From: Daniel Mayer
RickK wrote:
>Wow. When Maveric first "mandated" that the VfD header be included
>on every article on the VfD page, I objected, claiming that such
action
>was unnecessary. Not one person came to my
defense, and I was
>attacked and excoriated for my lack of support for Wikipedia. Now
here
>I am, having bent my neck and acceded to the will
of the Wikipedia,
and
now I'm
attacked for putting the headers ON the articles?
Don't confuse disagreement with attack. I saw no attack. However, I'll
add
my support: The headers are needed to inform editors
and readers of
the
article
that it may be deleted soon. Not having such a header and just
deleting
the article is a denial of due process to the editors
and readers of
the
article.
Please continue to add this header as you see fit.
All right, I cop to originally taking the VfD header off of a page that
(I believe) obviously should not be deleted. When RickK put it back, I
moved it to the bottom of the page--since it's a short entry, I wasn't
try to hide it, I was just trying to have it not be the first thing
someone would read when going to the entry.
RickK continued to say that I was deleting the header and moved it back
up to the top; I moved it back down; at that point Fuzheado moved it
back up and Haephestos made the symbolic guesture of protecting the page
and telling us to stop editing it. I unprotected the page, moved it to
the bottom once more, Angela moved it back up and reprotected the page,
and asked me to stop unprotecting the page. I've been unprotecting the
page every time I see it protected, but I've stopped moving the VfD
header to the bottom. Not that there's anything that says that the VfD
header has to be up top. I'm not going to compete with several people.
One thing that bothers me about the VfD header is that it's biased:
"This article has been listed on Votes for Deletion. Please see that
page for justifications and discussion." Okay, I changed it to a less
suggestive form, one which encourages participation.
---tc