefit of the doubt - bookmark the page, maybe add it to your "to do" list - but don't afd it. To be honest, if you see something brand new by a new author you give them a chance to clean it up as well. Shooting first and asking questions later is bound to only cause bad blood. In Sean's case, it isn't going to drive him away, but a new editor could easily be driven off.
Ian
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to be no incentive for them to learn.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi, What I see wrong in this process is that the original author couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article. This seems like the right order of events in these situations:
Author writes hacky article RC patrol tags it as crap Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps working.
However, if as in most cases, the author never comes back, then a week later or whatver it is removed.
I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed, it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a masterpiece.
Steve
On 2/10/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose the thing that surprises me about this is the fact that people tag work without taking a look at who the author is. Sure, if you see something brand new by an anon or by a redlinked name, you may want to take a careful look at it. If, on the other hand, you see something by Sean, you take for granted that established contributors tend not to write "selfref neologisms". If you see something like that from someone like Sean (or like Dunc, which was what sparked a mess a few months ago) you give them the benefit of the doubt - bookmark the page, maybe add it to your "to do" list
- but don't afd it. To be honest, if you see something brand new by a new
author you give them a chance to clean it up as well. Shooting first and asking questions later is bound to only cause bad blood. In Sean's case, it isn't going to drive him away, but a new editor could easily be driven off.
Ian
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to be no incentive for them to learn.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed, it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a masterpiece.
Steve
Actually, it wasn't crap. Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
Actually, it wasn't crap. Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)
I don't believe the nominator ever said it was crap. He said it was a non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of articles).
Cheers! David...
On 2/11/06, David Carson dcarson@iinet.net.au wrote:
I don't believe the nominator ever said it was crap. He said it was a non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of articles).
Reminds me of my recent proposal on this list which scored a grand total of one reply :) Quick reminder: Split AFD into two halves: Request for subject blocking: Community decides the subject is NN or not interesting etc, deletes the page and prevents a new article being created on the topic Request for page wiping: Community decides the subject is potentially interesting, but the current text is libellous, copyvio etc. Page is hacked down to a stub, or wiped altogether (but not blocked).
Misunderstandings and confusion of this sort would be vastly reduced if the nominator had to actually think for a second what he was objecting to exactly.
Steve
Hi, Sorry I wrote that in a state of tiredness etc. I didn't mean to insult that article. I somehow blended the general idea of "RC should be able to tag crap articles" with this particular article.
I might have a go with this lightweight deletion process...
Steve
On 2/10/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed, it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a masterpiece.
Steve
Actually, it wasn't crap. Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi, What I see wrong in this process is that the original author couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article. This seems like the right order of events in these situations:
Author writes hacky article RC patrol tags it as crap Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps working.
Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up the article, most people don't go back and update their votes. Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
Stan
On 2/11/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi, What I see wrong in this process is that the original author couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article. This seems like the right order of events in these situations:
Author writes hacky article RC patrol tags it as crap Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps
working.
Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up the article, most people don't go back and update their votes. Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When I fix an article, I tell the people who have voted delete, if most of the votes are in favour of delete. Most people change their vote. I am yet to be convinced that AfD is particularly toxic given that any possible process will mean that articles that people have worked will end up being deleted and will get upset.
Having said that, the proposed deletion system is working well.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi, What I see wrong in this process is that the original author couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article. This seems like the right order of events in these situations:
Author writes hacky article RC patrol tags it as crap Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps
working.
Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up the article, most people don't go back and update their votes. Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
Stan
1. AFDs don't have to keep running if the nominator retracts their nomination and if you can get keep votes from all the other participants. 2. The speedy rule is "substantially similar content. Once AFDed for being unfinished, doesn't mean no article should ever be there.
Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to be no incentive for them to learn.
Stan
I would have, but I've loaned my staff to Orrie while his is in the shop for a tune-up.
- -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
Actually, you should both communicate - which you have done. It's simply not practical to contact someone for every deletion you want to do especially if you believe it breaks the rules (which I would when you start an article with "X is a neologism...". But really who starts isn't really important.
I think this was simply a misunderstanding on Savidan's part which wouldn't have happened if you ran out of coffee. Just an unfortunate get together of circumstances.
I'm still wondering why it matters if someting is tagged within 9 minutes of its creation or after 30 minutes, 3 days, or 6 months. The point of recentchanges patrol is to get to stuff that needs to be deleted before too many people see it. People who want to delete something need to give a reason why (which was probably "non-notable neologism" in this case). Creators need to make sure they establish notability early on, preferably in their first edit.
I think you can continue editing without running into any problems with half-finished articles by simply tagging them. You can't overlook an {{inuse}} tag and it's easy to apply.
It would be a shame to see someone stop contributing less than perfect articles over one incident.
Mgm
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}? Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?
Answer One: No, I didn't tag it. Frankly, I didn't think of it. I literally: realized my coffee cup was empty; stood up, realized I was using my Windows box so I was in danger of crashing and losing my work, bent over, threw an edit summary in the box, and hit "save." When returned after getting my coffee, I hit "edit," and saw the deletion verbiage at the top of the edit box. Nine (9) minutes had elapsed. Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of Wikipedia might have been destroyed.
I have learned from that mistake. Never again will I add an article to Wikipedia that is not completely and entirely perfect, with multiple insistences of notability and scores of footnotes in place. Wikipedia does not allow works-in-progress; all contributions must be camera-ready for world-wide publication or they will be obliterated on sight.
Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine. What difference does that make? Does the burden of defending information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor? Or is the burden on the obliterater to demonstrate why that particular information should be deleted? Actually, the answers to those questions are disgustingly obvious; what I should be asking is /should/ the burden of defending information be placed on the one building Wikipedia? /Shouldn't/ the one who wants to obliterate information be required to at least attempt to communicate with the one who wants to add it?
The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to
leave
things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you
don't
have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will
take
the speed out of your work.
0 NO3Z!!11! DON'T TAKE THE SPEED OUT!!!11!!eleventy-one
If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got
a
lot lower chance of it getting deleted.
If I never contribute anything until it is utterly perfect, I'll have a lower chance (maybe not a lot lower, I admit) of it getting deleted.
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD7QPTMAt1wyd9d+URAgptAJ99GLsvPU2tl+snA+mIiZJQtICrdACfZJN2 +m5VdSqf5qGMwWKGkqti81w= =Y9sW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hello, To slightly play devil's advocate, I was recently playing with the anti vandalism tools and several times came across new articles that had been created. One was [[Gortex]], clearly a mis-spelling for [[Gore-Tex]]. So I wiped it and replaced it with a redirect. Fair enough, right?
Another was an apparent copyvio - I added a copyvio template. Still ok?
Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template, or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".
Hence your hurt feelings.
There are a lot of crap articles that created. I don't think tagging them for deletion is necessarily "assuming bad faith" - I believe the Gortex example was an editor working in good faith. It's simply a necessarily brusque way of dealing with a large number of articles of questionable worth.
I did come across another article called "Hook-catch" or something which I probably could have given your description of "apparent nn selfref neologism." It sounded like some term that a couple of kids had made up to describe getting their genitals caught in something - at first glance. I labelled it for deletion, but again, would have been very happy for someone to unlabel it if they had the faintest clue what it was actually about.
Steve
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism." The article had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes. Savidan made no attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously in-progress article on its talk page.
Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref neologism," whatever that is. Perhaps the full article would deserve to be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike. Perhaps it would belong in Wikipedia. You'll never know now. Nine (9) minutes after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it before its creation had completed.
I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7 u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4= =9qCT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I sympathize, but, in the end, we can only judge articles by what they are now and what's in their history. We can hazzard a guess that an article is going to improve rapidly into an encyclopaedic golden apple, but the chance of that happening seems less likely when the article is called [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I'm not saying that we can't have good articles with names like this, but, on average, this stuff isn't. If I had Savidan's watchlist, I might have done the same.
And the moral of the story is: don't press that 'Save page' button until your article looks like it's going somewhere good.
Alternative solution: create a 'Gone for coffee, back in 10' template. Unfortunate side-effect of such an alternative: out of the AFD into the TFD!
Gareth Hughes.
On 10/02/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism." The article had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes. Savidan made no attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously in-progress article on its talk page.
Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref neologism," whatever that is. Perhaps the full article would deserve to be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike. Perhaps it would belong in Wikipedia. You'll never know now. Nine (9) minutes after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it before its creation had completed.
I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7 u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4= =9qCT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gareth Hughes stated for the record:
And the moral of the story is: don't press that 'Save page' button until your article looks like it's going somewhere good.
As noted earlier in this thread, that is exactly the moral I've learned. Wikipedia has no tolerance for works in progress.
I'm thinking of putting together another Web site where people will have a chance to collaborate in a friendly environment on incrementally improving articles. We might submit finished articles to the Wikipedia Editorial Board for their professional, well-credentialed approval. Then again, we might adopt an incompatible license....
- -- Sean Barrett | Back off, man, I'm a scientist. sean@epoptic.org | --Dr. Peter Venkman
As noted earlier in this thread, that is exactly the moral I've learned. Wikipedia has no tolerance for works in progress.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. You can work up an article in your sandbox or user space, but once it goes into the main article space it really ought to be at least a decent stub. Lots of poeple patrol recent changes and newly created articles looking for junk, a lot of it gets nominated for deletion, and most of that, goes. Some gets fixed up, some gets userfied (which is what I do with most autobiographies nominated for speedy deletion). But in the end what is in the main article space *is* Wikipedia, and you don't publish half a sentence and a "back in ten" notice in a paper encyclopaedia. So you must concede, I think, that there is at least some right on their side. And after all, there's nothing stopping you from simply adding it again.
If you need access to the deleted content there are plenty of admins who will help you out.
Guy [JzG]
On 2/14/06, Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
But in the end what is in the main article space *is* Wikipedia, and you don't publish half a sentence and a "back in ten" notice in a paper encyclopaedia.
Part of the reason I started contributing to Wikipedia was the (then) tolerance for good-faith works in progress.
I still believe the rate of addition of new articles is not so great that we cannot stop and check a few things before nominating for deletion. I feel a good proportion of the problem is that patrolling new pages attracts the immediateist and impatient above the eventualist and patient contributor.
-Matt
On 2/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the reason I started contributing to Wikipedia was the (then) tolerance for good-faith works in progress.
I still believe the rate of addition of new articles is not so great that we cannot stop and check a few things before nominating for deletion. I feel a good proportion of the problem is that patrolling new pages attracts the immediateist and impatient above the eventualist and patient contributor.
Hang on, are we now actually having a discussion about deleting well-written stubs on good topics? No one's really proposing that are they?
Steve
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 06:44 -0800, Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gareth Hughes stated for the record:
And the moral of the story is: don't press that 'Save page' button until your article looks like it's going somewhere good.
As noted earlier in this thread, that is exactly the moral I've learned. Wikipedia has no tolerance for works in progress.
I'm thinking of putting together another Web site where people will have a chance to collaborate in a friendly environment on incrementally improving articles. We might submit finished articles to the Wikipedia Editorial Board for their professional, well-credentialed approval. Then again, we might adopt an incompatible license....
Wikipedia is a work in progress, and has great tolerance.
If new articles dont look bad they wont get deleted.
If they do, rewrite them so they make sense to other people.
Its not personal.
I entirely agree that this particular article did not establish notability, and that people should not look at the edit history of the people who write articles to establish that.
And its now been on AfD for quite a while and still doesnt establish notability. Forget 9 minutes, its 4 days later and the article is still pretty much the same, but with more references. It should go to wiktionary - it is not encyclopedic in any way at all.
Trolling about a friendly environment is just trolling.
Justinc
On 2/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
And the moral of the story is: don't press that 'Save page' button until your article looks like it's going somewhere good.
As noted earlier in this thread, that is exactly the moral I've learned. Wikipedia has no tolerance for works in progress.
I believe you're blurring an important distinction: a stub that does not demonstrate that its subject matter could be an interesting and useful article, and an article that is simply not yet interesting and useful. If I create a stub that says "Magic power is a recently discovered scientific breakthrough which has been proven to produce 100 times as much energy from a given amount of matter than nuclear power" it is in the latter category, not the first.
The first category should be wiped, but do you think the second are as well? There's a policy somewhere about that says that unfinished articles are to be cherished... [[wikipedia:editing policy]] ?
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I want to point out a marvelously apt comment from [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] amid the votes on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney]].
"Regarding the process that brought this here: The ''second'' an article sticks its head into main space it's fair game. We tell neophytes this all the time, experianced editors should know it well enough." (Emphasis on ''second'' in the original.)
Clearly Aaron agrees with the moral I've drawn from this little imbroglio, but I particularly love his imagery. Those articles can skulk around outside if they want, but just let one raise its head, and BANG, all consideration, support, and even hesitation is gone. Everyone, newbies as well as old-timers, should know that article-space is a free-fire zone.
Which, of course, is emphasized by his most telling phrase, "fair game," taken from hunting. Fair game can be legally shot and killed.
Well put! - -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
On 2/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Clearly Aaron agrees with the moral I've drawn from this little imbroglio, but I particularly love his imagery. Those articles can skulk around outside if they want, but just let one raise its head, and BANG, all consideration, support, and even hesitation is gone. Everyone, newbies as well as old-timers, should know that article-space is a free-fire zone.
I suppose we should create [[Wikipedia:How not to be seen]], then?
Kirill Lokshin