Forum:A fairly large VFD request

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A fairly large VFD request

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4093 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The background

Anybody who has been watching QVFD or my talk page knows that I don't want to have any of the articles where I was the main contributor to be hosted on this site. In fact I'd like to have my name removed from this site as much as possible.

From a publishing rights standpoint, the community here has te right to publish - in full - all content previously hosted at uncyclopedia.org, or uncyclopedia.wikia.com. Both of these sites ran under NC-BY-CC-SA rules. By the same token, the material published at illogicopedia (sp?), ED, Wikipedia, Alpha one, etc. can also be ported over here in full as long as attribution to the original author is included, and as long as this site runs on a non-commercial basis.

In the past Uncyclopedia admins have honoured the request by an author on QVFD to delete content that they have predominantly created. The ownership of the content remains with the contributor, but by publishing here - or on any other NC-BY-CC-SA site - the rights to publish and republish are given away.

With the importing of content from the Wikia site there was no community discussion on how it would be done, and no discussion - except for after the announcement that the new site was being created - on how the new site was being structured. Or, more accurately, no discussion that was open to the community.

As an individual I dislike the way that this site has been created. My reasoning for that has been discussed elsewhere, in detail, on my talk page. But the rationale for the request is unimportant. The basic reality is that - at this stage and as the site is currently running - I don't want to have my intellectual property being reproduced here without my consent.

The main issues with deletion of content however is that content being deleted can “harm” the community. This is two-fold: it discourages editors from producing content from the site - á la “why did you delete my article” - and the creation of redlinks.

On the first issue, this request is coming from an editor who has stated he doesn't wish to be involved in the site on this server, and has said so vehemently various times.

On the second issue, the same author ha also created a template that helps to eliminate redlinks in a creative way. RL was designed to allow text from redlinks to show as plain text, while still creating a “hidden” redlink that allows for the link to be shown on missing pages reports. This encourages the creation of content at the same time as minimising the visual impact of a redlink, and giving te indication that the Wiki is in some way dysfunctional. For the articles that are to be deleted I'm hapy to minimise the impact of their deletion by changing the redlinks into pseudo-redlinks in this manner.

This is an isolated request, and shouldn't be seen as opening up a number of requests like this in the future. It is purely related to articles that have had me as the primary author - which leaves out articles created through collaboration, such as any IC project, or one-off articles such as counting to potato or India. While some of the articles have been edited after the event, the edits are predominantly minor changes such as proof-reading or one-liners. It is not a wholesale destruction of content, and is limited to only the content that was brought over from the Wikia hosted site - initially created for the Wikia hosted site. Some of the articles are rewrites of previous content on site, but as a general rule the rewrite retains less than 10% of the content prior to rewrite. Love, Stereotype and Street fighter are three examples of this - Lateral thinking puzzle is an exception. I'm happy for these to be reverted back to pre-rewrite status, but I'd point out generally the rewrites are from articles that were sub-par to begin with. (Twitter is not included in this request as much of the content - albeit not the structure - was here previously, and the associated templates are available for use on other similar projects.)

The advantage for the community - all of these articles could be done differently, and creating a different style. This creates an opportunity for talented editors to create their own content on some of the higher importance pages - such as Love and Stereotype. It also shows that the administrative side of the site is acting with the interest of the individual author in mind, while still balancing the needs of the community. While no individual is more important than the community as a whole, the community is made up of individuals worthy of respect.

It also signifies that the administration of the site is not going to be the autocratic entity that Wikia apparently is. Rather than dismissing an editor with no discussion and a lol no as a rationale, they actually are open to listening to the editors of the site.

And the other aspect of all this is that if it's shown that individual editors are respected then you encourage individual editors to either come to the new server or remain on the site. This will hopefully grow the community through showing respect.

As you can tell from the above, this is not a knee jerk reaction, or a tantrum. It is a thought out request from an author who - while not wanting to be part of this site at this stage - honestly hopes that the site becomes successful, for the good of the community that moved here. Nominally Humane! 03:31 13 Jan

The problem with deleting such a large quantity of featured articles isn't so much that it harms the community, but rather that it damages the project (which indirectly harms the community, because the better the project, the stronger the community). Now you might argue that compared to the total amount of featured articles, this is only a tiny portion, and you're right about that, but most of these features are top-notch (even if they weren't voted into the top 10 of a year, which is only a popularity contest, really). While keeping these articles against the main contributor's wish may not be the most morally justifiable thing to do, if we consider the morality of the issue from an Uncyclopedian standpoint, where writing good articles is virtue and vandalising/blanking/deleting them is sin, then at least it should be understandable how what you suggest seems very counter-intuitive to the larger part of the community.

Yes, creating and sustaining an environment in which author requests are generally honoured would create a positive atmosphere for the community to grow and thrive in, but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to add one caveat to that: such requests may not be contrary to the project in significant ways. If Uncyclopedia doesn't even respect itself, then how can we expect it to ever have a respectable reputation?

And really, Puppy, we're still the same community. A community that holds votes on almost every forum that's created, no less. A lot more democratic than a lot of other internet communities out there. The only reason the move from Wikia went about mostly in secret was because of fears that Wikia might intervene and stop the whole thing from happening (and the secrecy was mostly just on-site). If you'd gotten on IRC and asked around a bit, the whole thing could've been explained to you in PMs and you could've involved yourself in the process, if you'd have liked. The regrettable fact that many people weren't aware of the move until it was announced is more due to them not going on IRC a lot, than it is because there was an evil cabal that insisted that everything had to happen in utmost secrecy. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:59, 13 January 2013

The articles in question

• Any images that become unused as a result of the deletion
• Chatroulette
• Daily News
• Fifty shades of grey
• Game:Alone in the dark
• Guide to a Postmodernist Art Exhibition
• HowTo:Become the king of pop
• HowTo:Be Happy
• HowTo:Change a Spare Tire
• Intelligent Mathematics
• Isaac The Tank Engine
• Karate Kid
• Lateral thinking puzzle
• Lateral Thinking
• Love
• Mathematics
• Microsoft Knowledge Base
• Monitor
• Number bases
• Occam's Razor
• Political correctness
• Psyché
• Salvador Dali
• Six Hats
• Stereotype
• Street Fighter
• Thank God it's Friday
• Tropical cyclone
• UnBooks:Where do babies come from?
• UnDebate: Is it ever right to restrict freedom of speech?
• UnNews:Australia says "You just don't understand our humour!"
• UnScripts:steal Bank Customer Service training video

The vote

Score: -7

• Delete. As per above. Nominally Humane! 03:31 13 Jan
• Sorry, but this request has already been rather conclusively voted down. Not actively trying to be dismissive or anything (I still read your shpiel), but this issue has already been decided upon less than a week ago. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I wasn't involved, or even advised, or the previous vote. My rationale wasn't included in it. Nominally Humane! 03:42 13 Jan
    • Said rationale skips over a very important aspect: you're asking us to delete articles that you don't actually technically own. So still no. Sorry that whatever we did caused you to ragequit, but please stop acting so irrational and selfish. Sorry that you were not involved in the vote, but if you do get a chance to read the vote (which, again, too place little under a week ago, sorry that you weren't involved! I'll just make a mental note to bump up the score to -13) you'll find that community consensus opposes deleting featured content in a volunteer community with common editing rights. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Puppy, you are the genius who has to be beaten with a wooden spoon. Why not come here and code and write and do what you do best, you will be loved and petted and given many many treats. And TKF, people let me tell you 'bout my best friend. On the old site TKF was like a nightmare monster, all teeth and jumping from the closet and fucking your sister (you could hear the screams through the thin wall). But here he is the bestest, friendliest, neighbor boy who will mown your lawn and pay you for the privilege. We all love you Puppy, and when the day comes that you play here for real then we will slaughter the fatted calf and you can gnaw on its marrow. Puppy! Aleister 13-1-'13
• Keep. The precedent for deleting work at the author's request has always been that the content can be deleted if: 1. it solely exists in that user's userspace, 2. it is in violation of an existing copyright, or 3. it is an undesirable article in terms of comedic value, links to that article, and editing activity. You have released the content into the mainspace, your intellectual property is not being used for commercial purposes so the community is respecting the copyright status under which you originally released your content, and your articles are funny and popular. I absolutely respect the right of authors and wanna-be authors such as myself to choose where their content is published, but expecting authors to honor the copyright status of their own work is not unreasonable. --EMC ^[TALK] 22:44 Jan 13 2013
• Keep. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Against -- The Zombiebaron 01:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• keep. I don't understand this request. How does having these articles up here harm you in any way? What do you have to lose from these articles' continued presence on our site? Because as Socky and others have noted, it really harms us. Why do you want to spite us like this? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:21, Jan 14
• Keep.--  ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• KEEP All the articles listed seem to be excellent. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Puppy. I can understand how you feel about the issue. I personally don't like having my articles on two differnt sites and I will also have my user spaced articles deleted once I've decided which wiki I'll stick with, but in any case, no matter how the readers arrive at the artice (on whatever site), they will still read them and enjoy them. If you want, you can change your userpage on this wiki to redirect to your userpage on the other wiki, if having one solid uncyclo-identity is important to you. --ShabiDOO 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - While I sympathize with your concerns to a degree, I don't appreciate you crapping up the new Uncyclopedia by trying to delete featured articles that are fantastic. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 14:51, Jan. 14, 2013
• Keep. I somewhat sympathized with him the FIRST time we had this vote. Now I'm voting "keep" just to spite him -- especially for what he said about the moving team on the old site. FU Pup. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jan 15 '13 1:39 (UTC)