User talk:Aaron.michels

Welcome!

Hello, Aaron.michels, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice your recommendation

Any editor, including someone who worked on the article, is more than welcome to comment on AFD. While only administrators can delete, any editor, can nominate to delete and offer an opinion on any open debate. (We don't call them votes, because the closing admin is supposed to judge the relative merits of arguments as well as looking at the numbers.) While your position may be obvious, you should (once and once only) indicate your position in boldface. Options include, keep, delete, merge (meaning "keep, rewrite as part of another article and change the article to a redirect"), and userfy (meaning "move to user space and then delete the resulting redirect"). Robert A.West (Talk) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited your user page by mistake

Sorry about that. While it is not against policy to edit other people's user pages, I try to avoid doing it. I blanked the edit, but this now means that your name is bluelinked rather than redlinked. If you prefer the redlink, then you can place a {{db-user}} tag on it and an admin will happily delete it for you. Or, you can add some user page content. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. thanks for being clear and informative here and elsewhere.Aaron.michels 02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Dickinson Street Co-op

Hi Aaron, I've added a proper *welcome* above, it should have come sooner. I saw your post about being sadded by the deletion process. Please try not to take it personally. Most Wikipedians agree that the best outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article, not a deleted one. Usually, consensus works around here and the final outcome is appropriate. Hope you decide to stay and work on the project further. Regards, Accurizer 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note. i am saddened by this process, mostly because it is so admittedly arbitrary. I understand that there's a justified hostility against vanity spammers, but it's also hard for me to see how this agressive deletion stance benefits Wikipedia.Aaron.michels 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the process is heavily weighted against deletion. The speedy deletion process is designed mostly to get rid of patent nonsense, "Hi there!" messages, someone's bio of his girlfriend (or worse, his ex-girlfriend), commercial spam, and students plugging their frat party or other organization. By some estimates, that is about 40% of new articles: I give the admins credit for making no more mistakes than they do.

The "proposed deletion" (prod) procedure is a "without objection" process: it's very useful for abandoned articles that will never be improved, articles that duplicate other articles, and so on. Anyone can object for any reason or no reason.

The AFD process goes on for five days (sometimes longer) and will only result in a deletion if the case for deletion is much stronger than that for keeping.

All in all, it is no more arbitrary than any other process that involves complex questions and requires people to make judgments. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "arbitrary," I meant that I didn't see any inclination on the part of the editors to pursue parallel campus organizations with deletions on similar guidelines. The targeting of this particular article among those dozen or so articles is mostly a chance happening. Perhaps related to it being a new article? Aaron.michels 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that I'm not advocating for the deletion of eating club entries, I'm just noting a discrepancy. Aaron.michels 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administration has been described as "a mop and bucket." Some administrators spend their time screening newly-created articles for obvious problems. If they are not sure about an article, they may tag it or just make a note and come back when they have a moment. Some non-administrators do new article patrol, generally looking for less-obvious problems. There is some urgency to getting rid of spam quickly, because of Wikipedia's high Google rank, and because there are mirrors that copy articles automatically. Once that happens, the copies may never get purged and the spammer has won.

Since we're all volunteers, there are days and hours when there are fewer watchers, and more things get through that might be questioned at other times. Once something gets through initial screening, it is depends on who notices it. Some Wikipedians never nominate anything for deletion. Others have specific pet peeves that they watch out for: memorial articles, dumb lists, spam, crank physics theories, etc. Some editors click on "random article," looking for something that needs improving or, sometimes, deletion. Sometimes an editor is reviewing edits by a suspected vandal, and one of those touched an article that should be deleted.

Sometimes when an article is nominated, other similar articles get attention that they didn't get before. The article on Cloister Inn has now been tagged for possible non-notability. The article on Princeton Charter Club is very well written, so it takes a careful read to realize that it is doubtful. The University Cottage Club is notable because of This Side of Paradise, so the article shouldn't be deleted. If Gary Trudeau had gone to Princeton, 2D would be equally notable.

So, I view the process as stochastic, more than as arbitrary. Does that clarify things a bit? Robert A.West (Talk) 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]