At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
My sentiments exactly.
2007/9/22, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
2007/9/22, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever.
Where would that leave articles like "Joe Black is Eric Black's youngest brother." ?
-Rich
At 10:56 29/09/2007, you wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
2007/9/22, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever.
Where would that leave articles like "Joe Black is Eric Black's youngest brother." ?
That's a statement. Clearly goes into the article on Eric Black.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Yes, propose a merge.
Perhaps there should be process by which I could ask other Wikipedians to evaluate the notability of, say, a Singaporean chess player, before I write an article on him.
2007/9/29, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 10:56 29/09/2007, you wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
2007/9/22, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting
the
information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the
content
from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
Ec
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever.
Where would that leave articles like "Joe Black is Eric Black's youngest brother." ?
That's a statement. Clearly goes into the article on Eric Black.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
Yes, propose a merge. Perhaps there should be process by which I could ask other Wikipedians to evaluate the notability of, say, a Singaporean chess player, before I write an article on him.
Snip_>
Not a half bad idea. Maybe on the talk page of [[Famous Chess Players]], you could ask.
-Ronabop
Rich Holton wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
2007/9/22, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk:
At 23:09 21/09/2007, Dan Bolser wrote:
There's a big fuzzy middle where we need to begin by assuming that the person posting the information is acting in good faith, and often approaching the content from a different perspecive. This won't save all the questioned articles, but it may bring peace. perhaps we should begin treating simple "nn" deletion requests as a breach of good faith.
That would be nice. I think this is the correct attitude.
I think people who don't want an article will still claim it is non-notable... even though editors are acting in good faith, from a different perspective, or whatever
Where would that leave articles like "Joe Black is Eric Black's youngest brother." ?
If that is the _entirety_ of the article, without giving a hint about who either Joe or Eric is, then all the article has is purely personal information. Are there any links to the article? What, if any, is the contributor's editing history. These should all be considerations in making an evaluation of the article. Perhaps a person proposing a deletion shaold answer a series of questions that show what he has done to check the meaningfullness of the article.
Ec
Hi,
Perhaps a person proposing a deletion should answer a series of questions that show what he has done to check the meaningfulness of the article.
It sounds reasonable. A couple of questions won't kill anyone.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
At 12:11 30/09/2007, you wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps a person proposing a deletion should answer a series of questions that show what he has done to check the meaningfulness of the article.
It sounds reasonable. A couple of questions won't kill anyone.
Sorry, I don't think it will work. "I can't think if anything notable, and I've looked awfully hard". Yeah right.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On 30/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, I don't think it will work. "I can't think if anything notable, and I've looked awfully hard". Yeah right.
Deletion nomination is an editorial decision, and as such can't work well without assumption of good faith. If you assume malice, it's fairly easy to show that Wikipedia can't possibly exist in theory.
Come up with something that assumes mere bad judgement rather than actual malice.
- d.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org