Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions petition
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flagged revisions petition page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
See also
[edit]- Wikipedia:Targeted flagging
- Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions
- Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions petition
Vandalism? Is the wording correct?
[edit]Has the wording of the petition been vandalised? "BLPs smell like sewers" and "'Nuff said" are hardly helpful ways to present this. Many BLPs are exceptionally well written and resourced. They do not "smell like sewers". I strongly suggest rewording in a more neutral tone. Something like "BLPs are highly difficult articles to maintain... We have [etc]. Please roll these out immeadiately. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Marking as historical?
[edit]This was marked as historical on the basis of a VP discussion involving two users. Seems to me that the fate of a petition of 262 users should be discussed by them on the talk page.
My own opinion is that this issue is still live and some people are still signing it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Historical due to petitions not being valid for Wikipedia, not because people aren't still interested in the issue. I think BRD was part of the idea here. By all means chime in at the VP discussion with your thoughts. Equazcion (talk) 00:41, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- There is no policy against petitions last time I looked. I'd rather discuss it here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The point of the discussion is to propose such a policy, so if you have thoughts on that you might want to discuss it there. Equazcion (talk) 01:11, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- I don't. I see no need of it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to revert an action that resulted from the proposal, you should be willing to discuss your objections to it. Otherwise you're not leaving anyone any choice, and someone else is probably just gonna come around and mark this historical again. It would be more constructive to engage in the discussion now. Equazcion (talk) 01:38, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? I've already given my reasons above. I'm happy to discuss them.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is already ongoing there. Seems it would be more conducive to continue it there, rather than restart here, especially since the proposal effects more pages than this one alone. You seem to object to the idea of invalidating the concept of petitions on Wikipedia, so why not offer your thoughts at that centralized discussion? Why are you being difficult about this? Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- It's a discussion of three people. Objections to petitions were discussed and dismissed by far more people at an earlier juncture.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to refuse to participate in the discussion because you view this as a strategy to refuse it validation, I suppose that's your prerogative. I just think that's probably not going to be a workable long-term strategy. Consensus can change, and silence can equal consensus, ergo you can see how your refusal to participate affects the proposal. Equazcion (talk) 02:09, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus can indeed change. But I don't have time to engage in a another discussion because two editors get one going in a new forum. There's discussion on this talk page already. Plus 262 editors recently endorsed this petition, and implicitly the principle of it, good luck overturning that - but you will need more than two of you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- As for saying those who sign a petition also support the idea of petitions, that's specious reasoning in my mind. Just because someone signs something that says "if you agree with this then sign here" doesn't mean they wouldn't question the merit of that practice if it were brought into question. As for number of people involved, I think you might only be looking at the subsection I linked to in my edit summary. The discussion is actually pretty extensive and many more than two editors support the proposed policy. See Wikipedia:Vpr#Dealing_with_Petitions. Equazcion (talk) 02:28, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus can indeed change. But I don't have time to engage in a another discussion because two editors get one going in a new forum. There's discussion on this talk page already. Plus 262 editors recently endorsed this petition, and implicitly the principle of it, good luck overturning that - but you will need more than two of you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to refuse to participate in the discussion because you view this as a strategy to refuse it validation, I suppose that's your prerogative. I just think that's probably not going to be a workable long-term strategy. Consensus can change, and silence can equal consensus, ergo you can see how your refusal to participate affects the proposal. Equazcion (talk) 02:09, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- It's a discussion of three people. Objections to petitions were discussed and dismissed by far more people at an earlier juncture.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is already ongoing there. Seems it would be more conducive to continue it there, rather than restart here, especially since the proposal effects more pages than this one alone. You seem to object to the idea of invalidating the concept of petitions on Wikipedia, so why not offer your thoughts at that centralized discussion? Why are you being difficult about this? Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? I've already given my reasons above. I'm happy to discuss them.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to revert an action that resulted from the proposal, you should be willing to discuss your objections to it. Otherwise you're not leaving anyone any choice, and someone else is probably just gonna come around and mark this historical again. It would be more constructive to engage in the discussion now. Equazcion (talk) 01:38, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- I don't. I see no need of it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The point of the discussion is to propose such a policy, so if you have thoughts on that you might want to discuss it there. Equazcion (talk) 01:11, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Only four people added signed the petition this month (that's one signature per week); the issue may still be "live", but the petition is not. Whatever purpose it was created to serve, it either has served or never could serve. Allow me to put the question this way: Do you foresee any significant change as a result of leaving it open? If not, then it is time to close it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- And what exactly does closing it achieve? Kevin (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with closing this, we have made our point and this petition is essentially stale. I recommend we take this to another forum and start again to make our wishes known... -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales starts poll on "flagged revisions now"
[edit]See User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)