On 5/31/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The policy was marked "REJECTED", but
someone made it a redirect to
NPA, happening to obscure this detail. The redirect should probably be
reverted to the failed proposal.
It was tried, and the result was of course an edit war, even when the
rejected tag pointed at WP:NPA.
Considering that there's been so much discussion about BADSITES, to avoid
marking it historical/rejected and simply redirecting it to an altogether
different policy/guideline is ridiculous...sort of like redirecting the
Esperanza page to the community portal. The specific concept of BADSITES is
completely different from the specific concept of what NPA says about attack
sites.
Johnleemk