A Face Jam

  Fast food  face jam innovations are appearing too quickly to keep up with, but fortunately, Michael Jones and Jordan Criers are here to sample and evaluate each and every new menu item. One has high expectations. The other is tasteless.

In their audio-only podcast Face Jam, hosts Michael Jones and Jordan Cwierz review several fast food businesses’ limited-time specials while dining there. Every alternate week on Tuesdays, the show is released. Along with the two co-hosts, the show also has producers Eric Baudour and Nick Schwartz, who are in charge of audio and editing.

Despite having a looser structure due to various tangents and stories, the show is segmented into several parts.

Introduction

The cast frequently discusses incidents Face Jam  that happened while placing and consuming food during the introduction. Previous encounters with the restaurant: The cast asks each other if they have ever gone to the eatery. Whetting our appetite The show’s format was changed in episode 42 to include an earlier “spitting foolish” segment where the cast can chat about anything they like.

Jordan reads a haiku he composed about the dining establishment or the meal. It all started in episode 36. A spontaneous haiku, or “flaiku,” is featured in Episode 47. In episode 48, The Crazy Calzony, there was no haiku.

Michael reads five information that Eric has provided.

Advertisements

During a commercial break, the cast discusses their sponsors. Within the ad parts, an entire second narrative has been created.

Jordan reviews press materials that the restaurant provides regarding the menu items.

The co-hosts query Eric about whether or not they have a van at last. Following the van vodcasts, this section was discontinued.

Spitting Silly

The co-hosts discuss anything they please. This portion is referredFace Jam  to as “screw about, if you like” in the show’s format sheet.

When rating the cuisine, Michael and Jordan each give it a rating out of 100 and share their thoughts on it. The average score is then given by Eric.

Food Attack: Each of the co-hosts reviews a snack that was sent in by a fan in one bite.

 

New Face Jam merchandise

and other updates are announced before the cast ends the performance.

Make all deletion arguments on the talk page of the article in question and remove any central processing pages from the deletion process. Similar to RfC, this would only be used to contentious deletions that the users concerned can’t agree on.

In many situations, only these pages’ editors would then be aware that the page was being considered for deletion. Naturally,

they would favour maintaining the items to which they had contributed.

Due to the lack of a central location to check for items that still need to be deleted, this would also make things more difficult for administrators in charge of deletions. The deletion tag and/or category are frequently removed by the vanity article’s author, making it impossible for anyone to discover the article’s status.

software

can handle the two complaints, support it. Save the deletion discussion until later. Keep the deletion tag safe. Please be aware that quick removals typically have neither because of their nature. Additionally, the pace varies depending on the topic. Popular topics will receive feedback and corrections more quickly.

In the universe of Star Trek A Face Jam or Tookie, a week is equivalent to a month or several years in certain other contexts. Additionally, some editors think that something is unremarkable just because it isn’t their specialty. This would enable administrators to manage the categories they are familiar with.

Against 

restricting debate to those who are contributing to the article by posting the argument only on the Talk page.

This need not be mutually exclusive, do you think? Why couldn’t an article that was suggested for deletion appear on the talk page, the AfD page, or a category utilising templates?

Although I’m not sure if the central processing pages will be totally deleted, it will happen. Wiki will grow to such a size if it ever truly succeeds that centralised deletion debates will be unfeasible.

Guys, just consider how rapidly this encyclopaedia is expanding right now. The number of deletion candidates will increase exponentially as a result. who is qualified to effectively check the lists.

Someone above made

the point that nobody will be aware of a dispute if it only appears on an article page unless they routinely read that item.

The opposite is, in fact, already true. It is impossible to know if an article of interest is up for deletion unless one frequently spends hours reading deletion lists. Debates about deletions can be readily voted on and erased between visits to any pertinent page because they are so brief. That’s ridiculous.

The only option is to significantly increase the time limit and decentralise to the relevant page. It’s possible that each article that is being suggested for deletion would require its own deletion debate page, or at the very least, a separate section on the talk page.

• Oppose. I believe that maintaining a central site for AfDs is important. People can then check to see what is being suggested for deletion in this manner. Regular editors of the article are advised since current policy requires that anyone nominating an article for deletion place a warning at the top of the article.

Categorize

This is a MediaWiki extension,not a browser extension, just to be clear. There would be no compatibility concerns and no user installation necessary because the server would be the only place where changes would be made. The addon to create the front page headlines is already set up on Wikinews.

How would one know which articles were VfD’d today, yesterday, etc.? is a related query. However, if you delete an article that has a talk page, the conversation surrounding that deletion will be lost.

Though not the best option, this may be a decent step in the right direction: Couldn’t we include Category:Articles for deletion to the sort

Remove or simplify voting

Maintain the previous approach, but minimise confusion by merely tallying votes to maintain or delete.

People probably cast different votes as a sort of commentary and also because there are actually more than two options available.

Yes and no. In many bways, a page can either be removed or not. Of course, surviving a vfd indicates that people thought the page’s content was worthwhile to maintain, but it doesn’t exclude a merge. In my opinion, there is just one option:

either you delete the page or you don’t. If you don’t, editing will continue as usual, which may or may not involve a merge. However, that conversation should take place at Talk:PageName rather than the vfd.

• I disagree with this notion. In addition, I dislike it when moderators classify a vote for a merge or reroute as maintain or delete based on the number of votes they want to achieve. It’s in the middle. It means to have some information on hand and to maintain it somewhere, maybe in differing proportions, rather than keeping it where it is currently. Not at all the same as a delete or a keep.
• Unfortunately, a binary system (keep/delete) cannot be used with a non-binary system (keep/merge/delete). Therefore, we must either limit ideas for merging to the discussion page and limit voting to retain or delete, or we must count a vote for merging as wholly different from keep or delete, and ask the closing administrator to do so.

Voting is already

just an expression of opinion. This would only make the administrator’s decision less obvious.

I’d be in favour of this. The main issue I have with Afd and CfD is not that articles spend too much time there (I’d prefer more time), but rather that a vote of “Keep” carries the same weight as one that includes a detailed, well-reasoned argument.

Naturally

further safeguards would need to be put in place. Maybe asking admins to come to an agreement with other admins who they frequently disagree with (impractical, but perhaps a useful guideline), or maybe establishing a procedure for de-admining admins who misuse this privilege. reduce the time they can spend on VfD and try to make it more discussion-oriented by enabling.

suggest

that in order to vote, people would probably need to read each thing twice. Finding something once was difficult enough. People would eventually just stop reading posts that are less than two days old because they would have to come back at a later time. Many editors don’t read VfD every day (or even every two or three days), thus cutting down on the time prevents them from having a chance to respond. Differentiating (first step) and VfD will make this work (second step, if necessary). Only articles that cannot come to an agreement in a fair amount of time are transferred to VfD.

Voting shouldn’t begin before a keep vote with justification has been given. After 24 hours, remove any article that has not received a keep vote and a justification. A keep vote cast without justification is invalid.

If so, an item would only have 24 hours instead of a week to have someone oppose to the vote.

If there was a distinct category for unvoted-on VfDs, wiki administrators might monitor it for candidates for prompt deletion.]

Make 100 modifications a requirement before allowing votes to help prevent sockpuppets and to assist guarantee that voters have a basic understanding of Wikipedia protocol.

Not unreasonable

despite the fact that all edit count quotas are increasing. Is there a standard procedure for assigning edit quotas to certain tasks?

No. This is called “instruction creep,” and VfD is a place where new users may learn the policies in a much simpler way than TfD, CfD, RfA voting, etc. Don’t take it away from them; doing so will scare off some reliable new contributors. also see. But in really troublesome VfDs, is fine. This prerequisite is not necessary for the typical VfD.

Distinguish the vote from the debate. The discussion is kept the same as it is now, and there are only two radio buttons for voting: Keep and Delete. Software records time and username (like four tildes). Votes appear underneath debate on the VfD.

Seems to be merely page switching. This may lessen the importance of the consensus/discussion component.

Keeping it simple by merely keeping 

He/she posts in the comments to request that the page be merged, etc. There shouldn’t be any alternatives for quick deletion, strong or weak retention, or deletion.

I am opposed. I think a vote like that “”This article is unacceptable and the material should be maintained; it is in another area,” is what merge or “transwiki” entail. The information should be deleted with the article if it cannot be transferred.” I always voted with that knowledge in mind, and I don’t think I’m the only one who does.

A stringent 2/3 + 1 majority with a certain minimum number of delete votes should be required to carry out deletion (ex. 4). There shouldn’t be any leeway in deciding what constitutes a consensus and what doesn’t, with the exception of sockpuppets and multiple votes

Enhance the bias 

favour of maintaining articles by Face Jam  making the process more protective of minority rights and voices. This could be done by mandating unanimity in the decision to delete an article (minus the article’s author), or by using a system where unanimity is minus two. Democracy runs the potential of being overthrown by “mob rule” or “groupthink” even with a 2/3 majority.

Although some of the details bother me, I enjoy the general idea behind this. I concur that there are some VfDs where “mob rule” is a concern. But in my opinion, a unanimous vote or a unanimous vote with two abstentions runs the risk of just tipping the balance in favour of mob rule. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, some effort should be made to safeguard minority viewpoints that some users may want to remove.

I concur that automation

would be very beneficial. This line of thinking Face Jam  has also persuaded me that the strong/weak modifiers should be eliminated. I continue to believe that the voting options of merge, redirect, and transwiki should be accepted.

(For further information on that, please refer to the dialogues above. There are, in my opinion, three valid votes: maintain, delete, and merge.

Keep, Strong Keep, and Weak Keep would all be worth exactly one vote each if I had closed voting. I also assume closing admins would function in the same way. Please feel free to add your two cents, but don’t anticipate your vote changing in worth.

I agree with you on this. There is no other way to count a “strong keep.”

Instead of switching

to a binary system, I believe we should address the ambiguity issue. People ought to make a top and a backup decision.

When it’s not voting, don’t call it voting. It provides new users Face Jam  the illusion that they have a voice and that a democratic process is in place even if there isn’t one.

When individuals realise that decisions aren’t determined solely on votes, the illusion of voting breeds animosity. — Unknown

I believe that in order to match many other votes in the Wikipedia namespace, we should use Support (remove) and Oppose (keep).

Read more Eating And Drinking