Of course there's a process for speedy deletion--it's described where
you would expect, at WP:CSD. It explains how to nominate for it, how
to challenge it, and how to evaluate the proposals, and how to
challenge it. There are, to be sure, a number of people who use it
wrongly, but there is still
On 9/12/09, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion.
Not at all. An admin simply deletes an article. That's a speedy deletion.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/12/09, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion.
Not at all. An admin simply deletes an article. That's a speedy deletion.
You're both correct, said he soothingly. An admin deletes after going
through
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of unreferenced living person biographies
On 9/11/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
My understanding and usage in-world has always been that out-of-process
means not that we have
The original point was that if a deletion was out of process (which is not
the same thing as speedy), than that is a valid reason to restore it.
Out of process not meaning there is no process for this but rather meaning
we have a process, which you did not follow.? Two different things.
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot
In a message dated 9/11/2009 8:39:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Possibly you don't. But the speedy deletion has no process, the only
recourse is review.
My understanding and usage in-world has always been that out-of-process
means not that we have a policy that
- Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod. Have
we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
I think sometimes people forget that we
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod.
Have we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
I think sometimes
After a prod is declined, the reason being given for declining it may
convince the person placing the prod that there was no good reason for
deletion--what then would be the purpose of sending to AfD, if nobody
any longer wants the article deleted.
If I decline a prod because I think that it
On 9/11/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
My understanding and usage in-world has always been that out-of-process
means not that we have a policy that requires no process on this, but
rather that it means we have a process for this, which you did not follow
properly.
That would
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Indeed, PROD is good. The two main problems are:
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Only obvious out of process deletions. What counts of obvious? Hard to
say but it would be inadvisable
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:40 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Only obvious out of process deletions.
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of unreferenced living person
biographies
In theory every article that has been subject to AFD or Prod has a
template on the talk page, so an awb list comparison might help winnow
out some articles. From there, yes
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
because even though the prod would get removed from the article since
the article had been prodded before, the template would remain on the
talk page. The only extra hurdle would be getting admins to restore talk
oages when
On 9/10/09, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/10/09, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good
Jonathan Hughes wrote:
We already have {{oldprodfull}}, which many add when they remove a PROD tag
already. If AWB, Twinkle, and the like don't already, it might be worth
having them automagically add it to the talk page when PRODing articles,
just to make sure. Cheers.
Good idea.
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded hook to
check for the existence of a talkpage, and flag up a reminder to
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
That's right your honor. We beat the various innocent family members of
the criminal senseless in order to
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded hook
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV,
On 9/10/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
That's right your honor. We beat the various innocent
] Deletion of unreferenced living person biographies
On 9/10/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia
David Goodman wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
[[WP:BEFORE]] seems to need some work, at
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by hand) and
pushing you down a different route for
There is no way you
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
Anything PRODded
Apoc 2400 wrote:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
Is it really good to propose the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based
2009/9/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
ask the deleting administrator about those
Carcharoth wrote:
I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
ask the deleting administrator about those first?
I think an admin
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think an admin undeleting a speedy should always leave a note to the
deleting admin, explaining why. The usual reason would be that a mistake
of some kind (e.g. on copyright) has been made in applying CSD. If there
is an issue of a
David Gerard wrote:
So making a
drama-free clean up afterwards procedure was considered the least
worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from the dead. If the 10
ton weight drops on
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
So making a
drama-free clean up afterwards procedure was considered the least
worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian
Treating them as such would lead to over-defending them, i.e. drama.
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay,
Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV, CIVIL, or both. I run this great business is POV, not to
mention SPAM.
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay, take the PROD tag off
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I
Go more slowly, is all I can suggest ;-p
That's what I'm learning! I'm trying to at least use PROD more often,
if tagging for deletion at all.
Do take heart that anyone who's read large chunks of
Special:Newpages will fully concur on the absolute necessity of
knifing lots and lots of
i agree with you very much that Welcome, but ... messages as
currently used would be considered an insult or condescending by
almost anyone. Here's your speeding ticket. Have a nice day!
You might try using custom messages. I have variations on several that
I use, but i always to adapt them to
Sometimes the best way of spreading best practices like this is to
write a userspace essay. It can start small, but can help get thoughts
together. There are several userspace essays I should have written
that I never did, so I'm not really one to talk. But some of the most
insightful things I
- Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/09, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I took a quick look the other day at the categories of unsourced
articles, which go back to December 2006; to be honest, I don't currently
have the time or will myself to trawl
Andrew Turvey wrote:
However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be
PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find sources
themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE]]).
But PROD is good for this. If you want a systematic sweep, PRODs on
older
2009/9/8 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Working with some other editors, I started [1] to go through older unsourced
living people biographies (BLPs) and either add references or propose for
deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), the proposed deletion
process
2009/9/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Gut it of all unreferenced material, per WP:BLP. Leave it a day. PROD
it. See if it survives.
BLP doesn't actually let you do that. It only allows for removal of
unsourced contentious material. Mass proding will likely get you
blocked under the
2009/9/8 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/8 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially harmful unreferenced material per WP:BLP and leave it at
that.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially harmful unreferenced material per WP:BLP and leave it at
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be
PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find
sources themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE]]).
But
On 9/8/09, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Gut it of all unreferenced material, per WP:BLP. Leave it a day. PROD
it. See if it survives.
BLP doesn't actually let you do that. It only allows for removal of
unsourced contentious material. Mass proding
Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
Clearly whether we allow deletion on sight or require proposers to improve
articles first makes a big difference to whether this backlog will ever be
cleared.
A couple ideas:
1) Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
That way, the people who want to remove presently unsourced articles
would
David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
That way, the people who want
56 matches
Mail list logo
