User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2004 12 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

							[edit]
user	talk	watchlist	watched	sandbox	user links	deletion	more links

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

Contents 1 Re: VfD La La 2 'B' Ark 3 Copyvio 4 I agree 5 Hoaxes 6 Clitoris 7 Delta Chi 8 Relisting policy 9 ExplorerCDT 10 Cookbook template

[edit] Re: VfD La La

Sure, no worries. :-) Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 'B' Ark

I like the option name! ;-)

As far as I know, this is the first time that such a suggestion has come up, although I might be wrong - while I do take part in VfD and other such "community activities" it is only sporadic as I'm always much happier writing articles instead of engaging in (sometimes endless) debates. Such a "rule" will also have some enforcement problems (when does the "countdown" of the cooling-off period begin, for example?), but in my not-so-humble opinion something has to be done before Wikipedia is totally overrun by "fancruft" (and things like high school entries).

As far as I know there has also been an idea floating around (but I don't know how seriously it is being considered - apparently there is some discussion on the Meta-Wiki) of starting a KidiWiki (although the name should probably be changed to something else so that the more adult fans of popular culture are also attracted to the site). The stuff you mention should fit perfectly in there.

Elf-friend 12:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Have removed the old article and moved the /temp one into place. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

You're right actually. A lot of the "keep" commentary was quite mean-spirited. I found the debate surprising because it was clearly a lost cause, but opposition was very strong throughout. If it wasn't for the hostile commentary from both sides, I think the result would have actually been closer and with less animosity. Better targets could have been chosen for those (who like myself, actually) are wary of pop culture article breakouts. If I'd voted, it would have been "merge". Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes

I agree with you. Please, feel free to put in a policy ammendment. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clitoris

Hmmm. Well, I don't think that clitoris arouses people. I mean they do, but they don't. gah! What I'm trying to say is that the edits aren't vandalism. They are content disputes. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Chi

Great job on those stubs. I'm sure they'll be moved into the main namespace as soon as possible, but as I'm not an admin, I don't really have any influence on when that happens. All I do is report them, then they're someone else's problem. *winks* But given it's been a week, it shouldn't be too long before the originals are deleted and your revisions can be moved. Have a good one. - Vague | Rant 12:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting policy

There's no formal policy that I know of (although it's been talked about a few times in the talk page of vfd, check the archives). It seems if you relist sooner than about 3 months you have next to no chance of getting the page deleted, simply because people object to the spamming. I think the informal community reaction against it discourages it strongly enough that nobody has ever really bothered to formalise a policy. Shane King 04:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you should ever relist. Why should it be permitted? The bias of the deletion policy is to keep articles and if they have passed the process (which is overwhelmingly indulged in by deletionists), then they are in on their merits. Relisting is, I think, never a renewed attempt to find consensus but rather the action of a frustrated party who just cannot accept that they did not get their own way.

The only exception I can think is even possible is the case of the article that narrowly failed to be deleted, over which even those who voted to keep expressed doubts and asked for it to be cleaned up. (I suppose in that type of case, the admin who cleared up the page might put "Relist in three months" or something similar, I don't know.) Even then, I'm not sure that the bias to include should not win. Dr Zen 05:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ExplorerCDT

Consider it signed. I appreciate your support in this matter. Thanks. --L33tminion | (talk) 18:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook template

Hi, saw your idea on the Cookbook template talk page. Its a good idea: go for it. I'd call it {{cookbookreq}} or something similar. David Johnson 14:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)