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
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
