Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia
Add topicLatest comment: 16 years ago by Hillgentleman in topic The proposal is discontinued please respect that
See also
[edit]- (German) Die Qualität von Interwikis oder was tun mit Volapük? [wikiDE-l]
- (English) A dangerous precedent [foundation-l]
- (English) The bot equivalent to the atom bomb was ignited.
- (English) Of bots and conlangs: the Volapük Wikipedia
- (English) Linguistic tolerance
Page size
[edit]The proposal page has already gained more than 300 kb. Time to archive? 89.236.214.174 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you archive you should archive each day :( --OosWesThoesBes 14:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is discontinued please respect that
[edit]Please revert the page to my last version. I know The wrong version but I am the initiator and thus have the right to discontinue my own proposal. This is common practice across Wikimedia projects in case of a stuck situation. See also my comment [1] (which I did prior to noticing that the page was protected). Arnomane 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Arnomane, normally such proposals are closed by sysops here on Meta, You or anyone can propose a closing within a reasonable time (normally 1 week is given) then if no one objects it closes (if no one objects also the propser can close), as far as I can see the proposal to close in a week was already added, thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but I want things to get done. I want to move on. I don't like endless talking. I don't follow policies for the sake of executing policies. Arnomane 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You started this proposal on Meta and You are therefore agreeing to respect our rules here, and this is just common practise, we will not change it for You. Also You can move on, nobody holds You back. And anyhow we are talking about a few days, so I don't see any problem. Thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know I have been around for too long. I love this project too much cause I have invested too much time into Wikipedia, Commons and Wikimedia in general. It is always very painful to realize that others can easily to put you off Wikipedia, and consequently realize that you better should leave it entirely. You don't want to argue over and over again in your free time. You want to have fun in your spare time and you don't want to fight with people that have no common sense and that just love to do their ego-thing without bothering about anybody else. Arnomane 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You started this proposal on Meta and You are therefore agreeing to respect our rules here, and this is just common practise, we will not change it for You. Also You can move on, nobody holds You back. And anyhow we are talking about a few days, so I don't see any problem. Thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but I want things to get done. I want to move on. I don't like endless talking. I don't follow policies for the sake of executing policies. Arnomane 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Arnomane, You do not own the page and you have no such right. Pages in Meta are published under GFDL. The site is very clear on this point: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Hillgentleman 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem. This has nothing to do with the GFDL. The GFDL allows me to falsify your comment but I am sure you and (hopefully) all others wouldn't like it cause I'd violate a fundamental informal rule (that maybe even is written down somewhereTM). The same is with my proposal. If I say "Ok I made some mistakes, like the proposed move to the Incubator" and you are going to deny the consequence (returning to the draft phase) this is the very same like editing each others comments. But I see that meta people like another approach and I have to accept that even calling such an action hostile is considered a personal attac and generates "yet another meta discussion on meta topicsTM". Arnomane 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are missing the whole point: the proposal is not yours and yours alone. When you release something under GFDL, you allow others to continue to work on it, so long as the GFDL conditions are met. If you "falsify my comment", your edit will be reverted, and we should not edit other people's comments with signatures. These are supported by clear community consensus and will be maintained by community. But we can always add our own comments. Hillgentleman 00:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem. This has nothing to do with the GFDL. The GFDL allows me to falsify your comment but I am sure you and (hopefully) all others wouldn't like it cause I'd violate a fundamental informal rule (that maybe even is written down somewhereTM). The same is with my proposal. If I say "Ok I made some mistakes, like the proposed move to the Incubator" and you are going to deny the consequence (returning to the draft phase) this is the very same like editing each others comments. But I see that meta people like another approach and I have to accept that even calling such an action hostile is considered a personal attac and generates "yet another meta discussion on meta topicsTM". Arnomane 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Arnomane, your ideas of what Wikipedia is and does are not universally shared. Your notion that others have no common sense shows disdain for the arguments of others. You demonstrate a vigilante approach and are surprised that people resent this. When people indicate that your insistence on closing/radically cleaning the Volapük Wikipedia amounts to harasment, the only excuse you have that is "this is your proposal and that you want to do things differently". Arnomane leave off. Do something positive. Yes, there are people against closing this proposal if this is what it takes to slow you down. The best argument why you should be stopped is because it will leave the vo.wikipedians to actually do some good work in stead of chasing after you. GerardM 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know any idea that is universally shared. I personally don't want to consider your view that Wikipedia has to be the omniscient data vacuum cleaner and that consequently e.g. the split into various Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource... is wrong according to you. Your personal point of view is so fundamental different from mine (and by the way even from Wikimedia reality) that I don't see a chance that you and me can come to any common solution on this and related topics. Arnomane 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- But be honest, the fact is that by doing the utmost to strip the Volapük Wikipedia, its editors will perceive it as a threat. And that a new proposal has almost as little chance as the former proposals for closing and stripping the project in question. So that basically makes your actions, and maybe also your intentions, negative: you do your very best to get rid of as much of the Volapük Wikipedia as possible. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to get rid of Volapük Wikipedia. Please stop your wild guessing about my intentions. Arnomane 14:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't; but that doesn't show in any of your arguments. It looks to me like you simply want to punish them with your big whip. And this is sad, and it's certainly not what Wikipedians should be. --Gzine 19:52, 13 February 2008
- I don't want to get rid of Volapük Wikipedia. Please stop your wild guessing about my intentions. Arnomane 14:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- But be honest, the fact is that by doing the utmost to strip the Volapük Wikipedia, its editors will perceive it as a threat. And that a new proposal has almost as little chance as the former proposals for closing and stripping the project in question. So that basically makes your actions, and maybe also your intentions, negative: you do your very best to get rid of as much of the Volapük Wikipedia as possible. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know any idea that is universally shared. I personally don't want to consider your view that Wikipedia has to be the omniscient data vacuum cleaner and that consequently e.g. the split into various Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource... is wrong according to you. Your personal point of view is so fundamental different from mine (and by the way even from Wikimedia reality) that I don't see a chance that you and me can come to any common solution on this and related topics. Arnomane 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)