On 02/08/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd have to check when mine was, but I think I was using VfD (very, very ineptly, probably) within the first couple of weeks. I think I randomly found reference to deletion on a policy page somewhere, and then was playing with random-page... Especially given the current size of VfD, it wouldn't really surprise me if it's even easier now. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Any newbie who has created an article which doesnt quite fit may face VFD, which is (IIRC an old comparison) like going to a restaurant only to be introduced to the trash cans. But I've since come to understand that just like everybody needs an asshole, every Wikipedia needs a VFD. The problem is when Montezuma's kicks in, and the wholesome nutrition is flushed out with the dross and detritus. WP needs some kind of anti-Montezuma's type remedy --which just has to work and doesnt have to be of a particular brand (or color). ATS, its great to see people expressing their distaste for the subject, and support the notion that WP needs a new "exit strategy" --or at least a better working one. But it's worrisome that the grand mailing list ppl are rather incapable, disorganized, and without leadership to do anything about it --such that Ed's rage against the machine seems to be something symbolic of a greater frustration rel. process failures to enforce consensus, and how consensus is too weak to change systemic trends. On the one hand its validating: WP, even if it is more wiki than encyclopedia, isnt bad. On the other hand, its frustrating because things, ideally, could be so much more ideal. -SV Ray (Eclect) wrote: "that Ed's horoic effort" - Was this a clever mix of horror and heroic? --- Alex Regh <Alex.Here(a)gmx.net> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com