[Foundation-l] sco/fiu-vro in danger

[Aphaia]

Thank you for your mails, Ryo and Sulev

On 5/20/05, Nicolas Weeger <nicolas.weeger at laposte.net> wrote:

> I can't find any hint of fiu-sco in the deletion log, can't see anything about it.

Surely because none of  those files were deleted. In my opinion it
sounds too strong to call a lising for RfD as "destroying".

I made a research if there is a possibility those files are already
legitimate parts of existing Wikipedia (meta policy allow us to speedy
it, like already transwikied media, copied article from some
mysterious reasons), but I didn't find any evidence to think so and
meta namespace is apparently not dedicated for normal encyclopedia
articles, therefore I thought those pages were appropriate to list on
the RfD.

Because of lisiting, he or she could get a chance to advocation, so I
think it was a fair decision for both parties. And I think it was a
rude action to put such pages withouth remark like "this is a test
page" specially on main namespace.


> > Now user of Wikimedia Aphaia threats to erase our work
> > and has already destroyed Scots test page!!

You misunderstood the situation unless you make a lie. Oscar lilsted
[[Scotland]] and I put a {{rfd}} tag. It is a part of our routine of
request for deletion and every editor has a right to do according our
policy. And both test main page and article haven't been deleted by
anyone, you have no right or reason to say the above. I request hereby
for apology on this bad and wrong labelling.

> Did you tell Aphaia about the purpose of the pages? [ok, read the revelant pages, she understood the purpose].

I know it after I listed those pages on RfD. And I would like to point
out those are actually substubs on main namespace without any links so
I wondered first if I could speedy them as test.It is very regret to
see my torelence is rewarded wiith such bad wording.

>Maybe she didn't read wikimedia-l and doesn't know what has been
decided. Remember: assume good faith first (no, i am not accusing
*you* of lying, merely pointing out that it's almost certainly a
misunderstanding between you two).

Thank you Ryo, no, I don't subscribe wikipedia-l. I am a Wikiquoter
rather than a Wikipedian. And I think it is too rude and unwise
Wikipedia-l introduces a new policy not to Wikipedia but to Meta which
has its own community independent from any particular project without
announcement or discussion. I pointed out there was no message on
meta, even on [[Meta:Babel]].

>Also, on VfD, she indicates that it's the *number* of planned
articles that bothers her, not their *existence*.
> (disclaimer: i don't know meta policy)

On IRC conversation yann agreed 100 are too many. If someone really
wants to create "a test wiki with some 100 or 200 articles",  I think
he would be better to create a separate wiki.

And also I oppose to put those test articles without remark on main
namespace. It is very annoying and rude from my view. You could put a
remark at the top, categorize them as "test articles" or put them into
subpages of your test page.

Thank you for considerations,.
-- 
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com