I wanted to drop a note to clarify my philosophy about Talk pages. It is my understanding that all changes are, in a technical sense, archived. All changes that are made on any page can be viewed and previous versions can be restored. The kind of archiving that Andrew speaks of is a way of moving a bunch of the previous discussion to another place, but archives it in such a way that it is "searchable." It is not that I am against that kind of thing. In fact, in the science laboratory (I am a Biochemist) we are taught to never delete anything.
Let me summarize my thoughts
- When I made one of my first posts on a discussion page, I was somewhat bewildered by the 10-15 headings. I wasn't sure whether to post on the top or the bottom (conventions vary). As I read the previous discussion, it was clear that a number of the issues had been discussed and addressed. I just didn't see the point in keeping them in a prominent place.
- Ask my wife, I tend to hoard things. I guess part of my concerns stem out my own issues and the desire to handle paperwork and get organized. Handle things once, dispose or file things that I'm done with, etc.
Thanks for listening. --Joe Rodgers 20:53, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Jumping in
- Hi Joe et al,
- I've haven't followed this thing too closely, so forgive me if I stumble over some details. I don't think we necessarily need to keep every little thing, and your point about revision history is well taken. However, I do think we should be careful about what to delete, and I am in accord with Rdr. Andrew's suggestion that we archive long discussions into subpages. If the discussion is worth keeping around, it's better to keep it in this kind of archive rather than merely the revision history, which, as I understand it, is basically for things which can be forgotten (but exists in order to track, restore, replace, as well as for reasons of security). Given this perspective, I'd say let the admins do the pruning (deleting) of the discussion pages, but feel free to archive if you think a page has gotten too long. Have I missed anything?
- It's good to have you onboard, and I'm personally grateful for your contributions. You mentioned some other things we can talk about too -- like whether comments should be added to the top or bottom of discussion pages. It can certainly be helpful to articulate these things. What I've been doing, and I think others have as well, is treating most discussion pages more like a forum format and adding new comments at the end (notably, this is the default when using the MediaWiki '+' button). IMO, This works best because discussion naturally flows down a page. However, on pages such as current events or OrthodoxWiki:News that contain time-sensitive, or at least time-dated material, I've been adding new things to the top, more like a blog. This puts the emphasis on the newest thing.
- Best wishes & Yours in Christ,
- Fr. John 22:28, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- P.S. I smiled at the hoarding article. Just don't show my wife!
Liturgy of St. Tikhon Page Needs Moderating
As you can see, a poster who goes by "Fr Lev" has started another "edit war" on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon page. He has also started a long, self-contradictory explanation on its Talk page, and I, probably unwisely, tried to respond to give a rationale for my edits to the moderators. This same poster waged three similar efforts against me this February 12-14 on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and the main Western Rite pages (and got at least one of them locked). He throws fits anytime anyone corrects his articles, accusing them of "personal animus" (see here and here) or says they are "being silly".
I have not undone his latest reversion-of-a-reversion (the second in 24 hours), because Fr. Andrew specifically warned this poster the last time this happened, "If y'all move your edit war (i.e., repeated reversions to the same edit) to another article, then you'll both be banned." I will not restore accurate information at this time, but I've given the reasons I think it should be. I just don't want to be accused of participating in this nonsense, which is why I'm calling in "the adults." :)
I'd appreciate it if accurate, non-POV edits were not constantly replaced with inaccurate, misleading statements (which seem to serve an agenda) in endless edit wars. And we'd all appreciate it if we could go on contributing here without malicious charges of personal attacks. It's wearying. I'd appreciate if one of you could step in. Thanks.--Willibrord 23:18, June 27, 2008 (UTC)
- My responses are noted on your talk page. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:24, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
Come back, directory pages!
Crud. I didn't know these were going away, and I was quite baffled just now when I tried to search for them and couldn't find any.
It was very nice to have all the various jurisdictions on one page. I just used the Oklahoma page myself a couple months ago when we were in Tulsa and wanted to find a nearby parish.
I took a look at OrthodoxyInAmerica.org, but just in Missouri I can see that some information is out-of-date, and the "Please allow three to four weeks for your submission to be processed" on the add/modify/delete page isn't encouraging at all. The correction form is also annoyingly long if all you want to do is correct a misspelling or change the priest's name.
Even if the directory pages here get out of date, it's far easier to edit and fix them, and many of us were happy to do so. I would like to vote that they be brought back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyralessa (talk • contribs) .
- If you think stuff on the OIA site tends to be out of date, it was worse here! (Especially because we were constantly having to fend off various non-SCOBA types, etc.) In any event, perhaps this might make a good project for OrthodoxSource. It's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:27, July 19, 2008 (UTC)