Phil Boswell wrote:
>AFD is like the Sabbath: it was intended to serve Wikipedia, not the other
>way around.
>
So, perhaps we should simply delete every seventh article?
--Michael Snow
[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some
ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more
cases do we have to show??
darin
Hi all,
Seeing as there hasn't been much public discussion on this (at least on
the English-language Wikipedia) I thought it would be a good idea to let
you all know that Raul654, Fred Bauder, Kelly Martin, The Epopt and
Jayjg have all been granted access to the checkuser tool[1] (the tool
which allows for checking of sockpuppets by giving access to IP
addresses, including those of signed-in Wikipedians).
According to the CheckUser policy[2], editors approved by the
Arbitration Committee may be granted access to the checkuser tool.
The Arbitration Committee decided who would get access to the tool on
their private mailing list[3].
Chris
1. http://tinyurl.com/7da8j
2. http://tinyurl.com/7rtn3
3. http://tinyurl.com/89g4k
Hi , I'm still waiting for the mediation process to start, since, Nov
18, 2005, 3:44AM (PST). Seems no one doing anything, whats the next
step ?
thanks.
- Tarikash
On 11/19/05, Fennec Foxen <fennec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org is not an appropriate address to contact
> with these concerns.
>
> > On 11/18/05, TariqAsh <tariqash(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi David, i cannot find / don't know which page is discussing this
> > issue, or, where this complain is listed. Please send me link. Also
> > please suggest what should be be my next step to solve this problem.
> > Thanks.
> > -Tarikash ~~~~
> >
> >
> > On 11/18/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cheers, I've forwarded the text version to the list!
> > - d.
> >
> > On 11/18/05, TariqAsh <tariqash(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Subject: Mediation on Pronunciation Paragraph Of "Bangladesh" page
> > & Un-Ethical behaviour of SysOp
> > Hi David, I have been trying to keep a very necessary paragraph on
> > pronunciation of the word "Bangladesh" on [[Bangladesh]] page and also
> > another similar pronunciation para on the word "Bangla" in the
> > [[Bengali Language]] page . But paragraphs were often deleted and page
> > was often reverted back by sysop "Ragib" & sysop "Idleguy" and lastly
> > by sysop "Dmcdevit" . These three sysops worked as a team and did 3RR
> > by themselves . This paragraph is very important, because it can
> > remove confusion and reduce harassment on Bangladeshi people . Wrong
> > pronunciation of "Bangladesh" leads to an incorrect meaning . The
> > sound of "a" in "Bang" & "la" should be pronounced like the sound of
> > "a" in the word "Lava", for correct pronunciation . Which most
> > non-native speakers don't do, even some Bangladeshis, when they are
> > talking with non-native speakers . I'm looking forward to solve this
> > issue . Please start a mediation process to solve this problem . Many
> > thanks . I've already expressed and exchanged opinion about this issue
> > with "Ragib" in [[Bengali Language]] and [[Bangladesh]] discussion
> > page and also in our own Talk/discussion page . Please see those .
> > Admin/SysOp "Dmcdevit" performed many unethical steps outside of the
> > Wikipedia Policy . "Dmcdevit", "Ragib" and "Idleguy" deleted, reverted
> > even my improved version of that paragraph, again and again . Please
> > look into it . I'm looking for OnWiki (Public) type of mediation to
> > re-include this paragraph and an warning be issued for these SysOps,
> > or, revocation of their privilege which they have mis-used . Many
> > thanks for solving the problem related to post in my own page.
> > - Tarikash
> > IP:69.237.236.7
> >
>
Hi,
Since the helpdesk-l address was made more instantly visible, there
has been a surge of questions to the list - of a wide range of
queries/problems/issues. Your help would be appreciated. You can
subscribe at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l
Thanks,
Cormac / Cormaggio
Just as a heads up, while you were indulging in the usual
masturbatory discussions of whether AfD is deeply flawed again that
seem to follow every time I point this out, Dragonfiend put the
recently concluded Checkerboard Nightmare on AfD. His nomination was,
as far too many nominations in far too many fields are, borne of out
and out ignorance - nobody who is remotely knowledgable about
webcomics would even think to propose Checkerboard Nightmare for
deletion. But, of course, the votes of people who know what they're
talking about continue to have active voice with the people who have
decided that ridding Wikipedia of the scourge of webcomics (or blogs)
(or whatever) is their mission in life.
The article isn't going to get deleted, so don't rush off to find it
and vote to keep - it's fine. But go ahead and have a look at http://
www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/however_the_ent.html so you can see
Wikipedia take another prominent hit from an important member of the
webcomics community. Compare that to http://www.websnark.com/archives/
2004/11/a_modest_webcom.html a year ago. In the past year, we have
taken someone who was strongly pro-Wikipedia and turned him into
someone who thinks we suck. Someone prominent, influential, and,
frankly, damn respectable.
So, yeah. AfD? Still broken. Still driving people away. Still
generating ill will, bad faith, and bad decisions.
Carry on your fiddling. I'm gonna go get front row seats for when the
Colosseum ignites.
-Phil
Sam Korn wrote:
>On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't it? If an article gets one third "keep" votes, one third "merge"
>>votes, and one third "delete" votes, the article gets kept. Even if an
>>article gets 100% merge votes, it's still "kept" - the old title gets
>>turned into a redirect and the information that was there gets moved
>>into an existing article the redirect points to. And this isn't a
>>binding forever and ever result like "delete" is, either, so the
>>material could eventually get split back out and moved to the old title
>>again one day if it grows enough to warrant it. I myself can think of
>>two cases where I merged articles after an AfD, complaints arose from
>>people who didn't like the resulting merged article, so I split the
>>material back out again to the original location and that was that.
>>
>>I see "merge" as a vote to keep accompanied by a recommendation for how
>>to clean up the kept article afterward.
>>
>>
>Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators'
>mouths as acceptable. If people vote merge, they aren't necessarily
>giving anyone permission to enterpret their vote in any other way.
>
>
Here's an illustration to clarify the point. Quite a few articles get
deleted for inherently inappropriate subject matter, such as
agenda-pushing conspiracy theories. Suppose someone writes [[Swiss
incitement of the Paris riots]]. A nomination like this will normally
see quite a few merge votes, as in "merge any verifiable information
into the article about the recent civil unrest in France."
These merge votes are most certainly not votes to keep even a redirect
at [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. The title is absolutely
ludicrous and needs to be deleted, and these people realize that.
However, they vote to merge out of concern that we salvage factual
information that may not be in the real article, before deleting the
bogus one.
--Michael Snow