geni wrote:
On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
When process must be the basis for a decision it
must do the least harm;
it should give the best opportunity for a real resolution. In
situations where sysops differ process shouold favour keeping in the
general case.
So our inclusion standards are set but the most liberal sysops? I
really don't think that is an acceptable way of doing things (apart
from anything else it makes the issue very personal).
Not exactly, but by those who would want standards to do least harm, or
who would like peace in the community. If you want to take that
personally that's your problem.
A least harm
approach could still favouur deletion in
cases where legal problems such as copyvios, libel or privacy are a
major factor. When the only issue is notability we are talking abour a
highly subjective concept; that explains why it has been such a
perennial problem. When undeletion depends almost completely on whether
the deletion process was followed correctly rather than on content it's
clear that process has become overly dominant.
almost There are cases where deletion has been reversed for being an
incorrect descision
That statement seems on a par with those people who say that they have a
best friend that's black.
John's
argument is like that of any other politicians who like things
the way they are. I don't think that Tony is wholly ignoring the
process; it's more like civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a
perfectly acceptable way of opposing unjust laws.
You just accused Tony of dissruption. And [[WP:POINT]] violations.
Who would be so fucking foolish as to twist praise for civil
disobedience into an accusation of disruption.
I would suggest that you rethink any position that
results in useing
terms such as "unjust laws" to refure to wikipedia policy.
It doesn't take much rethinking to reaffirm what I said. There are
whole countries where any suggestion that it can promulgate unjust laws
would result in severe consequences. Was it my error to believe that
Wikipedia was not one of those countries?
Dealing with a
single article should not need to involve a person in a
broad unending discussion of general process. If a person feels that a
particular corporation is notable, that needs to be discussed on its own
merits. Falling back on general process ignores the fact that the
financial pages form a larger part of daily newspapers than comic strips.
Not it doesn't. From [[WP:CORP]]:
"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple
non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company
itself."
That kind of rule parrotting suggests that you don't spend a hell of a
lot of time looking at the financial pages of newspapers.
Ec