Ryan Delaney 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 understand, though,
> th
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM, stevertigo 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 for considera
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Ryan Delaney 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
>
Ryan Delaney 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 tools. It is about
corr
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM, David Goodman 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 show that, and the p
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 ne
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 for sure.
The en
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Ken Arromdee 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.
Absolutely.
The intenti
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney :
>
>> 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. Tha
2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney :
> 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 way to make some kin
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ken Arromdee 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 definition of d
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 tha
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, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ken Arromdee 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:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo 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 wr
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> or do you claim that we shouldn't
>>> delete sub-stubs duplicating pre-existing articles?
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> If the title is valid, it is easier to turn it into a redirect and
>>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> or do you claim that we shouldn't
>> delete sub-stubs duplicating pre-existing articles?
Carcharoth wrote:
> If the title is valid, it is easier to turn it into a redirect and
> merge any content not already mentioned in the existing ar
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 s
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell 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
s-merge as it is
Ken Arromdee 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 something
Gregory Maxwell 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 names:
> There c
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ken Arromdee 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:
>
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 wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> It seems that, under the guise of
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
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo 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 badges to the '
WereSpielChequers wrote:
> 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
>
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.
WereSpielCh
27 matches
Mail list logo
