Hitchwiki talk:Dxc deletions

From Hitchwiki
Revision as of 18:26, 11 May 2021 by Zenit (talk | contribs) (Conversations to clear confusions)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I just want to say that I went thru one of the chunks of edits and while its true that the user DxC deleted alot of useful and nice-to-read material (in my humble opinion) I have to add that on the vast majority of the edits the changes where pretty positive, it is clear that the user has read most of whats written since sometimes the corrections are minimal thru a big text. I say all this so as to take this action to restore the nice things that got deleted but dont give the user such a hard time since it seems to me that most of the work is good work.--Warlo (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2021 (CEST)

Yeah I agree.
In a way this is also why it took so many of their edits and such a long time for other people to notice and do something about the removals.
"Assume good faith" is a good guideline when it comes to edits. guaka (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (CEST)

Deleting empty articles?

Would you delete articles such as this one? I'm slightly undecided, they might be slightly more inspiring to add info to than just a red-link, but on the other side they do exactly what user Dxc wanted to avoid originally, which is to waste time... Opinions?--Zenit (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2021 (CEST)

Im not particularly decided for either option so lets go occam's razor and say that leaving them there is easier than doing something about them. --Warlo (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2021 (CEST)


Conversations to create clear confusions

In reference to 2021-01 2021-02_

Warlo, have you done those? Can we try to say what we will do before doing it so that we avoid losing time?--Zenit (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
Nope, I only did those from 2021-02 2021-04. I wrote a note on the chunk before i started working on it and only went for thoe i claimed.Warlo (talk)
Confused. How did this happen, then, and a few more like it?--Zenit (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
I had some very confusing situations until I decided to check only those marked as current, maybe is the same situation? Im checking right now to try and figure out what happened. One thing that im thinking is that I did perhaps some 20 to 40 articles before I realized the currents thing, perhaps I rolled back some stuff from very old edits and that messed up? im looking into it now.Warlo (talk)
Ok, so I checked that Oaxaca article you refer to and I dont see the problem. I found that DxC had removed the information on that sweet trustroots spot and I rolled back so that would show up again, the downside is that the Trashwiki and trustroots footer dissapeared which is what I meant with going back thru all my edits/rollbacks so as to add those footers and the positive DxC edits that some articles had besides just content removal. Id say lets move to this article's talk page to discuss any issues we might be finding and try to come out with the best way to go thru all the articles properly. Warlo (talk)
Again on that Oaxaca article was one of the very first articles I edited, and it was not marked as Current, which means that DxC made an edit thats present on my list and then the last edits are on yours. We might find a bunch of those, but I guess what I can do is go and rollback those changes I did on the articles that are not marked as current on my list? Ill see what I can do
Oaxaca only had one edit, from Jan 30, which is clearly in 'my' chunk -- and on page two, there was nothing left for me to do, you had done everything. So for now I stopped checking because if you've already done everything in there anyway, might just as well not spend my time on it. Let me know if you figure it out :-)--Zenit (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
Its only on my list: 11:02, 30 January 2021 (diff | hist) (-37)‎ Oaxaca (City) ‎ (→‎Sleep), I opened the one you marked as yours and did a search while showing all 500 entries and its not there 100%. Maybe you are going thru my list instead of yours by accident? accidental clicks are known to occur, specially under this heat =P--Warlo (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
I also noticed that While its on my list, it should be in yours technically cause my list says from february 2021 until april 2021 and yours covers the months previous to that (including January 2021 when the change happened). Maybe you are generating your own list by dates and thus making it show on such search results? My workflow was basically to open the link provided in the main article here (this link) and click on 500 so that it would show all the edits, then I started going top to bottom until I realized the Currents thing so I started from top to bottom until I reached those I did at the beggining (bottom ones). Hope im clear enough. --Warlo (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
If I do that, I get edits between Feb 5 and Jan 30, nothing in March or April. Is that then what you did?--Zenit (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (CEST)

In reference to 2021-02 2021-04


Did you not find this edit worth reinstating? Or did you not see it? Just trying to understand if the way we're doing it is actually efficient.--Zenit (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2021 (CEST)
It seems like I didnt see it, as thats the kind of content im rolling back. Anyways ive gone thru the ones saying current only, maybe i skipped that one. Im planning to go over my edits as rolling back means that some of the positive edits from user DxC went away and i wanted to put them back in. Warlo (talk)
Ok, so I went and check my list and there was no entry for this edit, thats only available in the chunk you are working on so thats why I did not edit it, cause it wasnt on the list im working on. Warlo (talk)