geni wrote:
Arguments about AFD that will go nowhere I can live with since it doesn't require any new policy and doesn't have any impact on those who wish to avoid the debate.
Until their hard work gets trashed, of course.
"I'm not interested in politics." "Politics is interested in you."
- d.
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Until their hard work gets trashed, of course.
"I'm not interested in politics." "Politics is interested in you."
- d.
This is a wiki. I belive our edit boxes have a warning on them. If this happens to you more than once perhaps it is time for a rethink. -- geni
On 9/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Until their hard work gets trashed, of course. "I'm not interested in politics." "Politics is interested in you."
This is a wiki. I belive our edit boxes have a warning on them. If this happens to you more than once perhaps it is time for a rethink.
This doesn't, of course, answer anything of what I'm talking about. "Mercilessly" is one thing; "stupidly" is another.
- d.
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This doesn't, of course, answer anything of what I'm talking about. "Mercilessly" is one thing; "stupidly" is another.
- d.
While some people have claimed that being merciful is stupid I don't think the two are multialy exclusive.
-- geni
On 9/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could be safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with hoax/unverifiable articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Sorry I thought people wanted a system which worked. WP:CP is improveing but it still has a long way to go.
-- geni
Perhaps I'm completely oblivious, but WP:CP seems to work fine from where I'm standing. The only problem it has is the immense backlogs it gets every once in a while, but that can be resolved by encouraging people to maintain it. The process itself doesn't appear to "have a long way to go" or am I missing something.
About deletion: There's a simple way to avoid repeated run-ins with AFD. Write better articles that even hard-core deletionists wouldn't think of deleting. One or 2 lines more in a stub can make the difference between viable context or possible deletion candidate.
--Mgm
On 9/30/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I don't think it can be fixed. I am convinced that it could
be
safely wound down provided a procedure for dealing with
hoax/unverifiable
articles was instituted along the same lines as Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems.
Sorry I thought people wanted a system which worked. WP:CP is improveing but it still has a long way to go. -- geni
Perhaps I'm completely oblivious, but WP:CP seems to work fine from where I'm standing. The only problem it has is the immense backlogs it gets every once in a while, but that can be resolved by encouraging people to maintain it. The process itself doesn't appear to "have a long way to go" or am I missing something.
About deletion: There's a simple way to avoid repeated run-ins with AFD. Write better articles that even hard-core deletionists wouldn't think of deleting. One or 2 lines more in a stub can make the difference between viable context or possible deletion candidate.
--Mgm
I agree with geni that WP:CP is improving a little, and I agree with Mgm that it works fine. We should always be looking for ways to improve every part of the project.
The biggest problem with CP is that the job sucks, and so not many admins do it. We need more admins pitching in.
On 9/30/05, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with geni that WP:CP is improving a little, and I agree with Mgm that it works fine. We should always be looking for ways to improve every part of the project.
lastest expansion of speedy critia should help a bit or at least change the problem.
-- geni