bryan.derksen at shaw.ca
Thu Oct 12 01:48:14 UTC 2006
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you
>> taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in
>> an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex
>> toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.
> You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.
But you were the one who took that comparison and said
> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
> the fleshlight. Organists are notable, wankers are not.
You were using the pipe organ article's "justification for existence" to
evaluate sex toys, which is in itself silly regardless of who originally
brought pipe organs up.
>> I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors
>> to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that
>> Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.
> Or not, depending. There is, after all, no measurable damage to
> Wikipedia's reputation from *not* having an article over which two
> apparent spammers are fighting.
Try deleting articles that survive AfD using the argument that it causes
"no measurable damage" _without_ having confusion over OFFICE to stay
the hand of other admins and see how many you can get through before
IMO the mere existence of this current firestorm of controversy and
confusion is evidence enough that something went seriously wrong here.
We should be trying to avoid this kind of thing.
>> Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be
>> deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more
>> to this article than just advertising.
> Afd is absolutely not deletionist when it comes to sexcruft.
"Deletionist" is a subjective measure, which is why I made sure to
include "I consider" in that sentence to qualify it.
>> Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
> I think he had them. Spammers edit warring over product placement.
This is not a criterion for speedy deletion. In the case of an ongoing
edit war just protect the article and wait for the dust to settle before
deciding what to do next.
>> As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
>> entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.
> No, it's always best to wait for clarification. There is no deadline
> to meet.
Once again, this is _my_ point. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/bf26feae/attachment.pgp
More information about the WikiEN-l