SourceryForge:Candidates for deletion
From SourceryForge
Add votes and comments about pages up for deletion.
Vote for either "delete" or "keep" and sign the vote.
Contents |
Deletion Policy
This is a thorny issue and one liable to get peoples emotions involved. I suggest that we do expect a minimum quality of English, and that all specialist terms are explained. I have a real issue with "magic speak"; when people use flowery speech for some reason. Also I would like to ban "workings" using the site (I'll provide a seperate wiki if people want that). Some text can be considered an intentional working on the reader and this is something I feel people should have the option to skip. If, by necisity, a page is really involved and hard to understand then it should have a short, easy to understand introdcution paragraph and a link to some primers on the subject. To allow pages on the wiki that are the magical equivilent of an in-joke is unacceptable to me as it does not fulfill the role of this wiki which is to act as a useful resource. Do what thou wilt, but remember that so will everybody else. Elseware 19:59, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Candidates for Deletion
The Admins will delete unwanted stubs and small pages without a discussion. Pages which appear to have had some effort put in will remain linked here for a bit to get the comments of the community.
Sangreal Sodality
from it's talk page:
This article text appears to be lifted straight from the http://www.geocities.com/sangreal_sodality/sangrealsodality.htm page from the site the author started with and then removed a link to!--L.E./12.144.5.2 03:24, 11 October 2006 (BST)
- thank you for pointing that one out; i'm deleting it
This is silly The piece is by the leader of the sodality Marcia Pickands who asked me to post it here
The official website, owned and registered to Marcia Pickands is the site listed here as is appropriate. The changes are HER updates
- Hi, your interest in surceryforge is appreciated, but i'm sorry to tell you that things are not that easy. If you repost content from websites, please state clearly that you are the copyright owner (should that be the case), or in this case act on behalf o the copyright owner. The best would be when Marcia Pickand wrote me an email from an email adress that is visible on her website, then there are no doubts. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but you know, real copyright violations can get us into big trouble, so we have to be careful. Eusebia 10:30, 10 February 2007 (GMT)
Great . What address should the letter be written to?
Please let us know where to send an email or send one to the official Sangreal website (the email address of this user.)
- Hey, thanks that you are so understanding. My email adress is eusebia888@yahoo.de Eusebia 14:06, 11 February 2007 (GMT)
Perihelion
This article was taken from here: http://sonoran-sunsets.com/june2001.html
This website has a clear copyright clear notice, so this should be removed soon. It wouldn't be too difficult to replace it with a self-written stub. i'll delete it in three days if no one objects. Eusebia 22:04, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Actually, this text might be free, it is also found here: http://433eros.com/spanish/headlines/y2001/ast04jan_1english.htm
and seems to come from the NASA primarily. Anyway, i vote for deleting it and writing a new article, simply because that would be less hassle than further copyright research. My appologies to the anon conntributor if it's really free. Eusebia 22:15, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Yeah - it does look like a cut and paste job. Same text also appears here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast04jan_1.htm
Alfred Korzybski
This aticle was taken from here : http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/akbio.htm
It bears no copyleft notice, so it should be considered copyrighted and the article deleted.
- It's gone. If someone figures out the copyright I can always undelete it. Elseware 03:02, 25 Aug 2005 (BST)
Crowley on egolessness
Morningstar2651 put a deletion tag on it, stated it's "drivel" in the edit summary, but forgot to list it here. I'm doing this now. Eusebia 14:42, 16 Jul 2005 (BST)
I won't vote on this one because i don't know enough about Thelema to be able to make an educated decision on it. Eusebia 14:42, 16 Jul 2005 (BST)
Delete. It doesn't seem very helpful. Is there a collective term for wanky-magick-speak? Elseware 13:32, 17 Jul 2005 (BST)
Delete. It's not even an article.—Korihor 07:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
What is Tantra?
Article should be merged with Tantra and then deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a FAQ. Morningstar2651 00:19, 15 Jul 2005 (BST)
I don't think there's anything wrong in having elements of FAQ where useful. 62.3.233.9 04:13, 15 Jul 2005 (BST)
If someone wants to merge it with the Tantra article, I would have no problem deleting it.Korihor 07:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Spamancy
Article written in first-person. Article confuses postdiction (conincidence & hindsight) with prediction (divination & clairvoyance) Morningstar2651 19:41, 14 Jul 2005 (BST)
We are not being as strict as wikipedia about NPOV, first person etc. Subjective text should probably be written subjectively.
I vote for keep. I never heard or thought about spamancy bevore i read the article, spam itself that old, so there are probably no sources that could be cited. I think this article uses the term divination in it's widest sense, which imho can include what you call postdiction. I don't deny that the article could use some explanation on that, and some more work in general. I hope that this place can be about sharing new ideas and any kind of information, not about stuff you can find in any print encyclopaedia Eusebia 14:23, 16 Jul 2005 (BST)
I also cast a strong vote for keep. Both Spamancy and Wikimancy are wonderful terms that needed to be coined, all the better that they exist here. Besides Bibliomancy is a valid concept, so why not bring it into the cyber age? Certainly the article needs to be corrected, but instead of deleting it, why not make a couple of changes to fix it? DarkMark 15:23, 19 Jul 2005 (BST)
It's been almost six months since the article was marked for deletion. I've removed the tag. If I offend, it's easy enough to put back, and I won't touch it again :-) --Korihor 04:28, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Wikimancy
Poor formatting, no sources cited. Morningstar2651 19:35, 14 Jul 2005 (BST)
I vote for keep. Same explanation as for the article spamancy. We don't want to delete anything that is a stub, or that we personally don't like, do we? Eusebia 14:26, 16 Jul 2005 (BST)
Keep this as well, see above and see Eusebia's comment. DarkMark 15:25, 19 Jul 2005 (BST)
Same as Spamancy, above --Korihor 04:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Elements of Peace
Delete: poorly formated and no introduction or explanation. Reads like an in-joke. The purpose of this wiki should be to increase understanding. I do not believe this page does this. Also I do not see that this has much to do with the occult. Elseware 22:17, 5 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Qliphoth of Geburah
Someone is learning to play the violin and you keep pointing out how bad it sounds compared with more experienced violinists, they get dispirited and give up. Trying to prune a seedling into the shape you want the final tree. These actions don't help something when it is growing, although they may be appropriate at a stage where refinement, not growth, is the order of the day.
-Lord Elseware of SourceryForge-
the above from Elsewares_Ideas
anyone can talk the talk...
walking the walk ...
seems to be another matter.
-ts- 03:36, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
ooh! ... Pearl Harbor Day!!!
When asked to clean it up, rather than (attempt to) sort the page out, the author has removed or scribbled over the contents so I'm removing it. None of their responses were even in full sentences, after repeated requests. As they have quoted me about geburah, there's a point where something must be refined. Their response to critisism was to leave. Compassion where severity is required is the Qliphoth of Chesed. Elseware 11:52, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
The page has been cleaned up but not here
and not at your request.
Good luck with your studies and web site.
