User:KF/For future reference: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 57: Line 57:
*[[Special:Newpages]]
*[[Special:Newpages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]

*[[Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text|Boilerplate text]]

<nowiki>''<small>This article is no more than a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]. You might want to[[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|work on it]].</small>''</nowiki>


*[[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub]]
*[[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub]]

Revision as of 21:52, 27 October 2003

Date: Monday, May 6, 2024

Time: 15:35 UTC

Some of the 6,820,796 articles (166000 on October 19, 2003):

''<small>This article is no more than a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]. You might want to[[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|work on it]].</small>''

I didn't know there was a test.wikipedia until mid-September 2003.

* * *

Hi Eric, how do you create those talk pages for anonymous users (in my case I'd want one for 172.185.179.167)? Either I just can't remember or I have never done it before or there has been a change -- whatever. Hope you are having a nice summer. --KF 17:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User talk:172.185.179.167 should work. The only way to create them other than by doing so manually is to use the "Talk" link in Recent changes. The reason for this is that these IPs are very ephemeral and may quickly be assigned to a different user, so we don't want these links spread all over the place.—Eloquence 17:43, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for answering that (as I can see now) rather stupid question. All the best, Kurt
* * *

Hm. I'd love to log in as KF but I can't. Looking at Recent Changes, no one else seems to have that problem. Could someone tell me what is wrong?

Hm, I'd love to help you, but you've given absolutely no information that could be used to do so. What, exactly, is the procedure you're following and what, exactly, is the wiki doing in response? Are there error messages? Are cookies enabled in your browser? Are you in fact KF? ;) --Brion 22:11 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If all else fails, try Mozilla temporarily. It does miracles. --Menchi 22:26 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the lack of information. I'm using Internet Explorer (and have been doing so all the time, and haven't changed any of the settings disabling cookies or whatever). When I click on Wikipedia (any page) I'm told that I'm not logged in. The spaces for my username and my password are empty. I type in both and get the message "Log in successful". Whatever page I choose next I'm again "not logged in". And there is no way I can prove who I am.
From that description, it's almost certainly a (no-)cookie problem. Sad to say, we don't actually do a double-check that the cookies were received and saved by your computer: so if the login goes okay, it says "success!" and tells your browser to save id cookies, but the next page you go to, there's no cookie returned to identify you, so you're not logged in. If all is well, you should have a PHPSESSID cookie, a wcUserID cookie, and a wcUserName cookie from www.wikipedia.org. If you don't have these, make sure you haven't accidentally set it to not accept cookies or something. (Check also if you're behind some kind of proxy that's meant to strip out advertisements; sometimes these may go for cookies too.) --Brion 22:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks an awful lot. I'm impressed. Someone else seems to have changed my cookie settings. Something still seems to be wrong here, but at least I can log in again. Thanks again, and enjoy your Saturday night! KF 23:09 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
* * *

It just occurred to me that I might add this little gem of a conversation before it is finally, once and for all, deleted. This is what happened:

(1) Some school kid surfed the net for information on Gregor Mendel and wrote some rubbish in a newly created page called Heinzendorf, allegedly Mendel's birthplace.

(2) On the Mendel page, which contains quite a number of inaccuracies, it said that Heinzendorf was a village in Austria. Accordingly, in the process of weeding, another user deleted the newbie experiment and replaced it with a stub whose text read: "Heinzendorf, Austria is mainly known as the birthplace ...".

(3) What followed then was communication via the talk page:

There is no Heinzendorf in Austria. See http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.m/m529936.htm;internal&action=_setlanguage.action?LANGUAGE=en . --KF 19:48 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! -- John Owens
I was just going on the information from the Mendel page. However, was Austria a part of the Czech Republic at one time (as one page said after a google search)? -- Notheruser 19:59 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
The other way round of course. Ever come across the Habsburg empire? See also History of the Czech Republic. KF 20:27 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Interesting history (sadly, I had never heard of the Habsburg empire). Thanks for the clarification. -- Notheruser 20:46 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

(4) Meanwhile, someone had moved the Heinzendorf page to Heinzendorf, Austria.

(5) Then they obviously read my comments and found out that Mendel's birthplace can be found today in the Czech Republic. So they renamed the page again. For half an hour or so, the page had the ominous title Heinzendorf, Czech Republic.

(6) Now how would you like it if someone created a page entitled Neuyork, Neuyork? Or Londres? So I moved the page to the current Czech name of the village, relying on an Austrian online encyclopaedia (see link above).

(7) I don't know anything about Mendel. I've never been to his birthplace. And I don't speak a word of Czech. Still the name Hyncie, Czech Republic looked weird to me. Only then, after extensively googling Mendel, did I find out that the actual name is Hyncice, Czech Republic. That, hopefully, would be the final move. Viribus unitis, we'd created a great article for Wikipedia. Now that's what I call professionalism. --KF 05:19 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

PS As it turns out now, almost half a year later, someone messed up the whole system of redirects by moving the page again -- this time from Hyncice, Czech Republic to Hyncice. I wonder why. --KF 08:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

* * *

If the current deletion craze persists, the Talk:Interim page will soon be annihilated. This then is my copy:

Okay, but I also object right here. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone want to delete this page??? --KF 00:02, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moving my comment here doesn't make a lot of sense (see above -- who'd start an argument with "Okay"?), so let me say the whole thing again:
Interim is a good page, whether you consider it a stub or the (almost) finished product or anything in between. I've discussed this question before (see Talk:Point of no return), and I'm a bit tired of it. With the help of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you can argue both for and against inclusion in Wikipedia.
I mean, why pick on this page? And would you want to wipe out, say, crystallomancy and stallion, too? What would be left? Where do you draw (your highly subjective) line?
KF 12:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I moved it here as I felt comments should occur on the talk page, not on the article. I thought this was standard practice. It would be better discussing this at VfD rather than here. It doesn't make sense. Who are you addressing when you keep saying you? I didn't list it for deletion and I don't want it deleted; I want it moved to Wiktionary. What's wrong with that? Angela

Hi Angela. Thank you for your answer.
(1) As I have already pointed out several times, I feel uncomfortable with the way pages are being deleted at present. This concerns the choice of pages, the speed of deletion and the procedure in general. I wonder how many potential contributors we (we Wikipedians, not you) have already scared away that way. It used to be different, I remember that very well.
(2) When I say you I mean those of us Wikipedians who, for whatever reason, have made it their main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others. As you have reacted to my message, you seem to be one of them. It makes me sad to think about it, but I remember two contributors -- Isis and Zoe -- who did more or less the same, got into a number of fights and eventually left. Whenever I come across a page I think doesn't fit in, I also do something about it, but I do not go about it systematically. I just don't think Wikipedia is that bad that such a thing is necessary.
(3) What's wrong with keeping the Interim page here? It contains valuable cross references, which is always an asset for an encyclopaedia. And again, why this page? Why not any (or rather all) of the following (a random list):
I hardly ever ask rhetorical questions, and this isn't one either.
All the best, --KF 19:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Firstly, I do not make it my "main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others". I was simply responding to your question which I noticed on the VfD page.

Secondly, the "valuable cross references" will still exist. They will just link to Wiktionary rather than to Wikipedia.

Why this page? Ask jimfbleak - he nominated it for deletion. Probably because he came across it, and has yet to come across the others.

You may also be interested in the current debate on the village pump entitled Stop the Stubs.

Angela

Dear Angela,

(1) I have taken my time rereading the Stop the stubs debate, and now I wonder why you suggested I should have a look at it. There, seven regular contributors (Fantasy, Camembert, Wik, Wapcaplet, DavidWBrooks, till we *), and to some extent also Pete) argue in favour of having stubs and express -- in more words than I have ever done -- exactly my own ideas about the subject. It is only ²¹², the apparent instigator of the debate, who argues against them. So what am I supposed to learn from that? (Again, not a rhetorical question.)

By the way, today I created an article about lozenge only because I was quicker than the deleters. Never ever would it have occurred to me to write about that subject if I hadn't come across an obvious newbie experiment.

(2) As I regularly try to point out, the overall procedure and also the underlying policy of expanding Wikipedia are inconsistent. Consider this: You have a long, wikified article with a lot of (or at least some) links which do not (yet) work. That's the standard. Then someone comes along and creates a new article by clicking on one of those links and writing a stub. If the wikified article contains links like fatigues (see the camouflage article) or Geoff Mute (because he was an extra in some 1973 B-movie), we are encouraging users to write dictionary-type articles as well as short biographies on irrelevant (or fictional) people. Speaking as an advocatus diaboli now, if you really wanted to prevent people creating stubs, you would have to remove all those dead links in the first place rather than clean up radically after someone has made a mess. But again, I would say that that would be highly counter-productive. I'd leave everything exactly as it is and slow down the deletion process a bit.

(3) My question why Interim is going to be deleted rather than, say, plaintiff remains unanswered. I won't ask jimfbleak because I'm discussing this with you, not him.

(4) In my last reply to you I was going to say something about the quick deleters' motives. I was going to say it is to do with some kind of power struggle and their subconscious need to sit in judgement over others. I'm glad I didn't say that because I found out only minutes ago reading your user page that you are a psychologist. Actually I've always been interested in how some people can be so sure that they are right. I discussed this some time ago with Isis (at Talk:Remake): Back then the situation was similar although the discussion revolved around NPOV rather than VfD. Generally speaking, we shouldn't take Wikipedia too seriously. It's great fun, but there is something called real life, too -- didn't you mention that yourself at one point?

(5) I'm not going to keep on arguing. It's not worth the effort. However, I wish I knew why you inserted a blank line between machete and plaintiff in my last message.

Well then, bye for now, --KF 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear KF,

I didn't say you needed to learn anything from it. I just thought you might be interested or want to add to it. Some people don't read things like the village pump so I point it out to them when I think it is relevant.

I would like to clarify that I am not against stubs. Have a look at the other Wikipedias I have been to today - they are mostly stubs (ar, cy, ia, simple, ru). My comment on interim was relating to the fact I thought it better placed at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. I have never said it should be deleted for any reason, and certainly not because it is a stub.

This page is not the place to argue against policy.

I do not want to stop people creating stubs. It is only blank pages I object to – not stubs.

Why are you discussing this with me, not him? I argued against the deletion of interim. I said it should go to Wiktionary. I have not looked at plaintiff so I can not comment on it merits.

Why are you accusing me of being a quick deleter?

I am not a psychologist, I just studied it. Neither am I a Software Engineer (although if you read my user page after 10pm UTC today then you would have no reason to think that anyway).

I am never sure that I am right. I change my mind frequently. I did mention real life once – on a deletion policy page if I am not mistaken.

I am not quite sure why you think this an argument. I don't disagree with anything you have said.

I did not insert a blank line between machete and plaintiff in your last message, at least not intentionally. Can't quite see how that happened.

Good job I moved your comment off the article page or it would be a very strange article by now.

Angela

Well, if you are in England right now it must be 3 o'clock in the morning. So good night to you, and thanks for the reply. --KF

My guideline is that it is a good article if a valid external link can be added to it. So if you can find an external link that is not a dictionary and is about interim it would end the argument I think. BL 01:33, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not an argumment. No-one thinks it should be deleted. It should go to Wiktionary. -- Angela
* * *

Deletion craze No.2: Pejorative terms for Germans

Interesting addition. Do boche and moffe have any literal meanings? Can anyone add that? --KF 21:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I think they both mean something like a "dirty pig"...

This is not encyclopedia content, unless perhaps as part of a larger directory of racial/national insults ... which would itself be rather questionable. --FOo 19:58 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you will have to make up your mind: As long as this newly created article was part of Kraut, no one seemed to mind -- for weeks, if not months. And there was a lot of context there. Now it's a separate article, and suddenly it's no longer encyclopaedic? --KF 20:18 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Whatever. I never saw kraut. I did see this one in the Recent Changes. I can only comment on things I notice, after all, and making a new page draws attention. --FOo 20:40 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Right. If I had to decide, I'd restore the Kraut page to its original length and would encourage further discussion concerning this page: whether it should be enlarged, deleted, or whatever. I'm going to do that tomorrow (soon anyway) if there are no objections. Would that be okay with you, FOo? --KF 20:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The content of this article has nothing to do with "Kraut" (herbs) so why move it back there? It should better be left here.
Once again, because there is something called context. Read the original version of the Kraut article first -- it was just some sort of addendum. I really don't see the problem. KF 06:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Nor do I. Let's leave things as they are.
I think it at least needs balancing by similar pages for other nationalities. -- sannse 18:26 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What about "Nemetz", which give or take some spelling issues is as I recall the standard form for "German" in various Slavic langages, and means roughly "dummy" (as in, one who cannot speak properly)? PML.

Nemetz is not a pejorative term itself though it has developed from one. Boche, Kraut and the others remained pejorative.

This is pure dross and does not belong here. Someone please ad it to VfD -- Tarquin 09:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just don't believe it. We already had that discussion months ago, and keeping the articles about the Germans as they are was the agreement back then, without any objection. Are we going to use up our time and energy again and again and again to discuss the same things whenever a new user discovers a page for the first time? It's easy, isn't it, claiming that an article is "non-encyclopaedic" (what the hell does that mean anyway) and/or "POV", but I want to see you guys give reasons for your claims. If someone wanted to, they could find fault with every single page here on Wikipedia. Please don't forget the use-mention distinction, or think of the Latin relata refero if you prefer. No one here is insulting foreigners, but what kind of free and open society is it if it is not allowed/POV/whatever to talk about insulting terms? Please let's not be hyper- and hypocritical! Leave Pejorative terms for Germans as it is! --KF 12:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If something turns up that one wouldn't regard to be in an encyclopedia, then it can be deemed "non-encyclopedic". This is, of course, a slightly subjective statement to make, as is the point-of-view issue, but in general it is obvious (I am making no comment of the article in question though in saying so). Dysprosia 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, but that's exactly what anyone who wants to see a particular article deleted should do.Talking in general, vague and elusive terms doesn't help. Also, how many online encyclopaedias are there to draw comparisons with? True, I won't find an article on Pejorative terms for Germans in the 1911 Britannica. But have all of you forgotten how hopeful Wikipedia got started, with the explicit policy of being more than, and different from, a printed encyclopaedia? As I see it, nothing about what you ave written is "obvious". --KF 12:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If some article is rabbiting on about how wonderful some relatively unknown website is, it is obviously not NPOV since it is going on about the positives and saying nothing about the negatives. It's obviously non-encyclopedic as an encyclopedia (even though Wikip. is different from normal encyclopedias) would not devote an article to an unknown website.
I mean obvious in the sense that it is sometimes clear to see that an article is not NPOV or is unencyclopedic. Sometimes it is not however. And that is what discussions are for. And I furthermore reiterate that I make no comment on the article in question, I'm merely trying to help you understand what these things mean. Dysprosia
Help me? Are you joking? You keep on writing about things wholly unrelated to Pejorative terms for Germans and want to help me understand them? KF
You said "what the hell does that mean anyway". I thought you didn't know what it meant. So I told you. Calm down :) Dysprosia 12:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was referring to my previous remark at Talk:Interim that none of us should be too sure they know 100 per cent what is right, correct, moral, true (and NPOV and encyclopaedic, if you want) and what isn't. That reminds me, I have to write an answer there. Bye for now, --KF 12:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *
  • Pejorative terms for the French, because it is not encyclopedic and because it was openly created as a antiWikiLove act. Both being redhibitoire for me. We are not here to help people on purpose to go against one another. Anthère 06:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete this one. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • No. Elaborate on it. --KF 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see why this page should be deleted, but not Pejorative terms for Germans. M123 20:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Pejorative terms for Germans also delete this, see above. M123 06:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I would not be sad to see Pejorative terms for the French and Pejorative terms for Germans go, but if being unencyclopedic and anti-WikiLove are criteria for deletion, Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' and all its redirects should also go. -- Someone else 07:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Neither of these belong here. It's against the NPOV. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to sound evil or anything, but I don't really see anything wrong with having articles about pejorative terms, as long as they don't endorse them. They could easily be written in a NPOV way, and could be quite educational. (As is Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', in my view...) -- Oliver P. 07:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It might be worth noting that we have List of ethnic slurs. Articles are generally better than lists, though, because articles can give fuller explanations of what terms mean, who uses them, how they are used, and so on. Lists tend to just have short phrases as explanations. -- Oliver P. 07:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that lists are better than separate articles for each separate slur (vide: Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'), as separate articles are: (1) unlikely to become encyclopedic and (2) unduly emphasize the importance of each epithet. -- Someone else 07:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the above-mentioned articles group the terms by country, rather than having separate articles for separate terms. (However, if one term ended up hogging a large proportion of the space in the article, it would make sense to move it out into its own article.) -- Oliver P. 08:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is an argument FOR "Perjorative terms for homosexuals" and AGAINST Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. <G>. Not that it or its many redirects will ever actually be deleted, of course. -- Someone else 08:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, it depends on how you interpret "hogging a large proportion of the space in the article", I suppose... :) -- Oliver P. 09:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • One of the redirects should be deleted in a day or two: see Aug 16 listing above. Martin 09:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I just don't believe it. We already had that discussion months ago, and keeping the articles about the Germans as they are was the agreement back then, without any objection. Are we going to use up our time and energy again and again and again to discuss the same things whenever a new user discovers a page for the first time? It's easy, isn't it, claiming that an article is "non-encyclopaedic" (what the hell does that mean anyway) and/or "POV", but I want to see you guys give reasons for your claims. If someone wanted to, they could find fault with every single page here on Wikipedia. Please don't forget the use-mention distinction, or think of the Latin relata refero if you prefer. No one here is insulting foreigners, but what kind of free and open society is it if it is not allowed/POV/whatever to talk about insulting terms? Please let's not be hyper- and hypocritical! Leave Pejorative terms for Germans as it is! --KF 11:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Seconded! -- till we *) 13:23, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • PS And isn't it a bit strange that M123 first creates an article Pejorative terms for the French and then, only a few days later, nominates Pejorative terms for Germans for deletion? --KF 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • no, it is not a bit strange. Look at what he wrote as a comment when he created that list http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pejorative_terms_for_the_French&action=history
      • So I looked. M123 wrote: "This page was created in response to the existence of Pejorative terms for Germans." So now that he has created an article Francophones may find offensive he wants the German insults deleted? Can we have some logic please? --KF 23:57, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • duh. He does not like the german article but thinks he won't have back up if he ask for the deletion. So he create one on the french in hope that a french will feel like putting it here. If people react by saying "yes, delete it", he just needs to say "but if we delete this one, we should also deleted that one". If no one react to the french, he may perhaps do the next one about Jews and wait for RK to list it here. The more people complain, the more back up for deletion he gets. Well, at least, I would do that ;-) Anthère
          • It was not so much that I didn't like the Pejorative terms for Germans, it was that such a page existed only for Germans (and was linked to by Germany). I figured that if I created a page about the French, either 1)both pages would be deleted or 2)more pages about other nationalities would be created. Also for full disclosure I wrote Pejorative terms for the French and User:KF wrote Pejorative terms for Germans. M123 01:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • This is getting silly. It wouldn't be a problem for me, but I didn't even minor-edit that article. See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pejorative_terms_for_Germans&action=history . --KF 02:25, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • I was sure that this process was on your mind M123. What is "irritating" is that you think of the french to help you have your stuff deleted. Why us ? Now, since you improved the french article to make it more encyclopedic, it is likely we will never have these pages deleted, but likely they will stay alone with just the German and the French. Anthère
      • as for neutrality that you wonder on, I would say that this encyclopedia thrive for neutrality. It is supposed to be read by anyone with the feeling it is reporting information fairly. Now, I think that if you want a reader to think this encyclopedia is fair, there is need not only for the articles to be balanced, but also for the repartition of articles to be balanced. Which means that if you find a lot of articles celebrating america, its thinkers, its artists, its scientifics, and so on, and many articles being about pejorative terms, anti-"country" sentiment, and such on other articles, it is likely "from this country" users will think this encyclopedia is not neutral. It is pov by accumulation. Anthère
      • By all means write many long and good articles about France and the French but also face the fact that, at least right now, there are some people who don't respect them as much as they used to. Only by writing more can you restore the balance. --KF 00:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Since last december or so, I have seen enough very rude comments about my country on talk pages, I had to contemplate horribly pov articles on us, I was insulted privately by a couple of proeminent members of wikipedia throught email, humiliated for my english, and I revert quite frequently anti-french vandalism on french pages. Believe me KF, the fact some american people don't respect us or plainly hate us DOES NOT escape me :-) And this generated enough bad feelings in my heart for me to now focus on the french wikipedia first.
    • Whatever the resolution of these two pages, someone please consider moving relevant data into List of ethnic slurs. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri 10:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • They're sure stubs, but we should keep them. Internationnal relations aren't just diplomatic nowadays... but we're all used of diplomacy being the only POV in the History articles! So keep them! --Ann O'nyme 03:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't think renaming the page Informal terms for Germans was in any way helpful. Now it's really POV, suggesting that it is okay, in an informal situation, to call Germans those names. When and where was this discussed? --KF 18:04, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Seconded. IMHO renaming should have been discussed here. "Informal" is inapropriate. "Pejorative" was better. What about "Offensive"? --Ann O'nyme 20:49, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *

Hi Jim, I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the way deletions have been carried out recently. I'm worried that newbies are frightened off before they get a chance to turn into valuable contributors. If someone has just discovered Wikipedia and has just made their first attempt at posting something, why does it have to be erased immediately and, even worse, labelled "junk"?

I'm in particular talking about User:194.7.209.66 and their three Wienerisch texts. I've taken the trouble to write them (see User talk:194.7.209.66 -- or has that been deleted as well?) and ask them to consider rewriting their texts, but there is no point in doing so if, a few hours later, on the same day, someone else comes along and deletes their effort. Why the hurry as if our lives depended on it?

All the best, KF 16:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

* * *

The current deletion craze No.3:

Hello again Angela,

As you would like answers to your questions, here they are: I did write a note to jimfbleak even before the two of us had our little talk last night. The sheer speed at which the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page has been growing recently makes me dizzy. Sometimes it seems to me Wikipedia has been taken over by a bunch of newbies who have no idea about what some have called WikiLove and who, for some obscure reason, are trying to reduce it to a bare minimum, without any option for expansion. I called them "quick deleters", and I'm sorry that it was you I singled out to have that discussion with. You made it clear you did not want to delete Interim. But removing or transferring it to Wiktionary is also reducing the scope of Wikipedia.

Whenever I have a look at VfD these days I'm horrified. Pages that in the past would have gone unnoticed or been improved on the spot by some other user (according to the old policy, "If you don't like it, change it") are now listed on VfD only minutes after they have been posted, or a notice saying The neutrality of this page is disputed is dumped on the page, with some flimsy explanation on the corresponding talk page (like a couple of hours ago at Point of no return). And what is supposed to happen then? I could use the "Random page" function and do the one or the other with every other page I get, but why should I?

As I already tried to point out, so many people have left (are leaving) Wikipedia, but their departure also goes unnoticed. I don't think it's a good idea that there are some Wikipedians who hardly ever write articles themselves and who believe it is their job to assess their peers' work only. (To me that's just like the head teacher in a school who does not teach himself any more or the plumber who does not want to get his hands dirty any longer.) I consider such a system (even if the hierarchy is informal and implicit) imbalanced. (But this is nothing to do with you personally.)

Thanks for the advice concerning the Simple English Wikipedia. I'll have a look at it, but I don't want to have my fingers in too many pies and, well, I'm not under stress -- I'm worried. --KF 14:51, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

* * *

A funny thing happened when an anonymous user created a page on Saint Denis, France. The complete nonsense there was even tentatively wikified before User:Olivier pointed out that that was an "interesting joke":

This page is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

The cathedral of Saint-Denis, located on the outskirts of Paris, was the first gothic cathedral to be built. The innovations of the choir (built in 1140-44) are accepted as the first examples of this type of architecture. Splendid and royal, many believe Saint-Denis is the reason Louis VI decided to make Paris his centre as opposed to Orléans.

Relatively unchanged until 1838 when extensive renovations where carried out by the prolific designer Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. Adding stensils to the walls and creating new pews using extensive amounts of new materials such as MDF.

After the renovations were completed in 1846, the Cathedral was under the control of the infamous Abbot Thieri Wogan, a cruel and ruthless man who abducted 'non-believers' and subjected them to hours of torterous droning. Many of his victims died and are still buried in the grounds of the cathedral.

After the death of Abbot Wogan in 1872, Saint-Denis was abondoned and was left derelict until 1927 when Walt Disney bought the cathedral and had the whole stucture moved brick by brick to America where it was to be used as the Magic Kingdom. Eventually it was decided that it was not to be used and the cathedral once again stood empty and abondoned in a remote part of Texas, eventually being used as an elaborate out-house by slack-jawed yeokals.

However, 1971 Elvis Presely bought the deeds from the Disney corperation and had the building returned to its origional location. To this day there is speculation amongst the most learned art historians as to why Presely spent the time and money carrying out such an extensive project. Some say it was for religious purposes, apperently doing so as a mark of gratitued to God. Others say he was off his face and didn't know what he was doing. In 1973, after the second restoration, Presely returned ownership of Saint-Denis back to the French state. The cathedral was once again used as a place of worship.

In 1992 Saint-Denis was to be at the centre of one of the most embarrassing incidents for the French government when a high ranking French politician was caught staging and filming sadistic sacrifices to Lucifer inside the cathedral. The tapes were distributed to the rich and famous who were all later disgraced. These include the comedian Bob Monkhouse, the entertainer Shane Richy and the thing Bernad Manning.

Today Saint-Denis is one of the most popular tourist attractions in France due to its rich and unique history.

Rev. Johnny Parker M.A, P.H.D, B.U.M.

    • Saint Denis, France: an interesting joke... but a joke... olivier 11:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It can't be funny either cause I don't get it! BL 11:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read it. –KF 11:44, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • From the page history:
    • (cur) (last) . . 11:32, 25 Aug 2003 . . BL (vfd notice)
    • (cur) (last) . . 17:19, 19 Aug 2003 . . Michael Hardy (The title phrase was not properly highlighted. This article also lack links. Work on it.)
    • (cur) (last) . . 16:11, 19 Aug 2003 . . 195.166.157.77
    • (cur) (last) . . M 16:00, 19 Aug 2003 . . Ahoerstemeier (wikify)
    • (cur) (last) . . 15:47, 19 Aug 2003 . . 195.166.157.77 (The history of Saint-Denis)
* * *

And some more from VfD:

  • Prejudices in mockingbird an essay. M123 06:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. Is "an essay" a justification? I'll transfer the text to the To Kill a Mockingbird page, where someone will hopefully work on it. Then you can go ahead and kill Prejudices in mockingbird. --KF 11:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with particular attention to point 9. —Paul A 11:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see To Kill a Mockingbird and take the trouble to read the essay. Then tell me why I should pay particular attention to point 9. -KF 12:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • #9: Wikipedia entries are not personal essays. Prejudices in mockingbird is a personal essay. Bits of it are even in first person: "I am going to be discussing this theme...", "Based on this essay and the research I have done, I can say..." I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to grasp. —Paul A 12:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Ah, you seem to be on the right track. See, if you take out the bits you are referring to, it all of a sudden stops being a "personal" essay. Well then, taking out those half-sentences and creating some links is usually called wikifying, and that's exactly what I hope someone will be doing. But, as I stated above, I agree that this text should not have its own page. --KF 12:42, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *

From VfD:

  • List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses. Complete nonsense. wshun 21:49, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • "Nonsense" meaning WHAT? That they don't wear dark glasses? That Wikipedia is too elitist to refer to peoples' outward appearance? That you personally dislike that list? If you want to have a look at real nonsense, see List of people by first name. --KF 22:00, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • what is so special about wearing dark glasses? wshun 22:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the fact that only a very small percentage of people regularly wear them. Let's be tolerant: This list is factual, NPOV and probably can't be found anywhere else. So Wikipedia rather than wearing dark glasses is something "special". --KF 22:25, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • From my perspective, I ask myself how we hope to have Wikipedia used as a reference. List of left-handed people...all right, sometimes students might be working on a paper on the topic of left-handedness. List of famous Germans (or other country)...fine, occasionally one might want to check if Kafka was indeed Czech. When on earth would anyone need to refer to a list of dark-glasses wearing people? Should we make a list of "people frequently seen wearing sweaters" (oooh, there's a good one for Fred Rogers, though)? Unless someone can make a stirringly good argument for how someone would use this list as a reference, I say delete. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • First of all, it's an interesting phenomenon that such a list survives undetected for months. Then someone adds a name and suddenly everyone thinks it's no longer bearable. Secondly, it does not do any harm. Thirdly, someone might want to investigate the reason(s) for wearing dark glasses: Fashion/eccentricity? Poor eyesight? Ugly eyes (or what is left of them) which someone wants to hide? Any other reasons? Finally, the question is of course where to draw the line: While People who pick their nose in public seems ridiculous to me, Famous people who smoke in public does not appear so far-fetched these days, especially in America. There's a lot of trivial knowledge on Wikipedia pages -- just read, say, the "brilliant prose" bio of Humphrey Bogart, so why pick on this one list? --KF 23:24, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Who can say this article would not be useful to some anthropologists 50 years from now? Also, there is a rumor that drug addicts are extremely sensitive to light, this list may help to confirm the claim overtime. Kowloonese 23:55, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
* * *

From Talk:Originated

Right now this page is not listed on VfD. And why is there no edit history? And why has the page already been deleted? --KF 21:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


see User talk:Kkawohl Smith03 21:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I deleted this page because it did not contain anything that remotely resembled an encyclopaedia article. It was created by a user who has consistently been creating pages of a similar nature, who currently has a dozen or so pages already listed of VfD and who has been warned by at least 5 users that he should not create such pages. Administrators are allowed to delete pages that they may consider unredeemable (described as obvious nonsense I think), without resorting to listing them on VfD and waiting the usual period of one week. I took the decision that this page fit that description. If you wish to see this page undeleted, please post your views on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Mintguy 21:39, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to start another debate here. From my point of view, this is what happens: I see a new page with a strange title has been created, it arouses my interest, I want to see it, it's not there any longer but a VfD notice instead. However, there it's not listed. Then I open the edit history to see the original text, and it's not there either. And then you as an administrator insist on being allowed to do that and tell me I should vote for undeletion of, as you say, a completely pointless page (which of course I've never seen). --KF 21:47, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate what you say, and I apologise for the abrupt tone of the above. The previous content of this page was began; was created; resulted from; developed; was born or produced., which on first reading didn't seem to make and sense to me, but I can now see that it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Mintguy 21:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.. Now delete this talk page as well, please, and all the best, --KF 22:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity": I read this piece of advice some time ago on someone else's user page and, as this is Wikipedia territory, shamelessly copied it onto my own. I've been thinking about this sentence ever since, mainly in connexion with people I've come across in "real life". To me, it ties in with Kant's definition of Enlightenment. I'm still trying to figure out if it contradicts in any way his Categorical Imperative or his assertion that the world is highly cultivated and civilized but not yet moralized ("Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht", Siebenter Satz).

In Wikipedia, I receive relatively few comments on my talk page. People who know better than I have pointed out possible copyright violations concerning two photos I uploaded (Sharon Tate's and Winona Ryder's). Apart from that, three of the pages I started have been modified in a way that I can no longer identify with them: Millennialism, Remake, and Losers in literature (now renamed List of anti-heroes). However, in all three cases these changes were thoroughly discussed before they were actually carried out, so I can live with that. Astonishingly, as of June 2003, I was the 83rd most active Wikipedian. I cannot deny a certain addiction to this project, but I'm not going to give away how I scored at the Wikipediholic test. --KF

* * *
Rescuing an orphaned image, which has been replaced by
a less nostalgic one to illustrate the Rail transport article
(although there is a similar one at Rail)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KF/For_future_reference&oldid=1635310"