Project:Editing Discussion/Archive 01

Deletions?

How does one propose a page for deletion? I stumbled on LSL Teacher which seemed to be a part-advertisement part-forum-thread type thing that shouldn't be here. In the meantime, I just blanked it. Celierra Darling 19:17, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Leave a message on User talk:Rob Linden.

However, if you read User talk:Rob Linden#Pseudo-Deletion Policy and User talk:SignpostMarv Martin#Thanks.21.2Fre: redirects, you'll notice that Linden Lab won't generally delete anything unless it creates a problem for them (see User talk:SignpostMarv Martin#LL:Second Life Terms of Service)- although I would imagine if the content violates the TOS/CS, then the page will likely be deleted.

In this case however, I think I've taken the most appropriate action; I've updated Template:visl to include an "LSL" parameter, which will list the user under LSL Mentors, and setup a redirect from LSL Teacher to the new category.

SignpostMarv Martin 20:40, 10 February 2007 (PST)

A redirect is the exact right way of handling the situation, since redirects are cheap and easy to do. -- Rob Linden 22:10, 11 February 2007 (PST)

LSL Teacher should not have been blanked or redirected without discussion on it either on that page or in the LSL Portal talk page. The page as it was origionally had content on it that was appropriate as it did list people who were available to teach LSL. A teacher is not the same as a Mentor, and yes they may charge for their services. There was one line on the origional page that should have been removed, as it was someone asking for help. Not everyone who would be listed on that list would have a wiki account or would even know about whatever your Template:visl is Thraxis Epsilon 16:07, 12 February 2007 (PST)

1. It was being used as a talk page.
2. It was being used as a billboard.

Articles are not talk pages, and content specific to a Resident should be listed in their own page. (see Resident's own pages in Resident's own user-spaces for the basic gist of my opinion on the matter)

1. There is nothing preventing Residents from creating their SL Wiki account- all they need to do is log in.
2. Inclusion of the LSL Mentors category in Template:visl is only a short term measure
3. Categories are easier to maintain than lists.
4. Help talk:Getting_started_with_LSL would be the best place to ask for help that isn't direct to a particular person.

Any further questions ?

SignpostMarv Martin 18:20, 12 February 2007 (PST)

sysop lock

Any chance the sysop lock on the article could temporarily be lifted, or have a sysadmin add the trailing "]" to the link in Editing Guidelines#Templates ?
SignpostMarv Martin 20:48, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Proposal: Sanctity of User: pages.

No one other then the owner a specific User: namespace, or a Wiki Admin ( a page listing those with said rights should be available), should edit any page in another users namespace other then a Talk page. Thraxis Epsilon 00:52, 20 February 2007 (PST)

I'm assuming this is a roundabout way of having me told off, since anyone familiar with Wikis already knows this.

So.... should we be prevented from adding Template:visl and Template:llEmployee to the appropriate user-pages ?

SignpostMarv Martin 07:06, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: As you do not know why a user did not make use of said templates, you should not take it upon yourself to alter their pages to use said templates. If they have not added themselves to the Categories, they may not have wished to be listed there. If they did add themselves to the Categories, but did not feel the need to use said templates... it is not my place, nor yours, to second guess their decision and change their page.

What is troubling is that you make very clear in your response that you are well aware that this shouldn't be done, yet you have repeatedly taken it upon yourself to do this very thing. Since it has now been shown, by your actions, that this is an allowed behaviour, and as it is not explicitly noted in the Editing Guidlines as something that should not be done, it has become necessary to suggest it as a proposal, to prevent possible future abuse. Thraxis Epsilon 09:54, 20 February 2007 (PST)

1. Volunteers & Lindens are starting to add the templates themselves now, so the addition of the templates has paid off and I won't be doing it unless asked (Hamlet has asked me to do his user page since he's too busy to log in and do it himself).
2. I've not been adding any language template to people's pages when I know they speak a language, as it's up to them whether they want to attract the attention of the relevant international community.
3. See Resident's own pages in Resident's own user-spaces for the reason behind all previous user-space editing.
4. Yes I'm aware it looks rather suspect. Since all work has been completed on that matter, there's no need for me to be doing it any more, and I apologise for not making this clear.

Aside from me coming of as an asshole about it (although some people have followed through with the principal on their own), what're your thoughts on the Resident's own pages in Resident's own user-spaces becoming an editing guideline ? It's more centered around the idea of keeping articles under development in personal sandboxes instead of the main article-space, giving a visual and psychological queue that the article is "under construction".

• It's a case of [[Marv's To-Do list]] vs User:SignpostMarv Martin/To-Do

SignpostMarv Martin 10:11, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Proposal: No User Pages in Feature Request Category

The feature pages that signpost moved into people's user namespace (without asking anyone) are crudding up the category now. I propose that if a feature request is not well thought out enough to be in the main namespace, it shouldn't be in the category either. There's no point to link to articles we shouldn't edit in the User namespaces.

Implementation of this proposal would require going through the feature request category, moving well developed ideas to their own article outside the user namespace, and removing the category tag from the rest of them. Gigs Taggart 14:17, 21 February 2007 (PST)

What about under-developed ideas.....

You going to wipe out all trace of them or leave them in the user-space ?

SignpostMarv Martin 17:27, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Also, by preventing Residents from working on feature proposals in their user-space, you either force them to put half-baked articles into the main namespace, or stop them from letting other Residents know what they're working on.

SignpostMarv Martin 19:08, 21 February 2007 (PST)

They can do whatever they want in their own user space, the category just shouldn't be crudded up with it. Gigs Taggart 20:06, 21 February 2007 (PST)

So.... what's the threshold for what constitutes a half-baked idea to a one that warrants existance in the main namespace ?

SignpostMarv Martin 20:24, 21 February 2007 (PST)

The same standard that applies to any other article. Stop being dense. Gigs Taggart 20:51, 21 February 2007 (PST)

1. They can do whatever they want in their own user space
2. The same standard that applies to any other article.

Sounds like this proposal is rather redundant.

SignpostMarv Martin 21:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)