On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Running a mass deletion does have the unfortunate effect
that there's no time for anyone to scramble for sources, which folks
will do at least
At 11:06 AM 1/28/2010, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers
phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Running a mass deletion does have the unfortunate effect
that there's no time for anyone to
I would be uncomfortable with about blanking articles, if it couldnt
do better in telling whether or not something is referenced than the
last week or so of deletion nomination has done.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Abd
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be uncomfortable with about blanking articles, if it couldnt
do better in telling whether or not something is referenced than the
last week or so of deletion nomination has done.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Sarah Ewart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell
As of 28
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sarah Ewart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't
Gwern Branwen wrote:
It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high
standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could
be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be
criticized for including?'
If you want to defend, you have... what?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And no-one has yet created a redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell
PS. I forgot. Bob Corell gets a lot of hits as well, and should be a
redirect also.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
But this
feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a
minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of
others ones being worked on at the same time, and then the people
doing this rough-and-ready referencing moving on to other
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
But this
feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a
minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of
others ones being worked on at the
Carcharoth wrote:
The interesting thing is noting at what point someone reaches some
critical mass of *real* notability (i.e. not Wikipedia's definition of
it) and they start to gain widespread recognition from their peers,
and then start receiving awards and whatnot, and also how competent
JustFixIt.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And no-one has yet created a redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell
PS. I forgot. Bob Corell gets a
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page?
I mean, what's the point?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Carcharoth
Oh, I will, just not right now. Wrong computer.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:09 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy
The Cunctator wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page?
I mean, what's the point?
Um, maybe email is OK in the
I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush.
The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to
look for good additional material.
Some of the above discussions imply much too high a standard, both for
what should be in Wikipedia and for what the quality
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush.
The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to
look for good additional material.
Thanks.
Some of the above discussions imply
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
I would say the MilHist B-class criteria would be a good minimum
standard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/B-Class
* B1. It is suitably referenced, and all
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
I would say the MilHist B-class criteria would be a good minimum
standard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/B-Class
* B1. It is
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Those B-class criteria would need modifying for BLPs.
a case of a BDP
Ah! Biography of a Dead Person? :-)
but I actually created two articles about the same person once, who had been a
professor
Carcharoth wrote:
Fascinating. Didn't they have the same name and birth and death year?
You aren't going to make us guess which person this was, are you? I'm
guessing 16th century and Huguenot.
Not far off. [[Ralph Baines]] and [[Rudolphus Baynus]].
Charles
2010/1/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
* B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate
inline citations.
* B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious
omissions or inaccuracies.
* B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Adam Koenigsberg wrote:
I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that is to
say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of
process. Being Bold doesn't extend to administrator tools, IMHO. This
reminds me of the Userbox mass
Can anybody explain what PWD is?
Thanks,
Emily
On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Can anybody explain what PWD is?
Pure Wiki Deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Emily Monroe wrote:
Can anybody explain what PWD is?
Surely. But in another thread, I hope.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I appreciate being listed as an honorable exception, but I'm not an
except. I see a lot of other people doing just the same as as I--about
3/4 of the articles I see on prod and put aside to be worked on later
in the day, are in fact sourced by the timer I get there. sometimes,
rather
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Adam Koenigsberg wrote:
I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that is to
say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of
process. Being Bold doesn't
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up
with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found
for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing
random
Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted
people as a speaker.
*Robert Corell* is the Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment and is a Senior
Policy Fellow at the Policy Program of the American
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
-george
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted
people as a speaker.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell
___
As I understand it, a bunch of adminstrators deleted a bunch of
articles that they felt violated BLP aganist community consensus.
If the community was in consensus, there would be a specific deletion
criteria at Speedy Deletions.
I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that
2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website
or IMDB etc
What's the rationale behind this?
And why only BLPs?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
At 06:05 PM 1/23/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use Pure Wiki Deletion. I don't
think
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Peter Coombe
thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website or
IMDB etc
What's the rationale behind this?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
The new arbitration case is an utterly predictable outgrowth of the
BLP mass deletions and their endorsement by the arbitration committee.
The committee didn't see it coming, apparently, which means the
candidate field in the last election was far worse than we thought.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
The new arbitration case is an utterly predictable outgrowth of the
BLP mass deletions and their endorsement by the arbitration committee.
snip
What price reduction of arbitrators' terms, so that a January ArbCom
might have even less collective memory and experience?
He was not in this group, having been dealt with years ago.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/22 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Chicken Little is a fairly good
Sorry -- what I was replying to did not get included; I was relying to
a suggest by David Gerard that [[John Seigenthaler]] would have been a
counter- example.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, David Goodman
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use Pure Wiki Deletion. I don't
think they came up with any at all.
Are there
David Gerard wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use Pure Wiki Deletion. I don't
think they came up
Some people won't be satisfied until Wikipedia has no BLPs.
2010/1/21 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain
the
article to demonstrate
2010/1/22 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
Some people won't be satisfied until Wikipedia has no BLPs.
No true Strawman will be satisfied until authority reassures him
Wikipedia has no BLPs.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. You can correct subtle
mistakes, misunderstandings, and sometimes errors of fact in the
process of sourcing (I sourced a bio the other day where the husband
of the person
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. snip
-- phoebe
I don't think Gwern was saying that sourcing is irrelevant, only
thatunreferenced BLP is a blunt measurement that doesn't return
At 07:34 PM 1/21/2010, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion. Pure Wiki Deletion.
- causa sui
Pure Wiki Deletion.
Well, I'd add a note to the article. PWD deals with the problem
without destroying the work that was done on the article, it is there
for anyone to recover. The
Roger Davies has posted an excellent comment on the civil disobedience
aspect of these events here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Casediff=prevoldid=339367826
I've seen much talk today of doing the right things the right way and doing
the right things
At the same time,
*Always leave something undone.
**Give the author a chance.*
*Build the web.*
*Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.*
and
*If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing,
rather than deletion.*
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Cool Hand
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
period for unsourced BLPs, but any tagged biography that does not become
sourced must be scrapped.
pendantry
biography != BLP
BLP = biography of living person
Those people who have been safely dead for a
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
At the same time,
*Always leave something undone.
**Give the author a chance.*
*Build the web.*
*Do not disrupt Wikipedia to
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Those people who have been safely dead for a while, it tends to be
easier to establish notability and find sources (they are also less
litigious).
There's an idea. Some people assert that Elvis is still alive. Why
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
me. eh?
You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults
are talking now - I are serious editors, this are serious website.
Funny how BLPs have been the most serious threat facing the project,
so serious that
On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone.
I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email.
Tone is one thing, but I'm more concerned about the complete lack of
process here.
Am I correct in thinking that a
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone.
I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email.
Tone is one thing, but I'm more
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being there. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that out
of the 500, 1 or 2 of them
Jimbo has never been an active editor.
The BLPs aren't being deleted for being shoddy, they're being deleted for
not having references.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
2010/1/22 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being there.
[[John Seigenthaler]]
2010/1/22 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
If this does not meet the standard for disrupting Wikipedia to make
a point, I do not know what would.
Evidently. WP:POINT is about doing something you *don't* want to have
happen to make a point, not about doing things spectacularly in
general.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being
2010/1/22 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
You probably won't be getting that evidence, since the way the policy
is in place, the burden of proof isn't on the person removing the
content-- it's on the person adding it. That's not just how BLP works,
but the verifiability policy as well,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
a) 'challenging' and removing any references
b) instantly deleting the article for being unreferenced
In theory, an administrator could do
2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an
even bigger wheel-war?
Yes, the Arbcom has done something about it. Specifically, it has
patted them on
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the references in.
OR THE ARTICLE DIES.
Added to the newly-opened RFC page:
Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these
problems.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone
2010/1/21 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these
problems.
* Only if we can delete Citizendium too. -
* And Britannica. -
* Can we delete Fox News? -
** You cannot kill that which does not live. -
* The devs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator wrote:
Just restored a former prime minister.
Hi!
I just want to ask a question about this, and since I don't know the
article of which you speak, I can't judge its specific merits. This is
my personal opinion, and does not reflect
2010/1/21 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As I understand it, a bunch of adminstrators deleted a bunch of
articles that they felt violated BLP aganist community consensus.
Community consensus isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal
We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an article has been recreated, it's usually
Ah, crap. I may need some advice soon.
I created an article some years back on a living person. Not that long
after he contacted me and asked if he could use the article as his
official IMDB biog. I asked the community (since I was worried about
licensing issues - IMDB controls content placed on
Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action
by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite
direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care. In this
case, care in deleting, to make sure that the material is not
sourceable. The mass
2010/1/21 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
Now, presumably if I use the IMDB biog as a reference I bet I will be
done for copyvio, even though our article came *first*.
So... what to do? Deletion looms.
Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text
on IMDB as well.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text
on IMDB as well. There is nothing wrong with this.
As a reference, it's now basically a first-party reference - it's a
bio approved by the subject. Not
It would be rather good if a list of the deletions arising out of this
cull were listed somewhere so we can see the extent and details of the
damage/change/improvement.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
2010/1/21 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Community consensus isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact,
Misuse of our BLP policy or any other is not a valid reasons for
admins to make a power grab.
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to
Okay, I'm slightly inconvenienced, or relieved, due to being
currently blocked, so I'll make this suggestion here. Pass it on if
you dare be accused of proxying for a blocked editor. Caveat emptor.
See WP:PWD. This is a general solution for unreferenced articles, not
just BLP, but it would be
David Goodman wrote:
Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action
by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite
direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care.
As far as I know, the principle remains that admins are personally
2010/1/21 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.
Your argument that anyone on wikipedia enjoys something akin to
parliamentary privilege should be interesting.
Your
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.
Your argument that anyone on wikipedia enjoys something akin to
parliamentary
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six months. Which sounds innocuous enough, but remember
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an
admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the
articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out
to be notable and sourceable. But it is reckless to delete without
checking first unless
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an
admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the
articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out
to be notable
Ryan Delaney wrote:
snip
But this is an argument that inclusionists always make to anyone who
tries to delete an article that is missing something crucial -- they
put the burden on other people, rather than themselves.
snip
Yes, there's something to this line of argument. Why are PRODs not
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator wrote:
Just restored a former prime minister.
Hi!
I just want to ask a question about this, and since I don't know the
article of which you speak, I can't
Gwern Branwen wrote:
I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here,
Oh, and mindless fetishsim about content, too. Let's remember that
there is a definite mission, which is to write a reference work. It is
not a new idea that encyclopedic works should cite their sources.
but suppose
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:03 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
silent mass deletions are now an acceptable admin tactic.
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
And what benefit was there *really*? I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here, but suppose Cunctator resurrected an article and
stuck in a random newspaper article for the claim 'Foo was married in
1967.'
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up
with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found
for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing
random BLPs --
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the
article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every
It is not that 80% of the problem was the totally unsourced articles,
and we are objecting because the entire problem was not dealt with.
More likely, it's that only 10 or 20% of the problem was dealt with,
or less. Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to BLPs, are
full of unsourced or
Apparently there is some kind of coup on English Wikipedia where a large
group of administrators have decided that since the community disagrees with
them, they will use their admin powers to override consensus and policy. At
least that is what they seem to claim it is.
The community is incapable
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
