User:Rfwoolf: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:22, 20 January 2007 editRfwoolf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,922 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:56, 20 January 2007 edit undoJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits WP:SOAP Next edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:

	----		----

	== Grave warning on current Wiki Policy ==


	I am concerned about the deletion review process on Misplaced Pages.
	I mean, it's great that there is one, but can anyone out there appreciate that quite a few articles are being deleted when they could very easily be ''amended''?
	Consider the article on '''Anal Stretching''' for example. It was a fairly well collaborated article, but someone put it up for deletion review because it contained a small paragraph that ''almost'' read like a ''how-to'' guide.
	Now, ''reading like a how-to guide'' '''is''' grounds for deletion on Misplaced Pages, but, it shouldn't be when a) only a small paragraph of an article is a how-to guide, and b) if it is fairly easy to fix.
	And you know? Misplaced Pages seems to agree with me. In fact, (I didn't know this at first), there are templates you can add to an article that say "This article needs to be corrected in line with its Deletion Review" or "This article read too much like a how-to guide and needs to be fixed" or "This article has bad referencing which needs to be corrected". Isn't that '''fantastic'''!
	But in the article on ''Anal Stretching'', not one, not even a single user or admin ''bothered'' to put up a single one of those tags. And as a few days past and the Deletion Review committee saw that the article '''still''' looked like a ''how-to'' guide and '''still''' had bad referencing, they decided to delete it. Just like that.

	I was rather shocked at first. I never thought the article would be '''deleted''' instead of '''fixed''' (read: amended).
	But it seems a few admins on wikipedia prefer to '''delete''' articles instead of '''fixing''' them, which is a pitty really, seems like they score brownie points for deleting seemingly problematic articles.
	So when I discovered it has been just deleted, I thought, "Stuff it, I'll fix all those problems -- if I can -- I'll fix that paragraph that read like a ''how-to guide'' and I'll fix up the referencing.
	So I tried. And half way through the post, another admin deleted the article on speedy-deletion, citing G4 (gibberish to most people) -- G4 is the rule that an article can be speedy-deleted if it's remarkably similar to an already-deleted version.
	So I of course just recreated it again, just 5 minutes after it had been '''re'''deleted, and I tried to -- once again -- fix the article. I fixed the ''how-to guide'' (I think) and added a wiki template saying "This article has bad referencing which needs to be fixed" etc.

	But guess what!?
	It was deleted, citing G4. '''but then...'''
	the article was simply '''locked from recreation''', unilaterally, by the user Guy, meaning that neither I, nor anyone, can recreate the article!

	---

	So here we have a topic that I think should be included in Misplaced Pages, that has been entirely removed and blocked, which can't be fixed.

	So I say, well done admins! How smart of you!

	Of course the admins will say that the article was deleted by consensus, but that doesn't mean you should block it from being fixed, and not one of them will explain why it isn't a good idea to fix it instead of deleting it.

	So spare some thought before you try improve things at Misplaced Pages. There' s a chance you'll just be met with bureaucracy and tunnel-vission, with amendment-lazy admins and trigger-happy deletionists (to quote Dfrg.msc). And this, on the best invention since 2000.

	I love wikipedia, but I've just been very disappointed at this bureaucracy and philosophy to delete instead of amend. Wake up people! Wake up!

	] 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Additional boxes & Awards ==

	{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}

	{{User South Africa}}

	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|#fdffe7}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| This user has awarded himself with a '''giant star''' for his undeniable efforts in wading through the odorous mass of bureaucracy that exists on Misplaced Pages. ] 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	\|}

Revision as of 21:56, 20 January 2007

edit count | edit summary usage

Rfwoolf

Wikipedian since 2005-11-26

This user is NOT the founder of Misplaced Pages but wishes he was.

This user is not a Misplaced Pages administrator but probably should be.

This user is unhappy about the Anal stretching article being protected from recreation by the admin 'Guy'.

AfD- minus 1

This user has had minus 1 pages put up for deletion. Most of the time, they were deleted.

12 trillion+

This user has made more than 12 trillion contributions to Misplaced Pages.

Flexible

This user deals with edits, deletion, and creation of pages individually instead of unilaterally and encourages others to do so.

This user feels that deletions subject to a popularity contest rather than a verifiability test damage Misplaced Pages more than any userbox ever could.

Hi

I am Rfwoolf

This, is my userpage. I have a userpage, mostly because everybody else does. That does not necessarily necessitate the need for decent content on my userpage. Just that I have one.

And now I do. (have one).

And so should you.

Finne.

Categories: