On 11/20/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day Sam,
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch
<jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto
keep vote, because
thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this. I had
thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at
least a very large supermajority. Once again, I fear you are moulding
the facts until they become *your* facts.
The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.
I think it depends whether you look at it from a content- or page-based
POV. Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they
can't be considered fans of deletion. However, they certainly don't
want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be
deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve
some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete.
Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an
"inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges
should be
reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
In any case, at the end of the day, it's just an article on a website
(albeit, a super-mega-happy-awesome website). I'm not going to lose any
sleep over a page being kept, deleted, merged, BJOADNed, or anything
else (well, I might get upset if [[Lang Hancock]] is deleted ...).
Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates,
the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or
keep.
--
Sam