Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's a noble goal, and the idea behind this project seems like a
good one. Incidentally, I'm probably in the running for most rabid
inclusionist here.
Correcting systematic wrongs is, I agree, good.
I think we all ought to be able to
If anyone was contemplating participating in [[Wikipedia:Newbie
treatment at CSD]], please don't create any more new articles under
undisclosed new accounts, whilst we discuss concerns that some users
have raised that the damage to the new page patrol process may
outweigh the benefits.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like just more strategic deletionist excusism. There is no
excuse for anyone giving to destruction a higher value than they do to
creation.
So now that things are wrapping up, don't forget to hand out some
merit
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion category names:
I'd argue that tagging something for speedy deletion when it
Sort of like getting annoyed with a police officer for giving you a
warning for speeding. No harm done to anyone, just don't speed next
time.
Pun intended.
~A
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:35, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that,
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
WereSpielChequers could have expressed his concerns a bit better here.
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion category
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion category names:
I'd argue that tagging
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
or do you claim that we shouldn't
delete sub-stubs duplicating pre-existing articles?
If the title is valid, it is easier to turn it into a redirect and
merge any content not already mentioned in the existing article (a
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Rules lawyering is generally taken to mean an excessively strict and
pedantic reading of rules often leaning on obscure clauses and
interpretations to push a preferred outcome contrary to intuitive
sense and the probable intent of the rule.
I'd say
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
or do you claim that we shouldn't
delete sub-stubs duplicating pre-existing articles?
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the title is valid, it is easier to turn it into a redirect and
merge any content
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
or do you claim that we shouldn't
delete sub-stubs duplicating pre-existing articles?
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the title is
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like just more strategic deletionist excusism. There is no
excuse for anyone giving to destruction a higher value than they do to
creation.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion
Carcharoth wrote:
Take a random sample of
deleted articles and see what proportion actually didn't fix the
criteria and what proportion can be written as acceptable articles.
Have a look at [[Charles Mills Gayley]], which I created as a stub, was
deleted as an A7, and which I eventually
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article that
should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some loophole,
sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see a
test case to say that
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article
that
should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some
loophole,
sounds like the
2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been
explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with
the express intention of being a pain in the ass. That's gaming the system
in a disruptive
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been
explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with
the express intention
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
But CSD *isn't for deleting everything that should be deleted*. So the
fact that the article doesn't fit CSD but should be deleted anyway isn't
a loophole. Plenty of things which should be deleted don't fit CSD.
Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article that
should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some loophole,
sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see a
test case to say
so far from being disruptive, the project is an attempt to
demonstrate the ongoing disruption being routinely carried out by
people deleting improvable articles. sometimes a few test cases are
the clearest way to show that, and the project seems to have made done
that very successfully. We now
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
so far from being disruptive, the project is an attempt to
demonstrate the ongoing disruption being routinely carried out by
people deleting improvable articles. sometimes a few test cases are
the clearest way to
Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to be
reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review.
True (though I don't think David is misunderstanding anything). The
issue is not reviewing how sysops use their
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to
be
reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review.
True (though I don't think David is
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
The entire NEWT project is a disruption to make a point - and the
No. The main goal is/was data collection - to find out whether the
assertions made by the original blog post were accurate or not. It
seems that there are grounds
25 matches
Mail list logo
