Forum:Is regularly reverting articles to featured versions a policy?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Is regularly reverting articles to featured versions a policy?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6041 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I noticed that a little while ago, Grue and Mozilla Firefox were reverted to their featured versions. While I agree with this action for Grue, I disagree for Mozilla Firefox because:

1. The reversion threw out a lot of potentially helpful minor and semi-minor edits which were mostly by me and other users acting in good faith.
2. It also orphaned some images, whose deletion could unfairly insult the users who uploaded them. (Conflict-of-interest declaration: I am being biased by the kawaii value of one particular image, used here, uploaded by this user. This doesn't really invalidate my basic point, though. On the other hand, I totally dislike this image.) Please do not delete any images which were on the Mozilla Firefox article until their uploaders have been notified via usertalk.

I believe a piecemeal reversion/cleanup process might have been better.

As for the title of this thread, is there any particular rule that says that reverting articles to featured versions is a preferred maintenance tactic?

Pentium5dot1 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure there is no rule regarding this. However, edits that do not somewhat improve on a featured article should probably be reverted. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally: Is a piecemeal reversion ever valid/worthwhile as a cleanup method? Or is this kind of blunt-force reversion the only kind the admins are willing to do? (I understand that there are significant time and attitude differences between most admins and most non-admins, but...) Why is protection not used more often as a tool to maintain the quality of featured articles?

Specifically: Are the appropriate admins aware of my request to "not delete any [newly orphaned] images which were on the Mozilla Firefox article until their uploaders have been notified via usertalk"? --Pentium5dot1 04:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't recommend reverting several edits to an article, as cleanups are usually much more effective. I generally go by the theory that IPs can make worthwhile contributions to featured articles, so I wouldn't protect them, unless they are "under attack". As for orphaned image deletion, that isn't my job, so, meh. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so "piecemeal reversion" was a contradiction in terms - what I meant was looking up the text of old revisions to figure out how to clean up an article. I'm sure we understand each other just fine at this point, so I don't think there's much more to discuss. Pentium5dot1 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the firefox reversion you're talking about; it's wasn't a very good one, and it wasn't done by an admin. His revert even cut out all the interlanguage links, and didn't bother putting them back in, which I had to do. There's no policy that says an article should ever be reverted to the featured version, it's usually the choice of a lazy reverter who has seen a lot of content added and can't be bothered sorting out the good from the bad. A piecemeal cleanup of the article is a much better idea, but as they say, if you want something done properly, you've got to do it yourself. Which is never more true than on a wiki. Also, if you ever disagree with someone's revert, just talk to them or a neutral third person on their talk page about it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:43, 04 Oct 2007

I did not realize until just now that Starnestommy is not an administrator. I acknowledge, however, that I have a moral responsibility to assume good faith (to the extent practical here on Uncyclopedia) and treat all users equally as long as the assumption of good faith is valid. I will notify Starnestommy of this discussion right away. Pentium5dot1 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, you can quote our rules, too. Does wikipedia have all the best ones, or something? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:52, Oct 4

I think the majority of wikipedia rules fall under "don't be a dick", just in a lot more words. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:17, 04 Oct 2007

Yeah, that was pretty much how I interpreted them, too. Oh, that wikipedia, always with a rule for everything. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:38, Oct 4

In case anyone was wondering, I was a bit unsure about doing the revert and asked several people on IRC. Most of them told me that the revert was OK, so I went ahead and reverted it. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 21:04, October 4, 2007

Witness! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush probably should be reverted to it's featured version, people add so much crap to that article--Sir Manforman 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that one's surprisingly well maintained. Thank you, Bradphraser and LedBalloon! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, I didn't know anyone noticed. :D I saw someone add crap on Recent changes, and I figured I might as well watch it. Believe it or not, some of the edits aren't too bad. A handful are even fixing up the speeling, whitch iz nise. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:23, Oct 5

Now that that's settled, I have a question. Why did you use Japanese in your post? The eternally curious Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that I just need to tie up a few loose ends here:

1. Roughly speaking, "kawaii" is the Japanese word for "cute" - Wikipedia information here. Foxkeh is the mascot for the Japanese division of the Firefox marketing effort.
2. As for why I quote Wikipedia policies preferentially to Uncyc ones: Well, would you want real life to operate on good faith or bad faith?

--Pentium5dot1 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad, of course. Keeps us on our toes. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:23, Oct 5

Assuming good faith in all situations would be, like, saying "Oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just developing nuclear science for fun!" Which, of course, would result in climbing the Reichstag while dressed as Spider-Man.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Psshh, Spider-Man is so 2004. I'm going dressed as Obscure Comic Book Skull Guy On Motorcycle. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) "Assuming good faith in all situations would be, like, saying 'Oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just developing nuclear science for fun!'" This is an example of the fallacy of accident. That is, just because assuming good faith works as a general rule does not mean that the assumption of good faith is always valid. The fact that Uncyclopedia is a repository for satire does not, in and of itself, invalidate the assumption of good faith; UN:ABF is a satirical policy, not a policy to be taken literally. In other words, my reason for citing Wikipedia policies is that their straightforward nature expresses my meaning better than the equivalent Uncyclopedia satires. Pentium5dot1 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was kidding around with you. I completely understand why you cite Wikipedian policies. I just hope you don't assume Mahmoud is developing that nuclear science for fun. Because it's obviously for profit. Here's the model: +

1. Shave
2. Wear dapper Western suit
3. Present to UN BS reason for why you are pursuing nuclear fission studies
4. ????
5. Profit!

Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kinda kidding. It's just, too many of those light-blue hyperlinks to wikipedia make me feel like we're less important than them. Besides, you don't have to cite a policy for everything. This isn't wikipedia, you know! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:49, Oct 6

Oh yeah, I figured I should mention, in answer to your first question, no, it is not a policy. I don't think we have any policies...do we? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:50, Oct 6

Ignorable ones. Like Don't be a dick, though if you ignore that nobody likes you. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Or rather: nobody likes you. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 05:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And, of course, there's our ever-important policy of not caring. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:04, Oct 6