Well, I did check a little bit and found at least one article that had been deleted. Worked on it a bit and found a few interesting links that fit into it.
I think most of the deletions being made are being done in good faith and for good reasons and probably should be possible without any hassle.
But I don't think all of them are. Perhaps it is just due to inexperience, I think some of our sysops perhaps have a bit more enthusiasum about delection and other duties than is really comfortable for others.
Anyway, when you move beyond the appropriate bounds of your responsibilities it's pretty ugly.
Ed Poor, he's pretty cool. If he does something drastic he's on here talking about it and it's easily remedied, cause we all know about it.
Anyway, I think it is fair to say that there is some vandalism or let us say abuse of their position by some sysops. I would suggest that if you are not one of those responsible there is no need to take offense; and if you are perhaps an examination of your motives is appropriate.
When a person first comes on they experiment with different things, some of which seem not that good later. They name things wrong, don't take a Neutral Point of View, perhaps write articles in an inappropriate way. I don't suppose there is any perfect way to straighten them out and get them on the right track, so I guess a lot of leeway needs to be given to anyone who takes the trouble to try to correct an error.
I think at some point, however, you should realize that if someone keeps trying, that they are trying to do something worthwhile.
My point is, that unless you can justify it and are prepared to make a record of what you have done and why that you leave other peoples work alone unless you are engaged in improving it. Eagerness to just get rid of whatever doesn't please you is unseemly.
I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
Fred
Anyway, I think it is fair to say that there is some vandalism or let us say abuse of their position by some sysops. I would suggest that if you are not one of those responsible there is no need to take offense; and if you are perhaps an examination of your motives is appropriate.
Well, I don't know where I fall, but since my name seems to be one of those coming up in the debates - examining my motives doesn't change them. My motive is that there are some articles that in my opinion are worse than no article, and I keep with that opinion.
My point is, that unless you can justify it and are prepared to make a record of what you have done and why that you leave other peoples work alone unless you are engaged in improving it.
But we ARE justifying and we ARE not just prepared to make a record, the record is actually being made. Have you ever even looked at [[Wikipedia:Deletion log]]? You'll find EVERY deletion of the past three weeks there, with the justification given.
I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
And I find coming to Wikipedia and seeing an article called "Bronx Zoo" with as its text "the zoo in the bronx" quite unpleasant.
Andre Engels
We could continue the blow-by-blow, but it's really unnecessary. Steps for action have become clear:
* Modify the deletion mechanism to make it "soft" in some way
* Modify the deletion mechanism to allow for purges of copyright infringement (though of course there's potential for abuse there, so a more formal confirmation/review mechanism would be necessary; possibilities include community norms like not deleting that which you nominate, and waiting some time period after nomination, or some other technological mechanisms)
Meanwhile I ask, respectfully, everyone to attempt to wait at least a few days, or even a day, or at least a few hours (rather than a few minutes) before deleting nominated pages. It's a simple politeness to those who see weak stubs as an invitation, not an affront.
At 06:39 AM 9/25/02 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Well, I don't know where I fall, but since my name seems to be one of those coming up in the debates - examining my motives doesn't change them. My motive is that there are some articles that in my opinion are worse than no article, and I keep with that opinion.
Yes you make many deletions, as I see from the log, most of which are fully justified. I only found one or two deleted entries that seemed interesting to me. (Although some substantial topics I'm not aware of the significance of may be there). [[infant mortality (computer)]], fascinating topic although it ought to be expanded to include all devices. [[Abermud]], the father of them all, although not the grandaddy, that was Adventure. I guess I want to see interesting topics remain, even if undeveloped.
But we ARE justifying and we ARE not just prepared to make a record, the record is actually being made. Have you ever even looked at [[Wikipedia:Deletion log]]? You'll find EVERY deletion of the past three weeks there, with the justification given.
Since it is such a rich resource for good articles perhaps it might extend back beyond 3 weeks and include an easy way to recover the text, small though it may be.
I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
I just need to remember to "watch" any short articles I guess.
And I find coming to Wikipedia and seeing an article called "Bronx Zoo" with as its text "the zoo in the bronx" quite unpleasant.
A close case...the Bronx Zoo will be an article, but much more extensive than that. Many deletions are of titles that will never make an article, I would probably prefer titles that will remain, but we all have talked extensively of that, I think without any real referent in experience other than anecdotal, thus unconclusively. I guess what would suffice is to ensure that somewhere, for example, in this case, in perhaps the article on New York City, an empty link remains to [[Bronx Zoo]], just as a pointer to encourage an article.
Fred
But we ARE justifying and we ARE not just prepared to make a record, the record is actually being made. Have you ever even looked at [[Wikipedia:Deletion log]]? You'll find EVERY deletion of the past three weeks there, with the justification given.
Since it is such a rich resource for good articles perhaps it might extend back beyond 3 weeks and include an easy way to recover the text, small though it may be.
I don't consider this 'a rich resource for good articles'. There may certainly be a number of titles that are worth of being made into an article quickly, but there are a large number in between that are deleted because they are simply a mis-spelling that has been corrected, or a 'redirect making place for a move'. My own method if I want to look for non-existing articles to write about, is to go to page 10 or so of the 'Wanted pages', and scan it. It has the advantage that everything will indeed be linked-to, non-existing pages, and the format makes quick scanning a lot easier.
Then again, I should of course not be putting you down for having different preferences, and if there would be a way to get those old lists for you to scan, it would be good.
And I find coming to Wikipedia and seeing an article called "Bronx Zoo" with as its text "the zoo in the bronx" quite unpleasant.
A close case...the Bronx Zoo will be an article, but much more extensive than that.
Well, my point here is: There might well be a 'real' article on the Bronx Zoo on Wikipedia once, but if so, whoever makes it will probably do so by replacing rather than extending this sub-stub. I would have reacted exactly the same (although in this case it wasn't me who did the deletion, I just chose the example because it was very recent and showed in my opinion clearly what I meant) when it had been "the McDonald's in the bronx" at "Bronx McDonalds" (an obvious non-article) but also when it had been "the second king called Sargon" at Sargon II (which is high at the mostwanted list at the moment).
Many deletions are of titles that will never make an article, I would probably prefer titles that will remain, but we all have talked extensively of that, I think without any real referent in experience other than anecdotal, thus unconclusively. I guess what would suffice is to ensure that somewhere, for example, in this case, in perhaps the article on New York City, an empty link remains to [[Bronx Zoo]], just as a pointer to encourage an article.
Well, in that respect you can sleep quietly - there are _three_ links remaining to Bronx Zoo - from "List of zoos", "American bison" and "Bronx".
Andre Engels
At 05:12 AM 9/25/02 -0600, you wrote:
At 06:39 AM 9/25/02 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Well, I don't know where I fall, but since my name seems to be one of those coming up in the debates - examining my motives doesn't change them. My motive is that there are some articles that in my opinion are worse than no article, and I keep with that opinion.
Yes you make many deletions, as I see from the log, most of which are fully justified. I only found one or two deleted entries that seemed interesting to me. (Although some substantial topics I'm not aware of the significance of may be there). [[infant mortality (computer)]], fascinating topic although it ought to be expanded to include all devices. [[Abermud]], the father of them all, although not the grandaddy, that was Adventure. I guess I want to see interesting topics remain, even if undeveloped.
But we ARE justifying and we ARE not just prepared to make a record, the record is actually being made. Have you ever even looked at [[Wikipedia:Deletion log]]? You'll find EVERY deletion of the past three weeks there, with the justification given.
Since it is such a rich resource for good articles perhaps it might extend back beyond 3 weeks and include an easy way to recover the text, small though it may be.
I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
I just need to remember to "watch" any short articles I guess.
And I find coming to Wikipedia and seeing an article called "Bronx Zoo" with as its text "the zoo in the bronx" quite unpleasant.
A close case...the Bronx Zoo will be an article, but much more extensive than that. Many deletions are of titles that will never make an article, I would probably prefer titles that will remain, but we all have talked extensively of that, I think without any real referent in experience other than anecdotal, thus unconclusively. I guess what would suffice is to ensure that somewhere, for example, in this case, in perhaps the article on New York City, an empty link remains to [[Bronx Zoo]], just as a pointer to encourage an article.
If you checked "what links here", there is at least one link, in the article on the Bronx. It's been there, waiting for me or someone to write a real article, for many months now.
I removed the text but left the empty article because I wasn't sure of what to do--since it is a real article--but I had rather see nothing at all than "the zoo in the bronx" without even links to zoo or bronx.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org