'Kate Hudson' has no content. The previous version of it says 'hubba hubba hubba', and the history says it was deleted and restored by request. That is NOT an article. That is not even a pretense at an article. That is a piece of stupidity that deserves oblivion. Why on EARTH did someone request that that should be put back?
Gibberish is not an article. Blank pages are not an article. And nonsense phrases posted by a casual passerby are not an article. They just take up space that a real article could use. If it was a real article it would say something like 'Kate Hudson is (blah blah blah)'. Leaving this doesn't encourage the writer to make real contributions - if anything it encourages them to leave more nonsense to clutter up the space!
'Kate Hudson' has no content. The previous version of it says 'hubba hubba hubba', and the history says it was deleted and restored by request. That is NOT an article. That is not even a pretense at an article. That is a piece of stupidity that deserves oblivion. Why on EARTH did someone request that that should be put back?
Gibberish is not an article. Blank pages are not an article. And nonsense phrases posted by a casual passerby are not an article. They just take up space that a real article could use. If it was a real article it would say something like 'Kate Hudson is (blah blah blah)'. Leaving this doesn't encourage the writer to make real contributions - if anything it encourages them to leave more nonsense to clutter up the space!
Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick (literally).
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
Gibberish is not an article. Blank pages are not an article. And nonsense phrases posted by a casual passerby are not an article. They just take up space that a real article could use. If it was a real article it would say something like 'Kate Hudson is (blah blah blah)'. Leaving this doesn't encourage the writer to make real contributions - if anything it encourages them to leave more nonsense to clutter up the space!
Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick (literally).
Andre, I'm not angry at you!!!!!!! I agreed that every single one of those articles you deleted thoroughly deserved oblivion. If I'd gotten to them first I would have deleted them all myself! What annoys me is the fact that we are quibbling over such a petty little thing when there are so many more important jobs still waiting in the queue to do. I'm truly sorry if you are upset about it... I wasn't trying to get at you, just to make a point.
Stubs like that one aren't any use to the wikipedia and they deserve to be deleted. True? Totally blank entries with no content confuse the issue and deserve to be deleted. True? Vandalism and gibberish deserve to be deleted. True? If you don't know for certain that a page deserves to go, but you think it does, we have a deletion queue to put it in. True? On that note - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE US BACK THE VOTE BUTTON!!!!!!! It made things so much simpler...
The problem with a cooperative community is that you have to come to a consensus before you can actively do anything... where there is too much disagreement then people get upset and hurt. I say that you are doing a good job Andre and I would hope that you keep on doing it... and on that point I don't care whether anyone else agrees with me!
"Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick (literally).
I don't think anyone's angry at you. Don't take any of this personally. Making a new entry with the same text as the last revision isn't restoring the article. Restoring the article means restoring the history.
It is certainly right that, especially with deletions, the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
Again, the current policy on deletion is based on the old complete irreversibility of the act of deletion. Then erasing gibberish from an entry like [[Kate Hudson]], which one day will be a good entry, was a better option than deleting the entry entirely. Now that deletion is somewhat irreversible, the policy should be somewhat changed. Once deletion is made fully reversible, then the policy should be fully changed.
"Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I
did
that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
For completeness's sake, I volunteer to get mad at Andre if he does nothing at all -- get to work, man, don't just sit there!
--~~~
(I sure hope no one here is too humor-impaired to realize that this is a joke.)
Andre Engels wrote:
Someone got angry with me because I deleted subjects that could become articles. So I resurrected them. Now people get angry at me because I did that. So, what should I do then? It seems that the only way not to do something wrong is to do nothing at all.
Please, either have a SINGLE set of rules that at least has no rules that are conflicting, or have no rules at all. This is making me angry and sick (literally).
Andre, my only advice here is to remember that you are an equal to everyone else, and so people have no reason to be angry with you either way. You're proceeding according to your best judgment, and listening thoughtfully to others -- that's 100% wiki in spirit to me, and I applaud you.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org