Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive Jan 2007

Wikipedia:Esperanza is now inactive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This page is an archive. Discussion of the essay describing Wikipedia:Esperanza should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. To discuss any issues found in this archive, please direct any additional comments to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Final thanks to everyone

Hello everyone. I just wanted to leave a brief message here to let everyone know that no matter what the new structure of leadership may be, I will not be running for re-election; in addition, even if terms are extended due to delayed elections, I will be stepping down from the council on January 1st, when my original term expires. This is due to a combination of being burnt out as well as being very busy IRL. While I have been relatively inactive the past few months, I hope I will be able to commit more time to tne encyclopedia once I get settled into my new job and location in the next month or two.

I'd like to thank everyone for being so supportive during the last six months. I feel like I was able to accomplish a few things, even though some of those have been derailed by the MfD aftermath. I hope that I will still be able to do a few community building activities, including admin coaching, though I imagine I will be much more in the background of this organization than I have been in the past 11 months. For those of you taking up the reigns of Esperanza, I wish you the very best of luck; though our programs and our relationship to the encyclopedia may change, please always remember that Esperanza was founded on camaraderie and hope. The day we forget that Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia but also a community is the day when the true spirit of Wikipedia begins to fall apart. I always urge you to go beyond mere civility and strive to be friendly, helpful, and supportive of your fellow editors. Once again, thank you for everything, and I wish all of you the best of luck in all your endeavors, Wikipedia-related and beyond. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We will all miss you; come back soon! WikieZach| talk 13:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, come back some time and catch up with everything and update us on your situation - • The Giant Puffin • 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do hope you come back in the near future!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you will return sometime later, and good luck! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a while, like EWS23, I too will step down from the council, and from Esperanza, when my term ends on January the first. We've been working really hard to get Esperanza back up to what it once was, but it seems that Wikipedia no longer wants what Esperanza once was. Although I think Esperanza still has much potential to morph into something different, as has been expressed by others, it is not what I joined Esperanza for. The feeling I had as a member back in the "good old days" isn't really there anymore, which is unfortunate. I have the utmost confidence that all of you will be able to complete the overhaul of Esperanza and make it into something great, and I wish you all the best of luck. Thanks for all the good times, my friends, and never stop the community feeling, -- Natalya 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Update, perhaps?

Hey all. I haven't been on in quite some time, and haven't posted, and am far too lazy to go and search through all the texts and blah blah blah. Can someone give me a quick rundown of our current Esperanza and present the issues to me? DoomsDay349 04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza seems to be helplessly collapsing, the Advisory Council is participating in discussions far less than usual, and there are current charter reformation discussions going on. The overhauls are inactive. There was a proposal above to "scrap" the charter, and this idea is being put under consideration.

P.S. Merry Christmas to all!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 06:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite my impression. People are busy, as usual; some of the people currently most active in Esperanza debates have been pessimistic (as per ed's comment above). Personally, I don't understand why people took the origina MfD so much to heart; Esperanza has done many good things; and has provided many interesting project ideas. If you look at the typical wikiproject, it has fewer interested people and is much less useful; but still slowly grows over time. By those standards, EA remains quite successful -- until its own members start trying to tear it down because they think others are telling them to. +sj + 10:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As for elections: I would hope that there are elections as mandated by the current charter until there is something to replace it. There is never an excuse to void a charter simply because it is under discussion... and even a small and quiet round of elections, with the understanding that new posts may be held for but a short time before a change of charter, will give people a better focus for their energies than some of the recent debates. +sj +

I completely concur. I believe there would be a great danger if the charter is violated. WikieZach| talk 14:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/December 2006 elections

Quote: "candidates must be signed up by December 20 in order to participate."

Total number of candidates registered by December 20: Zero.

Likelihood of a legally binding election: Nil.

Based on the discussions here, and on the number of candidate statements, I don't really think that these elections are seen as a high priority right now. We can still do this by the book, though. I hereby nominate (whoever's in the current tranche) to continue serving as AC members until either the old charter is formally renewed, or a new charter is accepted. Any support for this? Quack 688 18:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't want any bureaucracy in EA, so I really don't care what happens with it. I'd really just like to see it burn...a figure of speech of course :) DoomsDay349 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that I really don't know where I want to go with Esperanza. Much as I hate to admit it, it seems more and more that Esperanza is a sinking ship. And I don't know how much I need it. I've encountered a load of kind, funny users who are not involved with Esperanza. User:ReyBrujo, a name I'm sure you recognize, is a fantastic user, is kind and patient with newcomers, and not affiliated with Esperanza. Everyone I work with in Dragonlance and other areas is wonderful, and truly I have never met a mean user. Many people who aren't in Esperanza are quite kind. And I don't think I need my name on a list to be civil. Pretty much all of Esperanza can be reduced and spread throughout Wikipedia policy. It's also apparent that the MFD has reduced us to arguing amongst ourselves and it's pretty much only detracted us from the true goal. I'm just not sure which side I'll be on when (yes, when) the next MFD rolls around. DoomsDay349 18:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sam! Great to see you help out! Yay! :-) Kim Bruning 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm...what? DoomsDay349 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a sam too? :-) Kim Bruning 21:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You make absolutely no sense to me. DoomsDay349 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That probably refers to the Good Samaritan???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Still makes no sense, and is helping very little to me. DoomsDay349 02:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sj is a Sam(uel) :-). Kim Bruning 18:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm not trying to draw attention to myself or anything just a simple message. I've decided to leave Esperanza. Just so you know. DoomsDay349 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you. Hope you continue editing wikipedia! :-) Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will continue editing Wikipedia, and go back to simplicity, continue working within policies and one day God willing become an admin. DoomsDay349 20:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to Wiki-edit a charter?

Esperanza/WikiCharter

I'm putting it up for anyone to edit. The rules are simple: no-one (including me) can change it without proposing a precise alternative on the discussion page, and getting consensus for that exact change.

Invalid: "ABC sucks, replace it" -> everyone agrees it sucks -> someone unilaterally changes it to DEF without asking anyone else.

Valid: "ABC sucks, replace it with DEF" -> everyone agrees that ABC sucks, and DEF is better -> someone changes ABC to DEF after the discussion

The governance proposal there is a bit, um, unorthodox. Still, if you think it should be changed, write up a complete governance proposal somewhere else, and get some real discussion happening about it. Don't just unilaterally change one sentence at a time without asking anyone. Quack 688 04:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be: "Who wants to play nomic".

If -on the other hand- you want to wiki-edit, then dang well BE BOLD, and freaking edit the page as you see fit, unfit, or otherwise, and try to do it so that everyone else will go "That looks ok" .

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to edit in such a way that everyone agrees with your version, and no one makes any further changes (at least for a while).

This message won't self destruct. Good luck! Kim Bruning 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Charter Again

Hey all, I hope you're all having good holidays :)

It seems that discussing the charter, and what Esperanza will be is all the happens here right now, but hopefully this will be sorted out soon, and then Esperanza can get back to helping people. But, until then, I've written up a small charter (don't worry, I've kept it short), based on the discussions I've been active in, and all the other things I've read. This isn't a charter proposal (except if everyone likes it, and wants to use it), just some suggestions on what we could have. User:The Halo/Esperanza.

Thε Halo ^Θ 12:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

After all the charter discussions, it seems like a short and sweet charter that just gives goals and makes things easy, could work well. I could have posted this in the above charter discussions, but here The Halo has given a tangible suggestions for what seems to have been discussed. If this seems okay, it may not even need to be considered a "charter". As Quack pointed out, many other organisations carry on their goals without official charters, rather just with general missions of the organization. It's a good point that was made. Perhaps Esperanza can do that too? Perhaps. -- Natalya 16:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that many Esperanzans apparently haven't had enough experience to build up their faith in the wiki. (Compare to kids who are afraid of the water on their first swimming lesson). Hmmmmm! Kim Bruning 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I pointed out that a lot of other groups don't have formal charters is that they have Wikipedia policy and guideline pages to refer to instead. CVU doesn't need to define what vandalism is - they can just link to the relevant policy page and say "we do that.". Even if it's "obvious" what vandalism is, it still needs to be properly defined somewhere. By the same token, if you want Esperanza to have a simple "we support the community" charter, there needs to be some page that says just what that means - whether it's in the charter or on another page doesn't really matter. Quack 688 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, community is defined in Community! Isn't it great to work on an encyclopedia?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism's got a Wikipedia article too. But that article's got absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia vandalism - that's why we need a page like WP:VANDALISM, to say exactly what is considered vandalism on Wikipedia and what isn't. Same thing here. We have to say, somewhere, that training editors is great, but barking dog noises aren't so good. Supporting other editors is great, but that doesn't extend to mass-supporting them in a RfA because you like them. It doesn't matter if those bad things are going on or not - since a lot of people on the MfD thought that's what Esperanza is about, you need to make it crystal clear what Esperanza is and what it isn't. Quack 688 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I am a new Esperanzian! Is there anything I can do? WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome! I just used the What to do now to figure out what I would do when I joined, but that was a few months ago. I hope this helps, and Happy New Year! Jam01 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I was looking over User:Ed/SandboxWikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum, when it occurred to me that it looks rather like a portal. So I looked over the "main esperanza page" for a comparison, and I really think that that should be a portal. I think there should be a discussion about what parts of Esperanza could/should be moved to Portalspace... - jc37 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Portal:Esperanza or merge it w/ Wikipedia:Community Portal ? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...You are aware that the portals are supposed to act as gateways to articles on particular subjects? Like Portal:LGBT, or Portal:Judaism. There isn't a portal for an internal process. There's no Portal:MILHIST, there's a Portal:War. You can create a Portal:Hope, but Portal:Esperanza doesn't stand a rat's chance in hell of surviving a day without being MfD'd. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Well personally, I think such portals would be interesting and useful. Consider Template:Cent. Why couldn't a portal be created for something like that? How about a "discussion" portal for all the XfDs/RfAs/RfCs, etc? In any case, I don't see what the problem would be with an Esperanza Portal... In reading over Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, I don't think that what I am suggesting is far afield from what's alreadfy listed... - jc37 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

Unfortunately, I will no longer be a member of Esperanza. I have been debating whether to leave since last night. This was a hard decision to make, but I feel that I could no longer be a part of this organization.

This organization was dedicated to the improvement of the Wikipedia community. Since the first day I added my name to the members' list, I have seen no overall effect on the rest of Wikipedia. Our efforts have only been centered on the members of Esperanza. In no way have I seen a successful organizational effort to reach out to the rest of the Wikipedian community.

During the MfD, as most of you know, there were many votes to "delete" Esperanza. I voted "keep", which I now realize was not the best vote to make. The delete voters were actually trying to help all of EA's members, seeing the faults with our community. We have remained blind to the cries of our fellow editors regarding the problems Esperanza's been having since the past few months.

Since the MfD, the overall community has weakened. In several different places were effors to revive Esperanza. Decisions have never been made. The AC has participated in Esperanza a little bit less than usual (which I understand to be due to numerous Wikibreaks). Less Esperanzians have been giving Happy Birthday wishes to its members. Face it, we have failed Esperanza. More than that, we have failed the Wikipedian community. (Note that I say "we", I feel that I am guilty of not carrying out EA's ideals).

Please do not misinterpret this long speech that I'm giving. I fully support the goals and ideals of Esperanza. There have been several exceptional non-Esperanza-affiliated editors I've seen that promote Wikilove in the best possible way. I have seen many respected members of Esperanza that fulfill the goals of Esperanza to their highest limits. Unfortunately, these respected members, noticing the flaws of this bureaucratical organization, have listened to those non-Esperanzians who supported the MfD, and left. Esperanza's best influential editors are leaving one by one, our actively participating members slowly decreasing. Our member population will get lower, and lower, and lower...

...until there were none--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So long, Ed--SUIT 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop All Programs!

Okay-Esperanza is falling apart. We all know it. Some of our best users are leaving one by one. We need to rebuild, avoid another MFD, and straighten everything out. To do this, we're going to need to put a lot of attention toward rebuilding. So I say, we temporarily stop all programs except important ones like alerts, and try to rebuild. It seems like the AC members aren't really active and our admin general just left. We're falling apart! And unless anyone has a problem with it, since we have no leadership anymore, I would like to put myself in charge of a get active and rebuilding project, maybe even create a page. --(trying to get 1,000 edits in 1 month!) TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Editcountitis isn't good, Teckwiz. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. I added that yesterday because I think I'm only about 250 away from 1,000 in December and I really want to reach it! --(trying to get 1,000 edits in 1 month!) TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really worth it? EA has pretty much collapsed. Why not just let it go - maybe not MFD, so later on people can restart EA if they want to. I wouldn't mind an MFD, however, and would vote delete if that did happen. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why I jumped ship, so to speak. I think the ideals of Esperanza are easily upheld without any complicated project and whatnot. And what do you mean the admin general left? Natalya is still on the members list. DoomsDay349 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

She's leaving on the 1st. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also been thinking this way. What's wrong with decentralization? The Welcoming Commitee and other sub-groups would not drown if they were cut loose, and I expect they would retain many of their members since nothing has really changed when it comes to welcoming people. Dar-Ape 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that example, but you know what I mean. Dar-Ape 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding Esperanza

I've started a rebuilding of Esperanza at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Rebuilding. Everyone is invited to join, save, and fix Esperanza. I also need two assistant overseers. Please see the page! TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That kind of unneeded bureaucracy is precisely why Esperanza came under fire in the first place. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just to make the program runs smoothly. If Wikipedia could exist w/o bureaucracy, why are there admins and b'crats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

...Well, that's certainly a useAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN WILL YOU LEARN????!??!!!!??!?!?! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of yelling (caps) argh, please write a comment about what you think. And, if no one wants to rebuild it, why are you still members. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are not bureaucrats, they're merely users with advanced powers. Bureaucrats exist because the whole of Wikipedia is a lot more complex than running a simple Wikiproject. I still don't understand why Esperanza is so special that it's above using consensus, just as all of Wikipedia does. And Teck, I believe that neither Dev nor I am members. The idea of overseers and governance is the crap that got you in the MFD in the first place. DoomsDay349 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

TeckWiz, do you not understand the message I've been trying to send about bureaucracy, multiple discussions, and hiercical governance? That is exactly why most of us left!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have lost all faith in this project. PTO^Talk 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Beuracracy is gone in the program :). It's now just people interested and decision by consensus. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have an AC, you claim to be Head Overseer of ECOTM (a position I mistakenly created), even have a special userbox for yourself, and now you claim to be Overseer of the rebuilding project. I call that bureaucracy. DoomsDay349 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Once you left, I put myself as head of ECOTM. I claimed to be the overseer of the rebuilding project, but once people said it was terrible, I took out the bureaucracy TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

People, listen! Why are we quarrelling over this? Can't we just settle on one thing? Since TeckWiz has said that he took out the bureucracy, then so be it! The important thing now is to keep our heads clear, and try to keep Esperanza from collapsing. I don't know about you guys, but I'm staying, and I will help TeckWiz with whatever he is proposing. I know that you are free to choose your own pah, but I just want to tell you, Ed and DoomsDay, you guys could help out too...we need all the help we can get. Please, don't you remember all the time you spent here, in Esperanza? Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation Week

I would like to see the proposed Appreciation Week intended to finish on January 15th continue, if only at a probably reduced level. Would anyone here also be willing to perhaps become somewhat involved in such an activity. Basically, my own limited knowledge of wikipedia is such that I could probably contact various groups which might be willing to take part, but I would need someone much better versed with wikipedia's channels for the factual "real-world" (if that's what they are) work, for actually getting the ceremonies out there live, hopefully. Badbilltucker 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD

In case anyone hasn't noticed, Esperanza is up for another MfD. It probably won't survive this one. It's a shame to see a project with so much potential go, but it has spun out of control. Cheers, PTO 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

2nd-ed. It really is sad to see it go, but Esperanza has lost so much soul, and has become a place for pointless debate, and no hope. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza ya no tiene esperanza. Esperanza has lost hope. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quesa dia to that! Please forgive my American ignorance. DoomsDay349 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict-

Quesadilla? Someone's hungry! Ha ha! Hey, that was pretty funny!forgive my stupid humor At least a little funnyness is still here.... But I have one last shout to give for when Esperanza was fun, when it was all normal: ¡Viva Esperanza! Heh heh, excuse me, my mexican blood has stirred up....--Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lo siento. Hablo español poco. Soy un estudiante de español uno. Anyway, I think Esperanza should be kept, but marked historical. And to prevent a revival, we can protect it.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be historical. Personally, why keep something that brings bad memories? Example, all of the best programs were deleted, lots of members left us, etc. Yo soy una estudiante de español dos. One thing I admired was that the name of this project was a Spanish word. I appreciate that. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. More and more proof that hope and humor will endure without Esperanza. DoomsDay349 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a question. How can I delete this? Thanks for any help. Oh, wait, if Esperanza is deleted, will that template be deleted as well? --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just put {{db-user}} at the top, and an admin should come by and delete it. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you subst:ed your template when you made that page, then it won't go away. If you didn't, however, then it will be lost. PTO 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I just suggest that those who are now leaving ESP don't mark the template pages for deletion (we don't need more backlog at CAT:CSD!), but just change it into a redirect. Think of how many redlinks you're causing with deleting it, and links which will confuse more than ever with the "green e" code covering the redness of the link in signatures. Just my tuppence :) Martinp23 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Will everyone who would like to see Esperanza stick around leave me a note on my userpage. Geo. 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That may or may not be votestacking. DoomsDay349 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No-one's left a message yet, so it doesn't really matter at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Membership Poll

I'm just wondering about how people became members of EA. Did you find out about Esperanza due to the kindness of a fellow editor? I found out about Esperanza when Aeon1006 submitted his Esperanza Barnstar proposal to WP:BAP. =) Therefore, an editor's kindness did not lead me to membership here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell if I know. It's been so long I've forgotten. DoomsDay349 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember how I first learnt about Esperanza (I was new to Wikipedia then), but I joined (in October) because of the actions of Richardshusr. When I was considering leaving Wikipedia in July, he provided me lots of support and encouragement, and I stayed as a result, and joined Esperanza in October, hoping to lend such support to other users, and make Wikifriends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

Goodbye all. I'm leaving Esperanza. The community aspect is gone, all programs are abandoned and falling apart, the leadership that kept the organization together is gone, and we've been MFD'd a second time. I was thinking of leaving, and once an Esperanzian yelled at me (using caps) 'haven't you [as in me] learned my lesson", I knew I was done. Soon everyone will be done, as this MFD looks like it will end in delete. Goodbye. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I shouted "When will you learn!" in a fit of utter exasperation. If that unintentionally hurt you, I sincerely apologise, but it was more a scream at the edifice of Esperanza than some kind of attack on you. For the record, I have never been a member of Esperanza. Pax vobiscum. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No,TeckWiz, I don't mean to stop you or something, but think of the things Esperanza can do!! Look at the Admin Coaching program, so many people are still waiting for that turn! I know from someone that some of them are already waiting from July. Are we going to tell them that they're supposed to abandon all of their efforts now? Please, don't stop! For all Esperazians, we should try to reform Esperanza!! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck. Admin coaching is very active, basically because I chose to make it that way. And I know people use the Stress Alerts. I don't understand why all this trouble happened. Admin coaching was going on just fine without a leadership, or debates, or MfDs... the usefulness of Esperanza (at least some of its programs) is self-evident to me. I'm just getting exasperated with all this. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching seems to me to be not much more than a way to game the system at RFA. You can't coach people to become admins. The community has to have trust in them and that cannot be taught. But others do regard Admin coaching as worthwhile, so feel free to transfer it to elsewhere before EA gets folded up. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Admin Coaching particuarly, the appropriate response is to talk to the involved community members about it, and if that fails, to nom Admin Coaching alone, not the whole of Esperanza. And actually, I did coach someone to be an admin, and that person coached another person. If you want to start a debate about admin coaching do it somewhere else. I'm done. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and read the noms at MFD. This happened because Esperanza had and continues to have a detrimental effect on the community and on the encyclopedia. It's not just me that says this - judging by the MFD quite a few others agree, to say the least. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for you to say that other than to rub salt on a wound. Please stop. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Goodbye

Thought I should tell you guys that due to the Virgin Unite adverts I will be leaving Wikipedia. I will return when there is an apology to Wikipedian's against ads that putting that logo up was harmful to Wikipedia.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...you know that the Wikimedia Foundation has to make money somehow...anyway, it's sad to see any editor leave, and I hope you come back soon. PTO 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the most civil manner possible, I cannot believe that you are so upset over a bloody ad on the top of the page that you would leave Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you have to leave, but rethink it; is it really such a good reason to? DoomsDay349 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been thinking! Why leave over an ad? I thought I was the only one who thought that way! --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To each his own. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why leave over an ad? Because it's against Wikipedia's principals. People need to stand up and go against this other wise next time there will be a bigger ad. I realise some don't agree - Wikipedia Review questioned the decision - but I feel it needs to be done so people understand why ads can't go up on wikipedia.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the post I made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I still await a response...=) Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 06:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this one: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Virgin_Unite? But, to confirm my decision, it feel betrayed as it appeared Wikipedia was a neutral project which would remain free of advertisements yet the Foundation goes along and, in exchange for money, puts up a logo and link to a corporations website. Annoyed by the whole thing and seems some other Wikipedians are. The thin edge of the wedge will prevail - watch.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am disappointed with the behavior of everyone at both MfDs (Esperanzians and non-Esperanzians). I cannot believe how much the positive atmosphere has been destroyed by these MfDs. Like many of the members who have left, I am saddened to see the status of Esperanza and the negative opinions of it in the rest of the community. I do not have too much hope that Esperanza will survive this MfD, so I therefore will try to continue some of the programs that I think are important. I still believe in the goals of Esperanza, and with Esperanza or without it, I will always try to fulfill the goals. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... but we (or I am at least) are just trying to decide what's good for Esperanza, and I believe it is a delete. Esperanza just broke down completely. Lots of people left because the best programs were delted, we went through a lot of changes. Better to have it gone than to have members leaving and feeling depressed. I agree with you, it is saddening. I believe the only program we should keep is the Stress Alets. Seems to be the only thing that is important. But I will say it again..... If Esperanza is deleted, let me say something in memorial of it: ¡Viva Esperanza! Translated: Long live Esperanza! --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Community

This essay needs to stress the fact that, even though Esperanza is gone, community-building is just as important. I added a new section a few minutes ago, but was reverted. In order to avoid an edit war, I think it would be best if we discuss here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is not blatently obvious to everyone who is not a former member of Esperanza that being nice has not ended with Esperanza, than an essay isn't hardly going to change matters. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course former members are aware that being nice to other editors is still essential to the community! My concerns are directed towards newbies who are new to Wikipedia and who don't understand why community is important or how one can improve the community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, if it is not blatently obvious to someone that dropping a nice note on someone's talkpage if they're upset is a good idea, a note on the Esperanza page that advocates giving all and sundry barnstars is hardly going to make a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's up to individual editors to show that a friendly manner can be productive, and allow others to learn from the example. -- Natalya 02:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the job of educating and involving editors is a never ending task and I saw no problem with Ed's ideas in that addition.--Alf ^melmac 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev here that this essay shouldn't be used as a platform for arguing the benefits of community building. However, we could include a more NPOV version like this:

Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors, through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work, and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times. Even though Esperanza has been closed down, some of its former members continue to advocate the need for supporting other editors in this manner. It is worth noting that these goals were not unique to Esperanza - several other community groups were also founded on the principle of supporting fellow editors, and some of them are still active. Quack 688 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I think it should be inserted.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quack, that is how I reckoned Ed's ideas would have looked after some editing, guess some people are just one step ahead :) --Alf ^melmac 11:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disposition of programs

What do people think of the new layout for the disposition of the programs? Though it is informative, it seems like the shorter listing of the programs still active was more appropriate for the decision that was made regarding Esperanza. It also kept the page more succinct. Thoughts? -- Natalya 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should have a list of the programs for a while. Maybe a few months? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the shorter listing was better. It was to the point, not advertising. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But people should know where the programs went. For instance, if I want to find the calendar, how do I know where to go? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Calendar was listed: [1]. I agree with Dev920, I think the old version was better. List the programs that are still active or have equivalents in bullet form in the infobox, and leave discussion of the others to the essay. —bbatsell ¿? 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter list. The larger one takes up too much space. Links could be added to archives/new pages if needed. I do not think the images or table are needed. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version just seems to clutter the essay. (my 2 cents...)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like there's general agreement, so I'll put it to what it was before. And don't worry Amarkov, all of the programs are still listed in the lower section of the essay. You're right though, it's definitly important to cover what Esperanza did. -- Natalya 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware there was another list. I didn't care for it at the front, but a list needed to be somewhere. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too stressed whether the deleted programs still have their original icons, or if they're just mentioned in the essay text. But either way, there should be direct links to the deleted programs, so their history can be easily accessed. Quack 688 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trading Spaces program

Should we mention on the page that the Trading Spaces program has been to moved here, part of Wikiproject User page help?--24.20.69.240 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it was moved a long time ago, so it may be thut auuuutuat it's already accepted as a program no longer associated with Esperanza. -- Natalya 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I never considered it an EA program, but it might be of interest to other editors.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The essay page currently lists it as a former program,as does the program page itself (though since haven`t been watching Esperanza from the start, I don`t really know). Anyways, I thought that if it is listed there, it would be helpful to link to its current location so people(esp. newcomers) would know where to find it, but it`s not a big deal to me either way. 24.20.69.240 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I miss the old days

When I was the sole lowly member, ruthlessly governed by 15 people. It was so awsome! (I resigned a few weeks later, but still, It was great!) El_C 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's classic. Isn't it great we can share that little nugget of Esperanza's history! Now we know who Esperanza's first dogsbody was. :-p

(On a serious note, it is interesting to see how Esperanza changed from then to now. That's exactly why keeping the history will let everyone take a step back and learn from Esperanza's mistakes.) Quack 688 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I still considered an Esperanzan?

I don't think so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Esperanzan" is getting quite problematic now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What does matter is that you carry the sense of community that Esperanza fostered with you throughout your editing. -- Natalya 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment.

Just wanted to say that the page as it stands is now fine and we should all now go away and get on with some editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the first 2 sections of discussion on this talk page?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble viewing earlier versions of Wikipedia:Esperanza

All of the earlier versions of Wikipedia:Esperanza before the placement of the essay are messed up. The essay is still displayed, and numerous red-links pop up everywhere!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because on the old EA page the different subpages were transcluded onto the page, and they all now redirect to the essay, so now the old versions have the current version of the essay transcluded all over them... not sure what the best way to fix that is, can you do a "noinclude" on redirects? —bbatsell ¿? 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we restore those subpages?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's exactly this endless niggling over meaningless aspects that made me vote for full deletion, so this wouldn't happen. Has it not occurred to you that you can simply look through the history of the subpages that link to the front page if you're so interested? FFS, who is going to want to anyway? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dev; I don't mean to be rude, but did you bother reading the discussion? The reason Ed was asking whether the subpages could be restored was so that users looking at the history of Wikipedia:Esperanza would not be confronted with pages that are largely illegible due to transclusion. I don't think it's that out of the question that users curious about Esparanza will look through its history, especially considering the tremendous amount of debate and discussion its deletion has generated; in addition, a lot can be learned from reading it. —bbatsell ¿? 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you totally. When newbies look through the MfD, they would obviously try to go through the history in order to gain more information.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're simply totally overestimating the number of people who are going to look through these subpages. The only people who will are people who want to use it in arguments and debate. Any newbie who wants to set up an Esperanza type organisation is not going to look through the history - they're simply going to create it. Funnily enough, I didn't think there was much point saving Esperanza history for it's use as a wedge in battle. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And to think I was just telling somebody in e-mail that I was pretty ambivalent about restoring the subpages, because while it might be nice to look at Esperanza's history, it feels as if much that was associated with it is unintentionally divisive and even hurtful. --Kyoko 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The history would be important for the people who want to make a new organization. Let's say that an editor proposes to make an organization against userboxes. And let's say that the founder says, "I think it would be a great idea if we have a Committee to govern the entire organization." How would a former member of Esperanza respond? By saying, "I think this is not a great idea, given the fact that it failed with Esperanza." The submitter of the proposal would say, "I don't understand. What is the problem of having a governing body?" The other user would repond, "You can understand me better by referring to the Governance page." Oh, wait! There is none! My point exactly!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't. He'd say "Look at the MFD and the main page where everything is explained for you." Even if the governance page was there it would be useless as the older versions do not criticise the governance in any way. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What if someone wished to contact a former Councillor? Surely there would be no way to find out without the actual Governance pages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf outlines some nasty ideas. Plenty of people have written essays about it. Why do we need copies of the originals any more? Doesn't keeping them around just encourage people to do bad things? (Let's be perfectly clear here. I am not trying to make any comparisons whatsoever between the content or notability of Esperanza versus Mein Kampf. But as encyclopedia editors, we, more than anyone else, should recognize the value of keeping primary sources, even if we have secondary sources (like the MfDs and frontpage essays) which discuss those primary sources.) Quack 688 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza has been folded up. I cannot think of a good reason why someone should wish to contact someone else in their role as a former councillor of Esperanza. However, perhaps one or two mentions of AC members should go into the main page essay to address this concern? This would presumably solve the problem. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Great idea! The problem is that half of the AC is on Wikibreak, gone, retired, or simply ignoring Esperanza! Let's go ask some of the former Councillors listed on the Governance page! Awww, it's already been deleted. That won't work...Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"How would a former member of Esperanza respond? By saying, "I think this is not a great idea, given the fact that it failed with Esperanza."" I would like to think that anyone who is faced with that kind of idiocy would reply "No, because that's a fucking stupid idea and totally contravenes every possible Wikipedian principle and policy you can imagine." Do you seriously believe the only thing wrong with that scenario is that Esperanza tried it and got rejected? Is that your only possible thought? Come on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, when Esperanza was first proposed, was there a massive chorus of voices saying "No, because that's a fucking stupid idea and totally contravenes every possible Wikipedian principle and policy you can imagine."? I haven't found such a chorus. But who knows? Maybe there was such a discussion on Esperanza's pages when it first started. Oh, wait. I can't find them cause they got deleted. That's a shame, huh. Quack 688 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You've not read that Signpost article then? There was a fair chorus of criticism, but then you wouldn't know that beause you want to believe what you want to believe. How Esperanzan, huh. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the irony of Dev920's "f***ing stupid" comment? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that to suggest a massive binding bureaucracy for a Wikipedia organisation is a fucking stupid idea, because it is a fucking stupid idea, and no-one who wasn't also a member of Esperanza said otherwise on the MfD, on Esperanza, or anywhere else. Sorry for calling a spade a fucking spade. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev, do you remember on the MfD talk page when I said you were making blanket generalizations about members of Esperanza? Some Esperanzans say the group's indispensable, so you conclude that all Esperanzans must believe it? Even when some of them explicity said the opposite? You're doing the exact same thing here, only with Wikipedians this time. Based on that Signpost article (which I did read, btw, it's a good example of NPOV writing), I'd start with this statement:

Some people said it'd be too bureaucratic.

That statement, I have no problems with. But you've gone and turned it into

Every non-Esperanzan said it totally contravened every Wikipedia policy and principle in existence (and that's it a fucking stupid idea to boot).

Do you see the two problems here? First, you introduced this "violates every policy in existence" bit, then you took a few people's comments, and extended them to "every non-Esperanzan". I'd humbly suggest that if every non-Esperanzan thought it was a massive policy violation, it would have been deleted on day one.

This is just another example of what happens when historical records get deleted. You'll say one thing. Some hard-core fans of Esperanza will say the opposite. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. The only way to get to the truth is to keep the actual records of what went on. Quack 688 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, there are thousands of words in the English language. Surely you could have found a more civil phrasing? You just proved JCarriker correct: incivility is becoming more widespread, hence the need for community-building efforts like Esperanza. Since I'm no longer an Esperanzan, I'm tempted to throw some really uncivil comments at you - the type of comments I reserve for school bullies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously friends, seriously. I'm going to start sounding like your mother, but drop it! Do we really need to be arguing about the civility of people? We just may not agree, but accept that fact, and move on. This is not what Esperanza would have expected, and it's only making things worse by going over and over it. -- Natalya 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about something Elara brought up on the MfD, about truth vs civility - I do believe truth comes first, with civility a close second. What does that mean? Well, for one thing, if an untrue statement is repeatedly being used in a discussion, it needs to be addressed. I apologize if the way I challenged it wasn't entirely civil, but I still feel that statements like that simply can't be allowed to go unanswered. Quack 688 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider adopting me, Natalya (my school's chess team's trainer is also named Natalya).

I agree that sometimes you must be slightly uncivil to get a message across, but Dev920's comment really crosses the line. If an ignorant newcomer made such a suggestion, Dev920's reply would be biting them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please, lets cool down for a second. Step back and realize that it's really not something to get worked up about. We've done a really good job with staying civil during the whole MfD, lets not revert back to what the first MfD was like during these discussions. Some people would like to see all of Esperanza gone, and some would like more than the page we have here to remain. We've come to a good compromise, and even if everyone isn't completely happy, we should be able to handle it. Let's keep things nice, not ugly. -- Natalya 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A note back on the topic: I believe this should fix the problems with viewing old pages. Миша13 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, shall we have an incivility war? There is a time and place for that, but it is not over the grave of dead organisations, which is just patently ridiculous. Reserve that for the Workshop pages at ArbCom, please. Can eveyone please just move on and write some articles, or is that too much to ask? Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed all this furor over my comment. I still don't get why though. I never at any point attacked anyone, was not incivil towards anyone, and my point is perfectly valid, if misunderstood. I said that suggesting handing over one's right to discuss and determine consensus to a council is a dumb idea. And it is. We know it's a dumb idea because WE'RE WORKING ON A WIKI. I then said that no-one who had suggested otherwise wasn't an Esperanzan. I did not denounce all Esperanzans as loving bureaucracy, and my comment remains above for you to review. All people who suggest ideas like that were in Esperanza, but not all Esperanzans suggest stuff like that. That was my point. Maybe the double negatives confused you. I was attacking the idea not the person. One may notice that the replies below attacked me personally for making it.

Additionally, it is not incivil to use the word fuck in a hypothetical reply. It would been incivil if I were to actually say that to anyone, but I haven't. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and I will swear until the air turns blue if I want. I generally choose not to do so because I usually have more eloquence, but a well timed expletive can enhance comments and I am not going to concede my right to swear because people's delicate little ears were hurt.

You talk a lot about being civil. So start acting it and stop attacking me. Get on with editing articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you only ever sign one petition...

...make sure it is this one... to Jimbo Wales RE this whole issue. [2]. Best. 172.142.14.15 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The community - if it still exists - doesn't care any more. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, we don't need a project or a petition to spread community Love or what not. The deletion of Esperanza has woken me up. We can sspread The sense od community without Esperanza. Wikipedia can survive without Esperanza. It's not the end of Wiki. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just move on, or something like that--SUIT 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost article

The Signpost has published an article on the closing of Esperanza here. Can the link to it be included on the page along with the link to the article on its founding? If so, can two article links be in the same box to avoid clutter? 24.20.69.240 07:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did that.--Alf ^melmac 11:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting slightly ridiculous

Esperanza is dead, dead, dead. And it's still causing wikidrama. Is there anything being discussed on this page that is worth having full-blown wikidrama about? Damned if I can see it.

Please, let's just try to move on with minimal fuss and bureaucracy. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, and I will keep saying over and over again. The history wasn't supposed to be affected! Because the history was deleted, there is no record of Esperanza's actions. There even was necessary info in one of our subpages!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No record of Esperanza's actions can only be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your agenda and awful attitude were apparent from your edits; there was no need for a talk page message about them. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TINC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This record was, unfortunately, deleted by an admin who ignored the decisions on how to deal with the ECOTM. That particular page was deleted because it contained proposals on how to improve the article American Revolution. So now, because that page is deleted, all of our ideas and plans of improvement to that article is gone.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Er, no, it isn't. If you'd check the logs, you'd see the page is here. >Radiant< 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the valuable content on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Images. It contained all of the images that could still be used. For example, there were birthday and congratulations greeting images that are now nowhere to be found.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BDC has quite a lot of birthday images. >Radiant< 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Images page, there was a picture of a birthday cake, a pair of cocktail glasses, smile templates, and other images/templates that should have been kept.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So far as I know, the images unrelated to Esperanza have not been deleted. The page that linked them all is one place has gone. People are still putting WikiSmiles on my pages (strange given what an awful, awful person I am, right Bbatsell?) so I'm guessing they have gone anywhere. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing going on here that is irreversible. If something is deleted mistakenly, it can be restored just as easily, and nobody is going to raise a peep about it. This is a wiki after all. I won't mind any of my deletions in this case being overturned if it turns out that I made them in error. All that I ask is that if they are overturned, please turn them into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza. --Cyde Weys 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have examined the final decision of the MfD and found the following: "...membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted." Okay, move on... "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required." That being said, I have undeleted the histories of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Images and Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter, since in my opinion they do not fall under "associated pages", but are rather part of Esparanza's history. Let me know if there's more pages like these and I'll undelete them gladly, since they seem to have fallen victims to (semi-)automated deletion sprees. Миша13 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following pages (IMHO) should be restored in order to preserve all earlier versions of Wikipedia:Esperanza:

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Header
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/box-header
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/intro
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/box-footer
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/EALinks
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/What Esperanza is not
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Governance
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members
• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Frequently Asked Questions

All of these links appeared on the Esperanza Main Page either on the pre-MfD version or the pre-Front Page Redesign version. I will continue to search for more subpages of value that were affected by the post-MfD deletion spree. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of those (like /Governance and /Members, which were explicitly ordered to be deleted in the MfD, and I agree with that). Plus, I looked back at an old rev. of the project page and it was for the most part legible thanks to Misza's work. I think "mostly legible" is a good compromise. —bbatsell ¿? 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Udeleted histories of: FAQ, What EA is not & Header (although the latter one doesn't contain anything of interest). Governance and Members are to be salted per the MfD, so along with the headers/footers/etc, I'll just make them redirects to WP:EA (so that there's no redlinks in history). Миша13 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Header just needed to be deleted because it was a transclusion to all major Esperanza pages. So, in the history, the current EA essay is transcluded to all earlier versions of the subpages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore (I think) - the current WP:EA page was trancluded in histories, because the /Header redirected to it. I have wrapped the current main page into <noinclude></noinclude> tags and it shouldn't anymore (or rather: trancludes no content). Миша13 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous Esperanza page, because of the multiple transclusions, appears messed up because all of the subpages redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It won't look any better, regardless how much history is undeleted. At least now it's readable and if you want to read what specific subpages transcluded, see their histories (all interesting ones have been undeleted). Noone ever said it'd be easy - the organisation has been shut down, after all. Миша13 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a lesson to be learnt here about transcluding subpages onto a front page. Redirects do severely mess this sort of thing up. Probably best to do something other than redirect, and instead to blank with a "historical" tag (of some sort - making clear that the project has ended), and then the main page will just show these tags instead of the redirect. Will need careful planning though. I suspect a full list of pages would be good as part of the final "record" of the project. Where would be a good place for this list? Carcharoth 11:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all subpages should be redirected to the main page, but protected. This will preserve the history, while addressing other concerns that have been raised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That, however, does not follow with what the MfD decision was, so there may be some issue with that. -- Natalya 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the archive box on this page links to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month, and I think it should be undeleted.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts

What is the problem with having shortcuts on Wikipedia:Esperanza? Removing the shortcuts will cause numerous red-links on several talk-pages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody is suggesting deleting the shortcuts themselves, so there won't be any redlinks. An archived or historical page has no need of various bits of Wikispace metadata, such as shortcuts and categories. >Radiant< 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is there a shortcut to the MfD at WP:MFD/EA?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably because so many people were posting to it that it would be convenient to have a shortcut. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's an archived page.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice straw man, Ed. The shortcut exists but it's not advertised, and that isn't necessary for ESP either. >Radiant< 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the opposition to having the shortcuts remain. All the shortcuts arrive at a page that say "Esperanza is inactive". So, what's the problem? As Ed says, having the shortcuts avoids creating redlinks in Talk Pages (I don't know this for a fact but I am assuming good faith that Ed knows what he's talking about).

--Richard 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Radiant above, I believe the shortcuts are going to stay; the essay simply will not have a shortcut box on it detailing the different shortcuts to it. I don't really see the problem with that. —bbatsell ¿? 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bbatsell's comment above - I can confirm that the shortcuts are to stay - they will simply not be advertised on the essay. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't know if Ed was confused or what but I don't see any need for the shortcuts to be on the essay page. Thanx for the explanation. --Richard 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment about the MfD decision

In reading the discussions above, I detect an animus against Esperanza that is so strong that some people seem to want to erase all record of its existence from Wikipedia. Doing so would amount to a "Delete" decision as opposed to an "Inactivate and decentralize" decision which I understand to have been the compromise conclusion of the MfD. IMO, inactivating a Wikipedia project is different from deleting a mainspace article. When we delete a mainspace article, we don't want any trace of it left behind except for the AfD discussion. Keeping the history of an inactivated a Wikipedia project shouldn't be problematic except for those who believe that the project was so inimical to Wikipedia's interests that all trace of it should be deleted from the archives. I don't think that was the consensus of the MfD discussion. If that's the decision that you want, then find a way to build a consensus around it. Otherwise, please respect the compromise.

--Richard 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

100% agreed. The level of venom some editors have been regarding both the essay and the talk page with is astounding and completely contrary to consensus reached in the MfD. Whether you liked or disliked the project, I don't think anyone in their right mind could stand here and say that the project didn't have noble goals or Wikipedia's interests at heart; the general consensus is that it lost its direction along the way and evolved into a project that placed more emphasis on socializing than other activities. Knowing and seeing what happened and, more particularly, how it happened, is important for future Wikipedians. —bbatsell ¿? 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing a little activity regarding undeletion of some of the pages.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created an Esperanza Reinstatement userbox. Put it in your user page to show support for the return of Esperanza. {{User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns}}

~ Feureau 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was later deleted, as the red-link now shows. Carcharoth 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Please help write the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 11:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Carcharoth on this one. If you want to carry on Esperanza's ideals, that's fine, there are other groups and programs still active with similar goals. And, of course, you can carry on its ideals without any group structure whatsoever. But the community's decided that a massive group which runs lots of programs and has its own elected council isn't what Wikipedia is about, so we all need to learn from that and move on. Quack 688 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I remembered that you used to argue for a sort of page to demonstrate how to strenghten the community before the MfD. It seems that a few people want Esperanza reinstated, but that will unfortunately be brought down into another debate. I think that we should take your ideas and make an essay/guideline/policy(?) on the structure of the community?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That was mainly about some goals and principles that I thought should be in the Esperanza charter, but since Esperanza's shut down, I'm not sure how relevant that is any more. Right now, the only thing I really want us to do is to take a step back, have some quiet reflection for a moment or two, and learn what we can from Esperanza's mistakes. That's why I'm worried by any suggestion of bringing back Esperanza. It's clear from the last MfD that Esperanza was widely considered to be too bureaucratic to exist - any attempt to bring it back against that kind of consensus would result in nothing more than pissing off a large chunk of the Wikipedia community. Quack 688 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They decided to ignore you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record - you know, history :-) - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Carcharoth 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll put that up for MfD. I do like the suggestion on the talk page: User_talk:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Carcharoth 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a speedy issue? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of a touchy, borderline issue. Traditionally, userspace has a lot more leeway, so there aren't a lot of provisions for speedy deletion in userspace. Plus, there have been numerous very long, very vicious debates about speedying things like this. It's a much more permanent solution to MfD it so it really can't be contested at all. (The only speedy criteria that comes close to applying that I can see is G4, but G4 requires the content to be largely identical, which this is not.) —bbatsell ¿? 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In some ways a speedy deletion is possible, but as Bbatsell says, lets follow the book on this one. Carcharoth 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw crap, I was in the middle of writing out how they'd kept all the bad bits of Esperanza (governance with 4 members? Coffee Lounge?), and obviously hadn't learned anything from the experience, when someone came along and speedied it, so I couldn't make my point. D'oh. Oh, well, I'll say it on the record here: That Was A Really Bad Idea. Now, can we have someone gently enlighten these individuals as to why it'd be a bad idea to try that again? Cheers for pointing that out, btw. Quack 688 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Ahem. I was thinking that Quack has a point about showing failure to learn, but admin-historians can do that later, when the dust has settled. Let's keep on top of these recreation attempts for now, and also continue finaliszing the Esperanza closure details. Carcharoth 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, per concensus the userbox is currently blanked for a week. To let the dust settles down abit. If you'd like to support the call for the reinstatement of esperanza, feel free to add the userbox code into your userpage. It'll automatically appear after the cool-down time expire. If you'd like to see how it looks before you decide to put it in your userpage, I have a subst-ed version on my page. ~ Feureau E.S.P. 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

Hi.

Just asking, I'd be curious to know what the reactions of the members of the Esperanza Wikigroup (is that a "real" word?) were when their group was disbanded. Could any of them please tell me?

Just wondering. 74.38.35.171 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the MfD for Esperanza, you will find that many former members of Esperanza, including myself, regretfully supported its deletion. I explained why I left Esperanza in this essay. As it turns out, I chose to leave Esperanza not very long before the group was nominated for deletion. I can't speak for other people, but I felt a little sad when it was deleted, but even more sad at how it had changed from the time when I first joined it... as well as at how divisive an issue it had become. --Kyoko 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The turns that this whole thing took were sad to watch. --Kukini 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I was expecting everyone to have been horrified, upset, or something, crying so it would not happen, but I guess that was not quite the case. 74.38.35.171 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am

Deeply saddened. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was time. Esperanza was caught up in it own bureaucracy. ~Crazytales~patent nonsense! 13:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Even after death.....

Esperanza doesn't seem to want to die, does it? I am quite bemused why it has been allowed to turn this talk page into a on-going discussion about a dead project. Surely it is now time for this talk page to be purged, or better still locked for editing. doktorb _words^deeds 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is for discussion about the essay and about how admins handled the Esperanza pages. There is currently a huge debate on whether the history was supposed to be deleted or not.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Ed. I've never been involved with Esperanza, but I am contributing here to try and help resolve the remaining issues amicably and without seeing history deleted. Progress is being made. Discussion here should be focused primarily on achieving a dignified, calm, well-organised shut-down that satisfies everyone. This will make it less likely that there will be future problems. Please allow this process to take place, instead of proposing to protect this page, which will simply inflame the issues. Carcharoth 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To resolve the issues on both this page and on the MfD talk page, perhaps we can request some input on WP:AN.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was going to post a WP:DRV, but Wikipedia:Deletion review#History only undeletion says that it is not necessary.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No more bloodshed, please. This talkpage stays, and I will make sure it does. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Esperanza Spirit

Esperanza is not a mere organisation that simply ends once its governance and membership rolls are terminated. It is a spirit that should live on in every editor, one of us, whether we were once a member or not. Many of its programs have lived on to carry on this ideal, and continue to strengthen the community to build a better encyclopedia. True Esperanzans take heart, look beyond, and will continue to bring hope to those who are in need, whether this organisation has ever existed in the first place. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

: ) -- Natalya 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. :D --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So say us all. --Kukini 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So say we all. --Cyde Weys 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Even while I was never a member of Esperanza, I agree with its ideas. May its spirit continue in the hearts of every editor. Yuser31415 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Mailer Diablo :D. — Arjun 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza lives inside all of those who were touched. ~ Feureau E.S.P. 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Even when your hope is gone, move along, move along just to make things strong." Something like that... :D --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 05:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I belive it's "Even when all hope is gone, move along, move along just to make it strong". I actually don't know. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno either. I just wrote what I thought it sounded like. :D --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Esperanza.

What's an Esperanza? The Captain Returns 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a rock on mars:

The southern hemisphere dust storm lowered power levels to 267 watt-hours on Spirit's 1,061st sol, or Martian day, of exploring Mars (Dec. 27, 2006). Spirit had been using its Moessbauer spectrometer to analyze the mineral composition of a rock nicknamed "Esperanza," a piece of lava full of tiny holes and known as vesicular basalt. Due to concern about low power, the team prepared to drive Spirit to a north-tilted spot on the way toward a new target, a layered outcrop known as "Troll."[3]

Anyone think the people at JPL have too much time on there hands, reading about WP:ESP and redirecting the project to mars?--Rayc 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL :D They named a rock "Esperanza"? I don't suppose it's named after the MfDed Esperanza though. ~ Feureau E.S.P. 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)