User talk:WilyD/Archives/2006/December

Reply to question
Hello, and thanks for the comments! It would make for an interesting editor review indeed, with one arguing I'm too deletionist and another arguing I'm not deletionist enough! However, I can certainly respond here as well.

Being a deletionist does not by any means state that I do not believe in WP:NOT paper-we can certainly cover a wider range of subjects than Britannica, and well that we should. I also don't find all lists "odious", some are useful. On the other hand, some are useless cruft, or are set up to become so huge as to be useless. "Convicted or indicted religious leaders", however, is a clear criterion which can be populated without original research (someone was convicted/indicted or was not, that's a simple issue of fact), and the information could not be as well or better placed in an actual article. (It goes without saying that "notable" should be a silent appending to any such list-if the religious leader is not notable, (s)he shouldn't be mentioned on any such "list" either.) I also made these recommendations at the deletion debate, that the list maintainers should follow.

On the other hand, to see the type of list I do dislike, I'd send you here. It's effectively one long list of original research, and could never become anything else. I happily !voted to delete that one, and it appears that it will be. I also nominate tons of stuff for speedy on newpage patrol-unless you do that yourself, you wouldn't even believe the flood of crap that comes in some days. (Of course, even most inclusionists would agree on deleting spamvertisements or 5 pages worth of random pounding on the keyboard, but I've seen some argue even over bands that "will have a demo out within a couple months!"). I've also participated in WP:SCHOOLS3, an attempt to create and tighten up notability guidelines on schools to stop the "all schools are notable" nonsense.

In the end, I don't see deletion as an end in itself, but as a means to improve Wikipedia and its editors. In many cases, I've spoken with someone who started up a speedy eligible article, and it turned out that the article could be made into something decent. In many cases, in addition to improving the article, it improves the editor as well-many of them had no idea there were criteria as to what should be included and what should not! Of course, in many other cases the article was spam or pure crap and the person who wrote it is never seen again. Still, better that that stuff is gone sooner rather then later. If no one -ever- created an article that needed to be deleted, I'd be quite happy! Unfortunately, in reality, people do spam, and submit keyboard salad and autobiographies, and write on non-notable bands, and do original research-so for the foreseeable future, admins are going to keep needing that delete button.

Hope that answers your question! If I didn't answer your question or you have more, please ask away! Seraphimblade 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

pedigrees
Seeing that you have participated in things related to Romanian monarchy, you may wish to check the several genealogical trees mentioned at Articles for deletion/Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi. Maed 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
There's yet another AfD on this article. Thought you might be interested. &mdash;Hanuman Das 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Of The American Word
Why did you rv my edit? I have an account here, 100110100.198.161.33.146 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How? I've never heard that happen, & looking at the history, you lie.198.161.33.146 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. That means there's a problem with the template.  Do you know how to fix it?  It's not a problem on any of the pages.  Something wrong with the article?  Please help replace it with further, as see is deprecated.198.161.33.146 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you've changed the template from see to main. Does that fit better than see?  A response on my talk page would be best to close.  Thanks.100110100 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how we do it here. The template must semantically fit its context.  If there's a problem, please let me know; I'll make a post on the further's talk page.100110100 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's a problem with the template, then we need to address it. Now if you were perfectly happy with me replacing a template along the lines of crap, where the template would say,


 * For more crap, see:


 * then I don't think it would the template would fit it's context. Ok, sorry maybe I didn't describe the above situation well enough, but do you get me?  But I tried to describe it the best I could.  So do you understand my concerns?  The template must fit its section.100110100 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)