Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly deleted are very limited. Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a troll named [[El Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not allowed to be speedy deleted, because obviously false information is not an acceptable condition (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously false information was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten rid of all of this user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several different entries on VfD for them. If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists' acceptable process for getting rid of this false information? Currently, there is a VfD entry for someone name [[Paul Buissonneau]]. At the time of its adding to VfD, the article consisted of: "Paul Buissonneau gave lessons to the great Yvon Deschamps as well as Claude Jasmin and Robert Charlebois. Paul Buissonneau was born in France in 1926. He then came to Canada. He is still alive.". It took a great deal of work and research by several people actively involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable article. Would those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred that it have remained as it was in its original state? I am an active participant in [[Cleanup]]. But there are hundreds of articles listed there that never get worked on. By putting a 5-day deadline on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable articles, which then get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground, it's a serious effort by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out what to do with articles that aren't decent. RickK --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

That's a rather tall order for pages such as [[Eckvic (god)]] and [[Anarcho Coronado de Murillo]], which are about subjects that apparently exist nowhere except in the mind of El Coronado. --Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: Timwi<mailto:timwi@gmx.net> To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 1:56 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken Rick wrote: Your logic is really weird. "We have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them." Have you thought about fixing them? ;-) Remove the fiction and replace it with facts (even if few). Timwi

How do you "fix" something about a fictional person? RickK Timwi &lt;timwi(a)gmx.net&gt; wrote: Rick wrote: Your logic is really weird. "We have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them." Have you thought about fixing them? ;-) Remove the fiction and replace it with facts (even if few). Timwi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a troll named [[El Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not allowed to be speedy deleted, because obviously false information is not an acceptable condition (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously false information was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten rid of all of this user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several different entries on VfD for them. for getting rid of this false information? I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid of VfD. We're just saying it isn't working like it was originally designed to. I don't have an alternative process, just a recommendation that people actually follow policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable article. Would those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred that it have remained as it was in its original state? articles listed there that never get worked on. By putting a 5-day deadline on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable articles, which then get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground, it's a serious effort by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out what to do with articles that aren't decent. We are saying "improve the article, don't delete it , if the article is important (Wikipedia:Importance) enough". VfD is not about improvement, it's about deletion. Cleanup is about improvement. Yes, there are some articles (less than hundreds) which are never worked on. Yet surely that is better than the hundreds which are deleted, not because they don't belong in Wikipedia, but because they aren't good enough?

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:11:57 -0700 (PDT), Rick &lt;giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I have not argued for immediate cessation of VfD. Rather I have agreed that it would be nice to carefully and sensibly look at the alternatives. At the least, this could cut down on VfD nominations. Perhaps speedy-delete *could* be used more for vanity pages etc. But perhaps add an appeals process for when it happens before the party involved has a chance to defend themselves. Perhaps merge-and-delete should NEVER reach VfD and rather just be done (the content is not deleted, so it's not so contentious). But a successful attribution procedure is needed to make this easier (the history of the deleted page somehow preserved/added into the main one). Maybe the history of the deleted page could be put in a sub-page of the main page, with a link to that in the tagline of the edit placing merged content? Anyways, once again to emphasise: *I favour debate - not immediate cessation of VfD* Zoney -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

I have blocked Netoholic for 24 hours. I am sure somebody will run slavering to the Special pages in order to unblock him as soon as they see this, but I'll tell you why I have blocked him. Netoholic, since his first few days on Wikipedia, has been nothing but disruptive. He created a page which he called policy concerning the names of television shows, did not tell anybody that it was there, did not indicate how long the vote on his supposed policy was supposed to be, and when four people stumbled across it and voted their approvals, he took it as gospel and immediately began the mass moving of article titles without anyone knowing it was going to happen. As soon as people began questioning why he was moving them, he said, "it's policy", and pointed to his virtually unknown page. Now he's on a rampage to make sure that VfD is "broken". He is unilaterally removing pages from the VfD page, is being very combative in several discussions (yet when anybody disagrees with him he calls it personal attacks and removes their postings), and is repeatedly deleting the VfD header from pages that are still under discussion. There appears to be no end in sight. There is no point in my creating an RfC page on him, because nothing gets accomplished on those pages, and I refuse to go through the arbitration route. Besides, how long can we survive the four to five months it would take to get anything accomplished? Would SOMEONE please offer to mentor this person and make him understand that his actions are unacceptable? RickK --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

His actions on the VfD page and the pages listed there can only be considered vandalism. Repeated deletions of VfD headers, and repeated deletions of pages listed on the VfD page is vandalism. Non-consensus mass moving of pages is vandalism. Repeated deletions of other people's discussions is vandalism. RickK Angela &lt;beesley(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote: I'd unblocked him before you sent this. And it didn't involve running or slavering. I don't think that is a fair summary. Netoholic is not a troll acting in bad faith. He believes he is improving the VfD system. In my opinion, he's going about that the wrong way, but his edits can not be classed as purely disruptive. Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

It hasn't been much publicized yet. The previous version (which redirects to Wikipedia:Importance) was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment - Wikipedia:Importance is itself listed there now. You don't have to abide by it. However, as far as policy goes, it doesn't add much, rather it clarifies existing policies. requests open discussion? And how can you say that we have to abide by it, if it's not yet policy?

And what do we do about articles which CAN'T be "improved"? What do we do with such articles as [[Demish ]], [[Anarcho Coronado de Murillo ]], [[Eckvic Culture]], [[Eckvic (god)]], [[Eckvic]], [[Anarcho Coronado de Murillo ]], [[Francisco V�squez de Coronado]], [[Political Leader of The United Socialist Union ]], [[United Socialist Union]] and [[Coronadists]]? RickK Timwi &lt;timwi(a)gmx.net&gt; wrote: Rebecca wrote: Nobody is suggesting to "allow junk to remain in the pedia". People are instead suggesting to get rid of the junk by improving it rather than deleting it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Except that it's often difficult to determine whether something is nonsense or not. Putting it on Vfd instead of flagging it for speedy deletion allows the community to develop a consensus on whether it is valid. Take [[Paul Buissonneau]], which RickK mentioned, as an example. I listed this on Vfd because it sounded like either vanity or a fictional person. Now, the subject has been verified as a real person, the article has been rewritten, and I have motioned to keep the article. If I had just flagged it as a speedy delete candidate, an administrator would probably have given me the benefit of the doubt and deleted it, preventing Wikipedia from gaining another informative article. --Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: Timwi<mailto:timwi@gmx.net> To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:00 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken Rick wrote: I haven't had a look at the others, but ... wow. This really is some interesting piece of fiction. :-) Now, of course, the question is, is there actually such a thing as "Demish" (language or anything else)? If not, then I agree it should be a speedy deletion candidate. If yes, then it should be replaced with a stub about the Real Thing™. Timwi

Attempts to delete such fictional information have been rejected repeatedly as an unacceptable use of the speedy deletion process. RickK Timwi &lt;timwi(a)gmx.net&gt; wrote: Rick wrote: I haven't had a look at the others, but ... wow. This really is some interesting piece of fiction. :-) Now, of course, the question is, is there actually such a thing as "Demish" (language or anything else)? If not, then I agree it should be a speedy deletion candidate. If yes, then it should be replaced with a stub about the Real Thing�. Timwi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

I'm not Rebecca, but please allow me to try addressing some of your queries... Ray Saintonge wrote: I don't understand. Voting gauges whether there is a consensus or not. You don't need to. You can research it on Google, or let somebody else handle it. If nobody does, perhaps that's an indication the article's not notable enough to be encyclopedic. The audience on VfD is large enough for somebody to respond sooner or later, despite your argument that the majority of the community doesn't visit it. Stubs yes, but their notability and/or verifiability is another. What will people think of how trustworthy our information is if we permit rubbish such as a biased advertisement for a discussion forum to languish on Wikipedia? John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

But what do you mean by notability? Your humble opinion? Have a look at the proposed policy on what "notability" means at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance.