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(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l