333:
fix the article as soon as possible. When an article has just recently been cleanup-date tagged (I'd include anything tagged in 2006 in the "recently" category), sorting it into an appropriate specific cleanup category will probably get it attention sooner than leaving it in the cleanup-date category will. Therefore, sorting those articles is good. When an article has reached the end of the cleanup-date queue, on the other hand, it's going to get attention soon, so the best thing to do is to leave it in its cleanup-date category. With articles in the oldest couple of cleanup-date categories, I either
323:
into a smaller category will probably get them attention in months rather than years; at the end of the queue, (i.e. the cleanup from June '05 category), the articles are going to get attention this month. You're right that cleanup queue is overloaded, and articles that can be shifted elsewhere should, but not all articles can be shifted, and in any event, the right place to shift them from is the newly-tagged articles pool. It looks like you've only reverted a few articles, and those were special cases; let me know what you think as far as the rest. --
304:. Although this can be productive at times, tossing severely troubled articles that have at long last reached the end of the cleanup by month queue, where they're just going to get ignored for another long while, is counterproductive. Moreover, I don't think you're recategorizations have always been addressing all the issues with the article (
442:
before, the thing's been a mess, but it's a valid topic, and clearly from the talk page there is someone talking about working on it seriously, so deletion would be out of line. If you feel that things in the article are "junk" and should be moved to talk, then please feel free to do so, at least as far as I'm concerned. -
416::-) I don't agree with Prodding or AfDing a bad article about a notable subject. it should generally be improved rather than deleted. I'll lend a hand when I get a free moment to do the necessary research. if you have time to do that before I get to it, you'd be doing Knowledge (XXG) a huge favor. Best,
373:
work. Unfortunately, the massive pileup of articles in the cleanup-date categories reflects a larger problem with our cleanup system in general; there simply aren't enough people doing it. When you said, "Basically, if you can identify the problem, an expert will show up. Knowledge (XXG) has many,
343:
it, rewrite it myself, or leave it alone. No point shuffling categories around if it isn't going to make the cleanup go faster. The important thing to remember about working on the cleanup queue is that the point isn't to get the articles off the queue; it's to get them cleaned up. And ultimately,
355:
So basically, my point about cleanup queue is this: the best solution is always to fix the article yourself, either by rewriting it or, if appropriate, redirecting, prodding, or transwikiing it. After that, the best thing to do is whatever will get someone else to fix the article the fastest. If
351:
is what my contributions looked like during the period when I was most active on cleanup queue; some days I'd do a bunch of shorter articles, other days I'd spend almost all my editing time working on one big article. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to make sure that every article you
332:
It's good to work the oldest tags first if and only if you're going to make the necessary content changes to the articles. Retagging an article in the June '05 cleanup category just delays the time when it's going to get attention. Remember that the goal of all cleanup tags is to get someone to
211:
I didn't delete any of your Jay Ryan material ... just moved it to the talk page - which is where it belongs. The article page should be reserved for the actual article --- or disambiguation, which is what I was pointing out in my last edit. Since you seem to be in the middle of editing this, I'll
77:
I'm correcting it now and the correction should clear any questions. If any questions remain, then I would consider it appropriate to remove the image until the matter is settled. I'm adding details to the image so you might consider it. If you feel inappropriate, then we should find a way to deal
322:
about to get some attention; moving it to another cleanup category just means its going to sit for longer. If you're looking to retag articles to get them attention faster, the front end of the cleanup queue (articles tagged in the past few months) is the place to go; moving those articles there
31:
Hi; I'd love to find/scan a map. I have a vintage one which would be public-domain/scannable but the book layout splits the map on the binding; I'll have to find an unbound original. Ideally the map would show some of the major "bars" and trails, rather than the modern one; but yeah, at least a
378:
the cleanup system worked. Unfortunately, the groups devoted to keeping each of those special categories clear don't exist. All of the categories are being served by the same sort of group that serves the cleanup-date queue--a few overworked people just trying to keep the backlog from getting
441:
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "move unfinished work" or "move to unfinished". I haven't read through the article lately. I was in discussion with someone on the talk page, glanced at the article, and noticed the proposal to delete it. Again, from when I've looked at it
388:
intended to address this issue, but it went nowhere.) Ultimately, the people who are going to have to do the work are guys like you and me; non-specialists with a little bit of time to spend working on this area of the project. The best thing we can do is to go about doing the necessary work
430:
How about moving all the junk on to the talkpage instead of AfD? Just the same, I'm reverting the page to cleanup-date|June 2005. Someone else will run into it in a few days and PROD again. Best to let it go, or move unfinished work. I'll support, if you move to unfinished.
383:
large. Similarly, your statement that "If I organize new information, someone will come along and do the work" is a description of how things should work; unfortunately, there simply aren't enough people doing the grunt work. (Interestingly, a while ago I wrote up a
278:
If you don't stop screwing around, putting random notes on an article page, keep blanking the talk page, etc., I'll consider what you are doing intentional vandalism and bring it to the attention of the admins. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE!!!
344:
the best way to do that is to rewrite them yourself. An article that gets retagged hasn't been "resolved"--it will only be "resolved" when someone actually cleans up the article; retagging just changes what line the article is waiting in.
134:
In any case, per 'Possibly Unfree
Unimages': "Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed." So, let's let it rest and I'll be back on it in a few days... possible Thursday. In the meantime I will investigate your
62:. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain.
267:
Talking to yourself on the article page is not the way to proceed. WP is not for your notes. Take your notes on your own computer, may I suggest
Notepad or Wordpad, then write the article when you are prepared.
159:
I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
101:
The information the map was drawn from is public, however, the artwork itself is eminently copyrightable. Fair use wouldn't pull because we are using the whole of the map - as a map. May I point you to
72:
You are correct. The image is from the City of
Redwood City part of a 1969 environmental impact report. Also, it appears I have misread the copyrights . I have also mislabeled the copyright.
347:
As far as how many articles to deal with in a day; I would say to do however many you have time for. Some articles are going to take hours to clean up, which can slow the process down.
123:
Hmm... My poor choice of words - quoting "fair use" is not the same as fair use. In any case, I believe the artwork is in the PD and the new tag { { PD-ineligible } } is more appropriate.
308:, for example, where I first noticed your edits, needs substantially more than generalization and redlink removal). Accordingly, I'm going to revert some of these recategorizations. --
360:
category is the best solution. If it has been cleanup-date tagged for a while, leave it be. Someone will come along and fix it sooner if it stays in the cleanup date category. --
194:
I would rather delete, but if you and he, along with the wiki policy prefer this. I really don't have any issues with it. I'll await his response before moving. Thanks --
318:
Here's the reason I reverted: You're quite right that a year on the cleanup queue is bad, but the good news is that, by the time an article has spent a year there, it's
223:
Sure, I'm happy to leave this alone for a few days. I was just trying to help by getting the discussion to the discussion / talk page :-) Nice work that you're doing!
462:
32:
location map. this article was written as a near-stub and I haven't been back to it in a while; I was waiting until I got my butt to work on the
212:
wait a little while before my next edit ... but the discussion really does belong on the talk page. Thanks for your understaning and patience.
435:
374:
many groups organized to work in specific areas and specific problems, hence all the special tags", you were describing the way I
385:
250:
55:
369:
I can see what you're saying about the value of retagging articles, and it reflects how
Knowledge (XXG)'s cleanup system
103:
83:
On the other matter concerning MSG, I'm not in the mood for a fight. I will let the matter sit until Monday or
Tuesday.
305:
169:
59:
17:
177:
254:
246:
37:
432:
195:
145:
89:
294:
I noticed you've been changing a number of cleanup-date tags to other sorts of tags, particularly
469:
450:
420:
393:
364:
327:
312:
283:
272:
257:
227:
216:
198:
186:
148:
110:
92:
66:
44:
176:
paper trail on talk pages old discussions are not deleted but archived. How this is done is at
298:
33:
447:
280:
269:
352:
remove an old cleanup-date tag from is cleaned up, and can be considered a good article.
242:
337:
41:
241:
Thank you for experimenting with
Knowledge (XXG). Your test worked, and it has been
417:
466:
443:
224:
213:
183:
107:
63:
390:
361:
324:
309:
356:
the article just recently got cleanup-date tagged, sorting it into another
235:
253:
if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
409:
389:
ourselves. It's slow, but I have yet to see another alternative. --
40:
and related bio articles, but I haven't found my focus for that yet.
180:. Keenan refers to this convention in his edit summary here.
348:
249:
for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the
181:
426:
168:
Jesse, I agree that there is much stale material on
425:
78:with this as the image (I believe) is fair use.
58:, the map that you uploaded for the article on
8:
56:Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg
7:
207:Discussions belong on the talk page
24:
104:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Maps
408:Well, someone should edit the
1:
486:
27:Fraser Gold Rush map thing
470:06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
451:06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
436:06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
421:20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
394:22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
365:03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
328:23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
313:02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
284:02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
273:02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
258:03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
228:01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
217:01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
199:04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
187:04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
178:Knowledge (XXG):Archiving
170:Talk:Monosodium_glutamate
149:06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
111:05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
93:04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
67:13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
45:16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
465:. Thanks for your help.
461:I've listed Datamonitor
60:Redwood City, California
54:Hi there, this is about
18:User talk:Jessemonroy650
245:or removed. Please use
172:. However, to have an
457:AfD for Datamonitor
164:Talk page archiving
34:Fraser Canyon War
477:
342:
336:
303:
297:
255:SynergeticMaggot
50:Redwood City map
485:
484:
480:
479:
478:
476:
475:
474:
459:
428:
406:
340:
334:
301:
295:
292:
265:
239:
209:
174:easily accessed
166:
52:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
483:
481:
458:
455:
454:
453:
427:
424:
405:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
353:
345:
291:
288:
287:
286:
264:
261:
238:
233:
232:
231:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
165:
162:
154:
153:
152:
151:
139:
138:
137:
136:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
116:
115:
114:
113:
96:
95:
85:
84:
80:
79:
74:
73:
51:
48:
38:David Spintlum
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
482:
473:
471:
468:
464:
456:
452:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
423:
422:
419:
415:
412:article. Its
411:
403:
395:
392:
387:
382:
377:
372:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
339:
331:
330:
329:
326:
321:
317:
316:
315:
314:
311:
307:
300:
289:
285:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
262:
260:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
237:
234:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
218:
215:
206:
200:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
163:
161:
157:
156:Jessemonroy,
150:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
133:
132:
131:
130:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
112:
109:
105:
100:
99:
98:
97:
94:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
76:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:
61:
57:
49:
47:
46:
43:
39:
35:
26:
19:
460:
429:
413:
407:
380:
375:
370:
357:
319:
306:this article
293:
290:Cleanup tags
266:
251:welcome page
240:
210:
173:
167:
158:
155:
53:
30:
358:appropriate
281:Hanuman Das
270:Hanuman Das
247:the sandbox
135:suggestion.
433:meatclerk
196:meatclerk
146:meatclerk
90:meatclerk
386:proposal
299:redlinks
263:Jay Ryan
243:reverted
236:Jay Ryan
42:Skookum1
472:btball
418:Gwernol
410:Gartner
404:Gartner
320:finally
219:btball
444:Jmabel
371:should
230:btball
184:Dr Zak
108:Dr Zak
64:Dr Zak
467:Brian
414:awful
391:Robth
362:Robth
325:Robth
310:Robth
225:Brian
214:Brian
16:<
463:Here
448:Talk
376:wish
349:This
338:prod
381:too
446:|
341:}}
335:{{
302:}}
296:{{
144:--
106:.
88:--
36:,
279:—
268:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.