3 ms·

That's just... wrong. Come on, Zed, at least do your homework. Chris isn't deleting the pages, nor is he acting as some sort of sole determinant of noteworthi

That's just... wrong. Come on, Zed, at least do your homework. Chris isn't deleting the pages, nor is he acting as some sort of sole determinant of noteworthiness. He's simply proposing them for deletion through the Articles for Deletion process. Also, Wikipedia handles sub-pages just fine. Most active editors have a number of sub-pages on their userpage, and many articles have sub-pages as well where people will store drafts while working on a revision. Your information is wrong, and your tone is insulting. Cut it out, man.

zedshaw 16y ago
I don't care what the bureaucratic process is, all I know is one guy went on a rampage electing pages for deletion and they're gone. This "plausible deniability" of page deletion so nobody is to blame really is odd.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  There's a discussion at each AfD where anyone can come in and say why a page should or should not be kept. In the end, it is the adminstrator's decision as to whether or not there is a consensus to delete (default is to keep), and there are processes in place for getting the decision overturned. Chris nominated 8 pages for deletion over a period of 3 days. While it's a spree that's likely hasty, it's by no means a rampage. I believe he was wrong to do as he did, but only a couple pages were deleted, and there's a discussion to have Nemerle restored. He's hardly a one-man wiki-wrecking crew.
  - bane 16y ago
    it is the adminstrator's decision as to whether or not there is a consensus to delete (default is to keep) The de facto process is to default to delete. As this embarrassing debacle has shown, there were no votes to delete, and yet poof! the articles were deleted and a day later, with significant backlash and discussion, almost all in favor to reinstate or at least open the pages back up to be reconstituted, are not back up. Wikipedia's editing "process" is a shameful joke.
chc 16y ago
If I propose that somebody shoot someone I don't like, and that person gets killed immediately afterward, am I an innocent bystander? (Note to people who don't understand similes: I'm not saying deleting a Wikipedia page is similar in gravity to shooting someone. The similarity here is that you are responsible for your ideas.) If you're trying to tell me the page would have been deleted even if Chris hadn't proposed it, I suppose I can't disprove that version of history, but I can say that it's pretty bizarre. (Edited because joke was unclear.)
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Chris has an HN account. It's under his name, and he's posted in this thread. I am not he.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - chc 16y ago
    Apologies. It was meant to be a joke, but I suppose it didn't work very well. I just meant that that version of history seems unrealistic and I can't see anything to support it.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      No worries. I figured you might be joking, but it was kind of ambiguous.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

zedshaw 16y ago

I don't care what the bureaucratic process is, all I know is one guy went on a rampage electing pages for deletion and they're gone. This "plausible deniability" of page deletion so nobody is to blame really is odd.

redthrowaway 16y ago
There's a discussion at each AfD where anyone can come in and say why a page should or should not be kept. In the end, it is the adminstrator's decision as to whether or not there is a consensus to delete (default is to keep), and there are processes in place for getting the decision overturned. Chris nominated 8 pages for deletion over a period of 3 days. While it's a spree that's likely hasty, it's by no means a rampage. I believe he was wrong to do as he did, but only a couple pages were deleted, and there's a discussion to have Nemerle restored. He's hardly a one-man wiki-wrecking crew.
- bane 16y ago
  it is the adminstrator's decision as to whether or not there is a consensus to delete (default is to keep) The de facto process is to default to delete. As this embarrassing debacle has shown, there were no votes to delete, and yet poof! the articles were deleted and a day later, with significant backlash and discussion, almost all in favor to reinstate or at least open the pages back up to be reconstituted, are not back up. Wikipedia's editing "process" is a shameful joke.

chc 16y ago

If I propose that somebody shoot someone I don't like, and that person gets killed immediately afterward, am I an innocent bystander? (Note to people who don't understand similes: I'm not saying deleting a Wikipedia page is similar in gravity to shooting someone. The similarity here is that you are responsible for your ideas.) If you're trying to tell me the page would have been deleted even if Chris hadn't proposed it, I suppose I can't disprove that version of history, but I can say that it's pretty bizarre. (Edited because joke was unclear.)

redthrowaway 16y ago
Chris has an HN account. It's under his name, and he's posted in this thread. I am not he.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- chc 16y ago
  Apologies. It was meant to be a joke, but I suppose it didn't work very well. I just meant that that version of history seems unrealistic and I can't see anything to support it.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    No worries. I figured you might be joking, but it was kind of ambiguous.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]