4 ms·

Editing is smallest issue with Wikipedia. For anybody who does an occasional 5-10 edits per year. The admins leave no moment unused to point out that you're do

by mxfh 12y ago

Editing is smallest issue with Wikipedia. For anybody who does an occasional 5-10 edits per year. The admins leave no moment unused to point out that you're doing something wrong (most likely based on Guideline CA 13, where CA stands for cryptic abbreviation₁) and in a lot of cases you're left to the god will of a single person. The whole appeal system needs to be streamlined, it can't be that there a multiple entry point's for a deleted article, solely because it was deleted for different reasons. It's the bureaucrats that drive people away, compared to Wikipedia the German tax forms/appeals are outright user friendly by now. ₁ I see no good reasons why abbreviations should not be expanded by default in discussion pages, makes it look way less intimidating to the casual user. [For Wiki-Admin Eyes Only] If there any admins reading here: can someone please undelete GitLab? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#GitLab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undelet...

tim333 12y ago
I put up another GitLab article for you - the previous was deleted for lack of links indication notability. I linked a couple of TheNextWeb articles that will hopefully do. It's kind of hard work this stuff finding references and the like. (I'm not an admin, just an occasional contributor). Thinking about those kind of issues I think they could improve the friendliness of the process by sending helpful / apologetic emails along the lines of "Dear Mr X, Sorry we had to take down your article because we need ... blah blah... If you can find the references just click this and do this. Best, Wikipedia team." Rather than the current situation where the article just disappears and there are somewhat cryptic comments under the talk tab. I don't think it would be terribly hard to implement.
- mxfh 12y ago
  Thanks for your efforts (though you might have violated some policy, don't ask me), I (User:Diskurs), I already added external sources for review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#GitLab_.5BRequest_for_Undeletion.5D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#GitLab_.... feel free to add them. I don't understand were wikipedia's fixation (other than the name and origin) comes from to handle everything as a wiki page, were any kind of ticketing system might be way more transparent.
  - tim333 12y ago
    I stuck in the Chicago Trib reference. >I don't understand were wikipedia's fixation (other than the name and origin) comes from to handle everything as a wiki page I think that's where a lot of problems come from and I think it's a tech issue that they built a wiki system and used it for everything and it's hard to change now it's ingrained. My guess with your appeal and the links is no one looked at it because it's not like an email system where someone gets it in their inbox, it's more that some one has to check on that page and maybe Bob thinks Joe is doing it or visa versa, perhaps.

by mxfh 12y ago

tim333 12y ago

I put up another GitLab article for you - the previous was deleted for lack of links indication notability. I linked a couple of TheNextWeb articles that will hopefully do. It's kind of hard work this stuff finding references and the like. (I'm not an admin, just an occasional contributor). Thinking about those kind of issues I think they could improve the friendliness of the process by sending helpful / apologetic emails along the lines of "Dear Mr X, Sorry we had to take down your article because we need ... blah blah... If you can find the references just click this and do this. Best, Wikipedia team." Rather than the current situation where the article just disappears and there are somewhat cryptic comments under the talk tab. I don't think it would be terribly hard to implement.

mxfh 12y ago
Thanks for your efforts (though you might have violated some policy, don't ask me), I (User:Diskurs), I already added external sources for review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#GitLab_.5BRequest_for_Undeletion.5D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#GitLab_.... feel free to add them. I don't understand were wikipedia's fixation (other than the name and origin) comes from to handle everything as a wiki page, were any kind of ticketing system might be way more transparent.
- tim333 12y ago
  I stuck in the Chicago Trib reference. >I don't understand were wikipedia's fixation (other than the name and origin) comes from to handle everything as a wiki page I think that's where a lot of problems come from and I think it's a tech issue that they built a wiki system and used it for everything and it's hard to change now it's ingrained. My guess with your appeal and the links is no one looked at it because it's not like an email system where someone gets it in their inbox, it's more that some one has to check on that page and maybe Bob thinks Joe is doing it or visa versa, perhaps.