[WikiEN-l] Votes for deletion and due process

Thu Aug 21 03:20:54 UTC 2003

Toby wrote:
>Indeed he would, which is why it strikes me as 
>especially odd in this case that mav was seeming to 
>impose such a dramatic change like this.

It was on the policy page; I didn't put it there. But
when I read it I thought it was a good idea,
especially since I just dealt with the "full moon
cycle" fiasco where a perfectly valid article was
almost deleted and there wasn't a notice placed on the
page to indicate that the page was marked for
deletion. If there had been then somebody who cared
about the article may have defended it before the 7
days were up. 

Also, the original statement was on the VfD page. In
that context "please" really means "please", but when
the same statement was moved to the policy page (NOT
BY ME!!!!), it has a bit more weight behind it. You
will note that I ''did not'' change the policy page;
just over-interpreted its meaning and repeated that
over-interpretation on several user talk pages and
yes, at the top of the VfD page. 

I'm sorry I misinterpreted this - now will everybody
please stop talking ill of me? For god's sake I only
had the best of intentions and was trying to prevent
valid articles from getting deleted. What the heck is
wrong with trying to make sure the author and any
reader of an article are informed that a page is
listed for deletion? 

How hard is it to write above the article's text:
"This page is listed on [[Votes for deletion]]"? 

Heck, I do that just to get to the VfD page; its
easier than even creating a redirect.

Are people a) too lazy or b) don't want to invite
people who might actually care about the article to
the debate? 

If not policy, then it certainly is a decent thing to
do (especially considering the huge size of our VfD
page; things are getting lost in the buzz). 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com