Talk:Marian apparitions/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (New page: {{subpages}} == Status in non-Roman-Catholic denominations? == The section about the invesitgative process that refers to "the local bishop" made me wonder -- because in any locality in ...) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (replace with just the portion that I want removed) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Request Speedy Delete== | |||
Based on Citizendeium policy, in which anyone including the original author, can request a speedy delete I have made this request. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete | |||
There is no mention of an author requesting a speedy delete. Also, I do believe a Constable or other CZ official should be responsible for removing a speedy tag. I make this request as I did not realize that this would be considered inappropriate and inflammatory.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion request and gravitational collapse of the universe == | |||
There is an article on me, which I did not invite, and I asked to have deleted. The Constabulary informed me that I could not delete it as I had no standing to do so. Admittedly, there are greater priorities in life, but this was an extreme example of only editors and constables, under narrowly defined rules, being able to delete articles based on content reasons. | |||
Now, we seem to have a revert war over a delete request by an author, who has no "ownership" of the article. Reverting the deleting of the deletion request... | |||
The gravitational collapse of the universe may be near. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Some heavenly sounds needed urgently. [http://zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm] [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I caved in to community pressure. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
: | :::Oh, the pity. In my mind's eye, I see the Dominicans sternly supervising the march to the ''auto da fe''. I see Winston Churchill blushing at the thought of caving to pressure and not fighting them on the beaches, etc. I know, I know. It's the community's fault, not that of an individual. Perhaps this is motivation for an article on [[Shirley Jackson]]'s "[[The Lottery]]", or [[Edith Piaf]] with "[[Non Je Ne Regrette Rien]]". [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
: | (undent) I hope Hayford doesn't mind, but I have preserved here an edit comment he made while removing the delete tage: ''authors, even partial authors, may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause -- there is no cause here, and many other authors have worked on it. It is NOT your article!'' [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
: | : As Hayford stated, authors may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause. I have now removed the tag. Please see my comments on the forums. Also, the mainspace is not a talkpage. Do not leave messages for people at the top of articles. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Straight from the Deletion page: | |||
" Procedures for deletion marking and deletion [edit] | |||
'''For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the<nowiki>{{speedydelete}}</nowiki> template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: | |||
''' | |||
<nowiki><noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude></nowiki>. | |||
Be sure that this template is the very first item on the page, with the <noinclude> ... </noinclude> around it. The latter is necessary for the case a page is transcluded by another page. Alternatively, you can use | |||
<nowiki><noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude></nowiki> | |||
to the same end. | |||
See: n http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete | |||
The policy states any author or editor can request a speedy delete. I'm not sure what the policy is here concerning tag removal but at wikiHow repeated offenders were banned for this action. I made a reasonable request for review by a Constable. Chris you are a Constable and have reviewed the article. You have deemed the article appropriate and non-inflammatory. That was the only thing I asked as I received plenty of heat over this topic. I also had to bear tag removals by well meaning authors or editors. What does this say for the behavior of Citizendium Citizens? Thank you for reviewing this matter and agreeing this article is indeed appropriate for Citizendium[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Ummm...this is not wikiHow, so wikiHow's culture, rules, customs or manners are simply irrelevant to the handling of specific articles. Nothing would prevent you from making a proposal to a Council to change CZ's rules to match wikiHow's, but, until then, its society is as relevant here as that of the Knights Templar, Illuminati, National Academy of Sciences, Temple of Satan, or the American Chemical Society. | |||
:Who complained the article, as opposed to behavior associated with it, was inappropriate or inflammatory? I remember substantial comment that a ''photograph'' was inappropriate. I wouldn't use the term "inflammatory" to suggest that this article is likely to invite criticism, in being perceived as fringe. | |||
:What it says, or does not say, about the behavior of Citizendium citizens is irrelevant to an article talk page. Chris did not necessarily agree that the article is appropriate, because that is not fully within the scope of Constables. In general, appropriateness, beyond blatant violations, is determined by Editors and then enforced by Constables. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Please do not mis-interpret my words. I neither reviewed the article or decided if it was worthy of inclusion in Citizendium. All I have done is review the request and deemed that it is out of the Constabularies jurisdiction. You reasons may be valid, but that is a content matter and out of the hands of the Constabulary. That is for Editors to decide. | |||
:: As fpr "any author or editor can request a speedy delete", this is not true. The key words are "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance". This means it must fall under one of the reasons I stated on the forum. If it is for any other reason then it is only an Editor who can make the call. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
This | :::Citizendium policy states "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the speedydelete template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: noinclude speedydelete|REASON|[[] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)/noinclude." Note: I removed the brackets for easy reading. The policy clearly states any author or editor may help by placing the speedy delete template on an article for Constables to review. This is done so "...articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance." My interpretation, which I suspect is correct, states ANY Citizen may place a speedy tag on a article for Constable review. If this is the case, the tag should not be removed until reviewed by a Constable. It's as simple as that. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I note that the identical text is posted here and in a Forum thread. Do focus on one place of complaint. | |||
: | |||
::: | :::<center>"My interpretation, which I suspect is correct..." </center> | ||
::: | :::Why do you suspect that? You've been told by active and past Constables, Editors, and people with several years experience at CZ that you are wrong. Yet, you continue to argue the rightness of your position. Since you've opened the issue of what other wikis do, I'll suggest a USENET term for such insistence: trolling. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
(undent) Lets stop having this conversation in two places at once please. Those interested in following this discussion can see my reply [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3409.msg33298.html#msg33298 here]. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:26, 8 October 2010
Request Speedy Delete
Based on Citizendeium policy, in which anyone including the original author, can request a speedy delete I have made this request. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete
There is no mention of an author requesting a speedy delete. Also, I do believe a Constable or other CZ official should be responsible for removing a speedy tag. I make this request as I did not realize that this would be considered inappropriate and inflammatory.Mary Ash 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion request and gravitational collapse of the universe
There is an article on me, which I did not invite, and I asked to have deleted. The Constabulary informed me that I could not delete it as I had no standing to do so. Admittedly, there are greater priorities in life, but this was an extreme example of only editors and constables, under narrowly defined rules, being able to delete articles based on content reasons.
Now, we seem to have a revert war over a delete request by an author, who has no "ownership" of the article. Reverting the deleting of the deletion request...
The gravitational collapse of the universe may be near. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some heavenly sounds needed urgently. [1] Ro Thorpe 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I caved in to community pressure. Mary Ash 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, the pity. In my mind's eye, I see the Dominicans sternly supervising the march to the auto da fe. I see Winston Churchill blushing at the thought of caving to pressure and not fighting them on the beaches, etc. I know, I know. It's the community's fault, not that of an individual. Perhaps this is motivation for an article on Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery", or Edith Piaf with "Non Je Ne Regrette Rien". Howard C. Berkowitz 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I caved in to community pressure. Mary Ash 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(undent) I hope Hayford doesn't mind, but I have preserved here an edit comment he made while removing the delete tage: authors, even partial authors, may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause -- there is no cause here, and many other authors have worked on it. It is NOT your article! Howard C. Berkowitz 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- As Hayford stated, authors may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause. I have now removed the tag. Please see my comments on the forums. Also, the mainspace is not a talkpage. Do not leave messages for people at the top of articles. --Chris Key 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Straight from the Deletion page:
" Procedures for deletion marking and deletion [edit]
For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the{{speedydelete}} template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: <noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude>.
Be sure that this template is the very first item on the page, with the ... around it. The latter is necessary for the case a page is transcluded by another page. Alternatively, you can use
<noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude>
to the same end.
See: n http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete
The policy states any author or editor can request a speedy delete. I'm not sure what the policy is here concerning tag removal but at wikiHow repeated offenders were banned for this action. I made a reasonable request for review by a Constable. Chris you are a Constable and have reviewed the article. You have deemed the article appropriate and non-inflammatory. That was the only thing I asked as I received plenty of heat over this topic. I also had to bear tag removals by well meaning authors or editors. What does this say for the behavior of Citizendium Citizens? Thank you for reviewing this matter and agreeing this article is indeed appropriate for CitizendiumMary Ash 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ummm...this is not wikiHow, so wikiHow's culture, rules, customs or manners are simply irrelevant to the handling of specific articles. Nothing would prevent you from making a proposal to a Council to change CZ's rules to match wikiHow's, but, until then, its society is as relevant here as that of the Knights Templar, Illuminati, National Academy of Sciences, Temple of Satan, or the American Chemical Society.
- Who complained the article, as opposed to behavior associated with it, was inappropriate or inflammatory? I remember substantial comment that a photograph was inappropriate. I wouldn't use the term "inflammatory" to suggest that this article is likely to invite criticism, in being perceived as fringe.
- What it says, or does not say, about the behavior of Citizendium citizens is irrelevant to an article talk page. Chris did not necessarily agree that the article is appropriate, because that is not fully within the scope of Constables. In general, appropriateness, beyond blatant violations, is determined by Editors and then enforced by Constables. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not mis-interpret my words. I neither reviewed the article or decided if it was worthy of inclusion in Citizendium. All I have done is review the request and deemed that it is out of the Constabularies jurisdiction. You reasons may be valid, but that is a content matter and out of the hands of the Constabulary. That is for Editors to decide.
- As fpr "any author or editor can request a speedy delete", this is not true. The key words are "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance". This means it must fall under one of the reasons I stated on the forum. If it is for any other reason then it is only an Editor who can make the call. --Chris Key 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Citizendium policy states "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the speedydelete template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: noinclude speedydelete|REASON|[[] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)/noinclude." Note: I removed the brackets for easy reading. The policy clearly states any author or editor may help by placing the speedy delete template on an article for Constables to review. This is done so "...articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance." My interpretation, which I suspect is correct, states ANY Citizen may place a speedy tag on a article for Constable review. If this is the case, the tag should not be removed until reviewed by a Constable. It's as simple as that. Mary Ash 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- As fpr "any author or editor can request a speedy delete", this is not true. The key words are "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance". This means it must fall under one of the reasons I stated on the forum. If it is for any other reason then it is only an Editor who can make the call. --Chris Key 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the identical text is posted here and in a Forum thread. Do focus on one place of complaint.
"My interpretation, which I suspect is correct..."
- Why do you suspect that? You've been told by active and past Constables, Editors, and people with several years experience at CZ that you are wrong. Yet, you continue to argue the rightness of your position. Since you've opened the issue of what other wikis do, I'll suggest a USENET term for such insistence: trolling. --Howard C. Berkowitz 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Lets stop having this conversation in two places at once please. Those interested in following this discussion can see my reply here.