User talk:Vmv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] School talk

Hi there!

Regarding the ongoing debate on whether or not high schools are notable, I noticed the link you placed to the 'policy discussion' page. I've read through it, but the main problem seems to be that said discussion is over a year old, and that no clear consensus was established. Indeed it would still be impossible to establish a consensus. This assumedly means that articles on schools will be arbitrarily deleted or kept, depending solely on the amount of people that happen to be voting that particular week.

What bothers me is that most people who vote for keeping them, either do so with the argument that everything verifiable should be kept, or start insulting the people who vote for deleting. I realize this is an inherent problem of a wiki, but it seems that consensus has been reached on several other matters in the past, so why not here? Do you have a suggestion on how to accomplish this? It's hard to tell which party is actually the majority - not to mention which party is actually 'right' (if there even is such a thing).

Radiant! 16:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

--

Hi, Radiant!

I agree with you in every point. I've also read through the 'policy discussion' page and didn't quite get a hold of what was the consensus on the matter. I placed the link precisely as a way to indicate that my position could not be upheld by an established Wiki policy. And, yes, this means that (IMHO non-notable) schools will be ruled out or kept depending on the number of partisans pro or against inclusion voting in a particular week, which is absolutely regrettable.

I suppose the proper way to try to reach a consensus would be through the referred 'policy discussion' page. If it really is over a year old and people are still voting with no support of a generally accepted policy, maybe discussions should be restarted there. The page does seem clustered at the moment, though. I'm still relatively new as a contributor, is there a polite way to reformat it so that new constributions can be more easily made?

The sooner we address this problem, the better. Suppose we later reach the consensus that schools should only be allowed when they are "really notable" (whatever that means is also a matter of discussion). Then we'll have to review many "kept" decisions taken in a week where most voters were pros. Suppose the opposite, and the "Votes for Undeletion" page will clustered with requests for pages "deleted" when the majority of voters were against inclusion.

vlad_mv 18:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Hi there,

Glad to hear that. Personally I believe that any statement along the lines of 'all X are notable' is untenable. I've started two policy discussions on today's VfD page, if that idea catches on then high schools would be a suitable third (so please post your comments in both).

Some other thought occured to me... it may be possible to provide an outlet for high schools in one of the other Wikis, in particular WikiTravel. But on Metawiki, there is talk of Wikiteer, which is to include extensive geographical and sociological information, but doesn't exist yet.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this. I've asked the same question of a couple of other users, so please respond on User talk:Radiant!/Schools. Thank you. Radiant! 14:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saleel

I'd like to know why you voted to delete, rather than improve, Saleel. Can you tell me why exactly you don't think the Saleel network, which numbers in the thousands of members deserves even a mention? or is it that you dislike the layout, in which case I'd ask what do you believe could be done to improve it ? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I sincerely appreciate the improvements you made on the page, but I still believe this web forum is not notable enough to deserve an individual article. Regardless of the content, IMHO web forums must be really notable to have individual pages in Wikipedia. Of course, I wouldn't object to Saleel being mentioned in a more general Islam-related article about the Muslim community in England. vlad_mv 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokécruft

From checking on the VfD, I see at least two Pokécruft on there (I voted Delete on both). It looks like things are just getting started. Zscout370 21:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, I also voted delete on both. From what I've seen so far in VfD, you'll have the opportunity of expressing your oppinion on this matter very soon: Pokécruft comes in every other day. VladMV ٭ talk 00:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Speak and Jonathan speak double trouble

I agree both should be VfD as non-notable and possible vanity. I don't know how to make a double nomination. I don't know the proper format or mechanics of that. Please be bold and make one for me, if you like, and I'll support. Thank you. Jonathunder 15:41, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

I'm fairly new here... I just wanted to ask, how did you make your signature like that? With the colors, and the talk link attached? And what do you input to do it? Thanks Foodmarket 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] WP:PNA

The procedure you describe appears to be what would be needed to reproduce the precedent of the other sections, though the convention itself seems rather convoluted to me. -- Beland 02:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freudian Psychology

I agree with the attention marker you put on the Mortido article. Frankly, I think that the whole Fruedian Psychology section in general needs a serious re-structuring, since the articles tend to contradict eachother on things such as names for the various drives, whether "Libido" is a "drive" or an "energy". I think a page outlining the various drives and complexes, and defining "drive" and "complex" would be great, but I'm new to Wikipedia (contribution-wise) and not sure how this would exactly work. I don't think it would fit well on the psychoanalysis page, or the Sigmund Freud page.

Cheers! Vertigociel 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/m/v/User_talk%7EVmv_5a55.html"