From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Since it looks like you make most of your edits logged out I don't know if you will see this, but this is a response to the comments you made on VFD regarding your SRV template.
- Length is most certainly an issue. That is why the second line of the NRV template askes one to expand the tagged page into a full article. We just simply can't deal with the shear volume of half-assed stubs that get submitted by people who just don't care about making a quality article. Rarely if ever will someone else devote their time to salvaginf someone else's article. If we really think someone might, though, we add the "rewrite" tag.
- For articles that have some redeeming value, we use a set of tags that gives a longer period of time to work on articles, such as "expansion" "fix" and "ugly." Even here, though, it is primarily the responsibility of the orginal author to care enough to make the page worth keeping. Otherwise the article's value is overshadowed by its faults so that there is no net redeeming value.
- NRV is usually only supposed to be used by users that have been around a while, have good judgement, and are trusted. When NRVed articles are deleted an admin goes through each one and reads them, makes an assessment on their value, checks to see if anyone has trid to improve them and makes sure that the user who tagged the page is legit. NRV isn't my main job, but I have done it myself and I can assure you we do catch it when pages are wrongly NRVed.
- Templates who have a comedic value and which will be used widely enough to justify having their own entry (rather than just being hardcoded in) may be created without permission. Templates that have a functional purpose need to be cleared with the people who use them to maintain the site. Templates that are designed to irritate or aggravate the people who spend their time trying to maintain and improve the site are not a good idea. They violate rule #2 of uncyclopedia: "don't be a dick."
- If you wish to discuss maintanence policy, go to Forum:Village_Dump, though I suspect that the experience and frequent users will not share your opinion.
- If you want to create a short article for others to contribute to and it is not of suficient quality to stay, create it as a sub-page of your user page and then post it on Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review.
--02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but I believe putting down "no redeeming value" on a page when it is a length issue is inappropriate. Tagging someone's work as "no redeeming value" just because it's a one liner, even if it's funny, is counter-constructive and constitutes bullying, IMHO. I think the SRV experience was valuable just because it brought about a conversation on this subject. I don't believe that would have happened otherwise. I don't have a problem with deleting material where it's warranted (for example, I doubt the 'nigga stole my bike' page will ever amount to anything). I just think the NRV tag is needlessly offensive. And you're entitled to think that's a stupid position. I just don't understand why it's necessary to say someone's writing has no value when it just needs to be longer and more substantive. That doesn't mean the idea is bad. And it doesn't mean that their work needs to be effectively vandalized by an ugly, offensive tag that they're not even allowed to remove.
RudolfRadna, 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Quick note: if someone leaves a message here on your talk page, you can respond here, not on their page, since when someone leaves you a message they will usually watchlist the page. Also: please sign your comments either using the signature button or by typing four tildes (~) into the edit box. The tildes get replaced by your signature.
- I didn't come up with the name of NRV. I did change the text, though, which was actually designed to offensive before that. So yes, we have had this discussion multiple times. Nevertheless the template is designed to discourage the bad behavior of making pages that do not have enough substance to have any value as encyclopedia entries. If your page gets tagged with NRV you are allowed to remove it, you just have to follow the directions on the template and expand the article into something worth keeping. We are never going to ban someone for removing the NRV tag when they make a good faith effort to improve a page. But if someone is unwilling to make their page an acceptable part of the site, then it is necessary to "effectivel vandalize" it, and if it being ugly and offensive is what it takes to spur them to action, so be it. -- 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My only point is that I believe a tag that says to the effect "this page is too short. Lengthen it into an encyclopedia article of at least a few paragraphs, hopefully with some illustrations and references, or it will be deleted" is a more apporpriate way to handle this situation. Saying someone's writing has "no value" itself has no value, unless it's truly justified. If you think NRV isn't being misused in this regard, you're entitled to that opinion. I disagree. --RudolfRadna 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I've noted at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:VFD that one problem is that material that shouldn't have been deleted was getting deleted, so it's clear that there have been issues with the way people are using VFD and NRV. I am optimistic that these problems can be fixed, and am particularly pleased that one of the criteria for the standard use of deletion and NRV regarding humor states, to the effect, that the test is not whether the individual user who wants to VFD or NRV finds the page funny, but whether it has humor potential. I think some users have been using NRV just to zap things they think are stupid, leading to the problem of stuff getting tagged that shouldn't. --RudolfRadna 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll restore, but only if you expand it.21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to create it on my user page. I didn't originate the idea, Matt Kurz did, so anyway, you don't need to restore it. I'm still a little confused as to why this was a delete situation rather than an NRV however, since I don't see what was wrong with the stub, and just wiping the stuff is interfering with users working on the stubs. --RudolfRadna 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"i just added it like 1/2 hour ago with the intention of fleshing it ou, hence the stub template... but of course you knew that... no shit about the deletionist thing... who'd think it would be worse here than in jimboland?"
(Above unsigned, but probably Matt Kurz) --RudolfRadna 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)