User talk:Jerzy/Deletion of Knee (disambiguation)


 * The following section was initially included by Jerzy, but left behind here when, in responding to JFW's request without abandoning the previous discussion, Jerzy moved the next group of sections (at that time the rest of this page) to User talk:Jfdwolff. --Jerzy•t 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

front matter

 *  (This approach to Wiki-talk (using two templates) is an experiment; i've so far imposed upon a number of colleagues with it, who have responded thru it (even without this 'graph) well enough that i can describe it as "working" (though an otherwise angry one nevertheless described it as "ridiculous"). My hope is that it will slow the growth of my talk page, make my archiving simpler and more timely, and thus make leaving talk for me less burdensome (especially for slow-pipe colleagues) than it has been for too many months. I cordially invite discussion of it (or one-shot comments, from those who prefer).)
 * If you add to this discussion, most other participant(s) won't be nearly as quickly aware of that as they would, if you had also edited their respective talk page(s). (A link to the corresponding section of each is at their corresponding "*" below, and your updating the edit count and editing-time-stamp range there also gives that participant further information. But no one other than i has done so yet.) For my own notification, i've started a list that i can check via "Related changes" more often than i am willing to check my Watchlist or "My contributions", tho of course that is still less often than "You have new messages."

This Subsection is No Longer Being Updated

 * Per request of this page's user, the full discussion now appears on this page; the UT: subpage is no longer being updated for now. --Jerzy•t 19:05, 1 (& 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) to lk the refs to pages).

A discussion whose topic is
 * Deletion of Knee (disambiguation)

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Deletion of Knee (disambiguation); the following points describe the discussion:
 * 3 msgs, 18:58, 31 August thru 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Jy
 * 19:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC) JFW
 * 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Jy
 * 2 participants: (Jy) Jerzy·t·c·*; (JW) Jfdwolff·t·c·*.
 * general topic(s): Improper deletion
 * relevant reference(s): Criteria for speedy deletion

Initiation of Discussion
_ _ I've not been aware of your work at WP until i saw you wisely remove the recent dictdefs from Knee, and wisely object to the content of Knee (disambiguation) when the dictdefs were later removed from there. I feel sure your deletion of the Dab was well intentioned, and IMO it shows diligent initiative. _ _ Nevertheless, i assert that that deletion on August 29 was an act that WP policy intends to avoid by clearcut proscriptions. I urge you to state below, after such consideration as you find appropriate, _ _ I feel confident that you have valuable future ahead of you here. --Jerzy•t 18:58, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * whether you've come to agree with my assertion, and
 * what you want your colleagues to weigh, in our opinions of the deletion and of you as a colleague.


 * Good heavens, Jerzy, this is all rather formal. I deleted the page because it contained no information, which is a criterium for speedy deletion. I find your approach a bit threatening, actually. JFW | T@lk  19:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Substance
_ _ You say "it contained no information, which is a" WP:CSD. _ _ WP:CSD says at pt. 1:
 * No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). See patent nonsense.

and that WP:PN page makes clear that this provision contemplates no speedies for lack of "information" on this page -- even in the final version and even ignoring the comment-marked-up content within it. _ _ WP:CSD says at pt. 1:
 * Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion....

If this is the point you were referring to, you may be one of those the bolding was intended for, since there can be no doubt of the context in this case, and every reason to believe sensible expansion was feasible. _ _ If i've missed some other conceivably relevant criterion, please point it out more explicitly. --Jerzy•t 00:10, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Process
_ _ The "formality of the front-matter is just a means of hopefully improving the overhead-vs.-confusion trade-off of any extended Wiki discussion. _ _ I suppose i resort to formality in the content --Jerzy•t 00:10, 2005 September 1 (UTC) Since process is coming up, i'd appreciate your lessening the ambiguity, e.g. that imposed by
 * in general bcz it moderates some of my awkwardness, and
 * in the hope of clarity, where the situation is both ambiguous and touchy (That is the case here: IMO bypassing VFD, which i believe you have done, is very touchy, even where good intent is clear.)
 * contained no information, which is a criterium for speedy deletion

where i really don't know if you are evoking "G.1",
 * No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). See patent nonsense.

or "A.1",
 * Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion....

--Jerzy•t 00:10, 2005 September 1 (UTC) I'd fear being felt rude; otherwise i'd tacitly leave it to you to either let drop or say more about your sense of threat. Is there an implicit request in there? Is the perception in your last sentence about the formality mentioned in the first? Do you think it is interfering with the purpose of this discussion? --Jerzy•t 00:10, 2005 September 1 (UTC)


 * I think creating a specific subpage for scrutiny of my admin actions is a bit over the top. Frankly, you still haven't explained whether you think the page should have been kept, and if so what its merits were. I'm open to discussion, but I wish you'd avoid the formalised tone and the formatting. As I said, the knee (disambiguation) page contained only one link, namely to knee. The dicdefs were actually commented out. To me, that is a page with no information, which I delete without discussion (because to do this with due process would be a massive waste of time). Please tell me what you think, without all the paperwork. JFW | T@lk  06:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This marks the end of the edits made at this sub-page before [moving the discussion] to User talk:Jfdwolff. The immediately following down to Jerzy's next sig was saved on WP for the first time in the same edit. --Jerzy•t 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple Request
Let me be even more straightforward than to bore you with what i think, and tell you what, at this point, i want from you: It should be easier for you, and it will be less confusing for me, if you respond immediately below rather than at User talk:Jerzy; i'll monitor changes to your talk page until further notice. --Jerzy•t 19:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Simplest possible reasonable request:
 * Stop doing speedy deletions, immediately.
 * Use WP:RfA to state that your suitability as an admin is in question and that you are requesting de-admin, unless a fresh nomination of you is approved.
 * More complex and more reasonable version:
 * Stop doing speedy deletions without citing explicitly the section and numeric-list point on WP:CSD that you believe justifies the speedy.
 * State the equivalent basis for the speedy already discussed, and,
 * if you think one of the two grounds i mentioned justifies it, counter the contrary arguement i have already given, or
 * state the section and numeric-list point that you think justifies it.
 * Note this well: i have no interest in the questions you have put to me about the page in question, other than in terms of this question: what among the numbered explicit grounds stated on WP:CSD says you could do that? Bluntly, this is not about the page, but about your past behavior, and what can be expected of your future behavior.
 * Consider the possibility that the consequences of your response, or lack of response, to that question will be far more significant to you than those of the process issues you have so far devoted so much attention to. I am endeavoring to accommodate your process preferences to the extent that is compatible with the core matter being handled expeditiously. As to my formal tone and "formatting":
 * I have a fairly formal personality, and i am neither sure what change you are requesting nor optimistic about being able to change to suit you if and when i understand the request. I guess you dislike bullet points but like punctation within and between sentences.  The bullet points clarify the context of subsidiary points, and i can put down what i mean more precisely in fewer words by using them. You can ignore that information if you prefer (or even the paragraphing, which you haven't shown me whether you like or not).
 * This is a serious matter, to which formality and precision rather than casualness are arguably appropriate.
 * Please consider ignoring the tone and responding to the meaning of the words, which i assure you are carefully chosen.
 * If you doubt this is a serious matter, please consult someone more WP-experienced than yourself, whom you like better than me, for confirmation. If they disagree with me, or you doubt their agreement, consult someone more WP-experienced than i, whether you like them or not.


 * ''Jerzy•t 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) notes that JFW replaced, on User talk:Jfdwolff, everthing above that had been there except the initial hdg, with:

''I have removed a very long discussion from (rather than with). If he doesn't like my interpretation of speedy deletion guidelines, he can WP:RFC me. JFW | T@lk  21:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)''


 * Jerzy•t 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) notes that under a new heading 
 * == Deletion of "knee" ==
 * on User talk:Jerzy, JFW wrote:

Jerzy, I will not respond to your posting. If you are unhappy with my conduct as an admin, you are free to request comments, but your odd style of interrogation is not what I would call normal inter-Wikipedian conduct. It would have helped if you had expressed your disaffection in 1-2 clearly phrased sentences. JFW | T@lk  21:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Following those posts, Jerzy posted on WP:AN, making reference to this page. --Jerzy•t 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:AN is the forum. At any rate, the posting is not there. I suggested WP:RFC - is there anything wrong with that? JFW | T@lk  00:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)