Abigail Brady wrote:
On 13/09/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>In my opinion, an admin can ignore AFD "consensus" when following
>>it would harm the encyclopedia.
>>
>>Kelly
>>
>>
>Oh please no. Name anything that could harm wikipedia that doean't
>get delt with as a speedy or a copyvio.
>
>
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and call [[WP:NOR]] - but that's
not
a speedy criteria, because an article is no longer original research as
soon as references are added.
The proposal of "speedy or nothing" seems to be an attempt to move
towards writing a bot that will detecting CSDs and act appropriately. It
will never work. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'm
quite capable of judging for myself what I do and don't want to be on
Wikipedia. I don't need a bot or a set of rules saying "anything can
stay unless it's X, Y, or Z" to decide for me.
That makes you an exception with whom I can sympathise. I find that
both here and in many other circumstances, people have a great deal of
difficulty coping with an environment that has flexible rules. A
flexible rule environment requires requires that people take time to
reflect and consider. This is inconsistent with the compulsion to deal
with huge amounts of material quickly. For the compulsive a single word
is enough of an explanation, and if he can manage with a cryptic
abbreviation so much the better. Some of us just need time to reflect.
Ec