31:
256:
catches on. As for bureaocracy (sp?); the page is intended to be a wholly non-bureaucratic training-ground for newcomers, who may have difficulty navigating the bureaoucratic system we already have, or at least ease their way up the learning curve to our community editing procedures and exception handling methods. Anyway, its fate is very much up to wikipedianship at large, vote as you like, but vote! --
285:
youre interested in dealing with its merits --then join the general discussion on deletion policy. Otherwise its foolish for people to want to delete something just because it was "sprung on them" --which is why theres a policy change in the works. This was a sucessful experiment, regardless of all the naysayers --all of whom, coincidentally, happen to not bother using it.
255:
is with that page anyway, since I haven't really used it. IMO the page should be deleted if there is a better way of breathing life in to the utilities which Angela and
Kingturtle list. I think cleanup could even reduce the number of pages ending up on Pages needing attention, if we are lucky and it
243:
be the first and loudest voice asking for its abolition, or reining in. I think frex
Wikimoney should have been buried a long time ago, likewise some other moribund institutions. Just because I suggested this thingummy to begin with, does not mean that I won't support its abolition in a blink of an
284:
is working quite well, thank you. If youve considered that VFD honly has 70K worth of blabber on it today, as opposed to almost 100K -- then if can rightly be asserted that
Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup has taken 30k worth of space and ua corresponding number of edit conflicts off of this page here. If
279:
Keep, until deletion process is formally overhauled. I have a feeling that had I more time to pay attn to this, then maybe Angela (a key vote and a former user of CU) would have a better feeling for it. The real reason this is here, is because people completely fail to understand it, or dont like
200:
was taken off RC because a request was made that
Cleanup be on there, and I thought it was better to replace PNA than to replace VFD. That said, PNA had a long enough name, that there is still room for another Utility with a short name. I had already typed in
95:
This new system, which seems plausible on the surface, but actually makes no sense at all, was suddenly sprung on us fully formed and "operating". The people who sprang it on us, and their friends, are the only ones who claim fully to understand it.
265:
Keep. It's in use. The fact that it duplicates other functionality is irrelevant in my opinion. Knowledge (XXG) can survive having multiple schemes for urging people to work on bad articles. --
147:
is being used to DELETE articles which have not gone through the VfD process. Cleanup avoids the week-long time-period and avoids a voting and discussion process. This is WRONG. This must STOP.
221:
125:
272:
I have changed my mind. None of the arguments for deletion merit even abstention. I vote to keep
Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup; with continued improvements... --
301:
Isn't the fact that this page got listed on VFD a hard proof that people prefer to delete problems rather than discuss and solve them? Keep aneway.
133:
121:
294:
Maybe the problem with
Cleanup is the explanation for it and the details of its procedures. I still am not clear on either of them.
47:
17:
251:
Not voting either way, but as I see it, the page should not be deleted for the sins of TTBMTW. Don't really see what the problem
38:
175:
could enlighten us whether she/he thinks
Cleanup played a decisive role in validating their act of deletion? --
70:
244:
eye, if I believe it doesn't work. (mark that down, and quote it back to me later, if it becomes necessary) --
202:
171:
Frankly, I checked the entry on CU, and deletion was not even mentioned. Maybe the person who deleted
103:
I haven't personally claimed I understand it fully; nor could I, since it is still far from finished
90:
61:
60:
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled
302:
273:
257:
245:
206:
187:
176:
155:
112:
197:
83:
295:
286:
165:
148:
137:
281:
266:
107:
fully formed. It is nothing but a strapling, waiting to grow and form itself. We can
97:
233:
226:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
213:
183:
172:
161:
232:
Keep it for now to give it more of a chance to prove itself. It might work.
212:
Delete. An attempt to impose unneeded layers of bureaucracy on us.
239:
It might. That is the extent of my claim as well. If it does not, I
25:
73:
rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.
154:
Just out of curiosity... Just which pages are those? --
205:, but then I remembered that it is not a utility. --
136:removed from the utilities list on recent changes?
126:Knowledge (XXG):Possible copyright infringements
182:BTW, just to make you happy, I have undeleted
78:The result of the debate was to keep the page.
220:Delete. Liable to suffer the same probems as
8:
111:mould it (or "mold" it, if you like). --
134:Knowledge (XXG):Pages needing attention
122:Knowledge (XXG):Pages needing attention
69:Further comments should be made on the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Cleanup process
120:DELETE! How is this different from
24:
280:improvements on process. In fact
29:
1:
320:
248:22:15, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
158:16:17, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
132:is redundant, And why was
276:08:20, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
260:14:16, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
236:22:49, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
229:23:47, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
209:16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
190:23:34, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
179:22:21, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
140:17:44, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
115:16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
100:16:06, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
305:22:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
298:22:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
289:18:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
269:10:17, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
216:19:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
203:Knowledge (XXG):WikiLove
168:16:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
151:15:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
145:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup
91:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup
62:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup
274:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
258:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
246:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
207:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
188:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
177:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
156:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
113:Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
42:of past discussions.
54:
53:
48:current talk page
311:
33:
32:
26:
319:
318:
314:
313:
312:
310:
309:
308:
164:, for example.
86:on October 11.
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
317:
315:
307:
306:
299:
292:
291:
290:
287:戴眩sv
277:
270:
263:
262:
261:
237:
230:
217:
210:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
180:
169:
152:
118:
117:
116:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
316:
304:
300:
297:
293:
288:
283:
278:
275:
271:
268:
264:
259:
254:
250:
249:
247:
242:
238:
235:
231:
228:
225:
223:
218:
215:
211:
208:
204:
199:
196:
189:
185:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:
157:
153:
150:
146:
142:
141:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
99:
94:
93:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
79:
75:
74:
72:
66:
65:
63:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
252:
240:
219:
144:
129:
108:
104:
81:
77:
76:
68:
67:
59:
58:
55:
43:
37:
36:This is an
296:Kingturtle
184:Consultant
173:Consultant
166:Kingturtle
162:Consultant
149:Kingturtle
138:Kingturtle
82:Listed on
71:talk page
267:Onebyone
143:Part of
253:exactly
130:Cleanup
98:GrahamN
39:archive
234:Angela
227:Angela
222:TTBMTW
198:WP:PNA
282:WP:CU
214:RickK
186:. --
124:*or*
16:<
241:WILL
109:all
84:VfD
303:BL
128:?
105:or
224:.
64:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.