User talk:72.75.89.38: Difference between revisions
The Parsnip! (talk | contribs) |
→E-mail: reply to Nobody of Consequence |
||
| Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
== E-mail == |
== E-mail == |
||
FYI, I DID get your e-mail from a while back, just haven't had a chance to respond yet. Cheers. [[User:The Parsnip!|Nobody of Consequence]] ([[User talk:The Parsnip!|talk]]) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
FYI, I DID get your e-mail from a while back, just haven't had a chance to respond yet. Cheers. [[User:The Parsnip!|Nobody of Consequence]] ([[User talk:The Parsnip!|talk]]) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Heh! I'd completely forgotten about {{la|Scott Sonnon}} and {{la|List of Mensans}} (dropped ''that'' one from my watchlist weeks ago!) ... that's one nice thing about "losing" my talk page after each IP change; it gives me a chance to forget things and just MOVE ON. :-) —[[Special:Contributions/72.75.89.38|72.75.89.38]] ([[User talk:72.75.89.38|talk]]) 16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:07, 7 December 2007
My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ...
I will simply let my edits speak for themselves ... besides, registering with a username, such as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs), will not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering Wikipediholic" some slack, and MOVE ON.
And, yes, until the recent service interruption, my Verizon DSL IP address (and thus my username) was 141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs).
Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Watchlists and Sandboxes
| Sandboxes |
|---|
SandboxesSee User talk:68.239.79.82/sandbox for full list Essays regarding my draft protocols for deletions
Background information essays
Miscellaneous work in progress essays
Legacy essays
|
Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions
| Request & replies |
|---|
|
I have revised my proposed and speedy deletion warning protocols, and I am requesting comments from the following administrators, with whom I have had contact in the past on the topic of moderating the proposed deletion and speedy deletion processes: Introduction: I believe that sometimes the deletion of newly created articles can occur Too Quickly, often with negative consequences. The current process is to tag an article for deletion, and then to notify the author with a very impersonal Proposed solution: I believe that New pages patrol, Recent changes patrol, and Counter-Vandalism Unit activities should adopt the following simple protocol:
To make the first two steps easier for editors, I have created two boilerplate message templates, Field testing: To test their use, I have identified two articles that have been around for a while, but would probably not survive an AfD, or would be deleted upon the expiration of a PROD:
The first article (that I discovered while doing cleanups after a vandal) is about a website that is not notable enough for an article of its own; at best it only deserves a brief mention in the existing article for its parent organization. The second article (that came to my notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) is about a pornographic actor. It asserts their Notability, but fails to provide any Verifiability for the assertions; I have not objections to it being retained if they are provided. (The bulk of the previous edits to it, including those by the subject, were additions to a Very Long list of their film appearances that I deleted and replaced with links to IMDb and IAFD.) Because of the infrequency of contributions by the articles' authors, I plan to follow the protocols using a PROD rather than a CSD. I'm requesting that you (a) add the two articles to your watchlists to monitor what happens, and (b) comment on the templates either on their Discussion pages or in this section of my Talk page. Epilogue: Needless to say, I have undergone an "attitude adjustment" and am much less of a deletionist than I was six weeks ago (notice the placement of "proposed" before "speedy" whenever deletions are mentioned), mostly as the result of two events; the first one was when my account was briefly blocked from editing as a result of my new pages patrol activities, and the second was an epiphany about the lack of any Attribution in newly created articles that is best summed up by this quote:
I realize that what I am proposing is nothing less than a paradigm shift, and (like any change in direction) it will face resistance, but I also think that upon due deliberation, most will agree that it is a Good Thing ... I suppose that the "proper" way to present these modifications of the proposed and speedy deletion processes to the community would be as an Essay (that might evolve into a Guideline accepted by consensus), but there is still much work to be done and experience to be gained before it is ready for general discussion ... OTOH, if there is some reason of which I am unaware that makes this entire enterprise a colossal waste of time, I wish that someone would let me know before I expend any more energy in this direction. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) general commentsBefore we get to details I want to comment both on the current situation, & strategy. My views are altered a little by, first, my experience of my first month as an admin, second, the decision of a number of excellent active edits to stand for adminship, and the bursts of activity that results, third, the evidence that there is not really total agreement among WPedians amount the stringency of the N & V standards, both in general and in all sorts of special cases.
But this discussion and the more general one should take place in WP space, not user space. DGG 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
next roundWhere to go: What I think you are saying is that we need another classification scheme--and my current model is 3 groups.
eliminate prod--the only good use is abandoned and dubious though people do use it in the hope it will go under the radar. -- there is no good reason to use a prod on something that someone is likely to care about. Most go to the new class 2, some to class 3. (half of the present use is abandoned user pages, which can really have a separate speedy procedure since they should not be controversial)
finally, an easy appeal mechanism. But there is one big type of stuff that does not fit.
and three disputable points that not everyone will agree
And two overall problems
and an overall problem
How to get there. 1. I strongly advise against an explicit overall policy change as step One. It will probably get rejected and set things back half a year. The way to try to change consensus is inch by inch. 2. I continue to recommend small changes that would fit into the present system so that people get used to things. 3. Continuing to refine notices is even easier. Detail: PeerTrainer will survive AfD, because of the NYT article and the People article, and CBS. It's been improved and is shown to be notable. not a good test case. Definitely needs a number of cuts, to make it less of a how-to-do-it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
AlternativesOK, I've gone back and re-read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes (something I didn't even know about two months ago :-), and had some time to digest your comments above, so let me see if I can restate both your points and mine to make sure we're on the same page:
I feel very strongly that one of the things provided by my protocols/warnings is a higher level of documentation (paper trail) for use during the deletion review process, either by a sole admin or by consensus discussion ... some cases are "obvious," but it's the not-so-obvious ones that I'm concerned about. I'm still Too Distracted to respond more right at the moment, but I wanted to get these thoughts posted ASAP. —72.75.70.147 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Australian Actors and TV Characters
I'm tracking these NN fictional characters from Home and Away that were created by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs):
- Tamsyn Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dr. Lewis Rigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Martin Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm also trying the new Warn-fiction protocol ... Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've prodded a set of Home and Away characters myself; a clear precedent has been set here by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination), so I'm hoping this lot will go through. I suspect they won't though... Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I DID get your e-mail from a while back, just haven't had a chance to respond yet. Cheers. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! I'd completely forgotten about Scott Sonnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (dropped that one from my watchlist weeks ago!) ... that's one nice thing about "losing" my talk page after each IP change; it gives me a chance to forget things and just MOVE ON. :-) —72.75.89.38 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)