On 21/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 6:00 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:49:27 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Just because the outcome is the same doesn't mean the reasoning for doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would also have been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
I can't help feeling this was the main aim of that whole strawman: to make it harder to remove crappy links *because they are crappy*. The main site active in this is, after all, spectacularly crappy.
No, the aim of BADSITES was to demonstrate how pathetic and unwanted existing practice was. This was highly successful.
Highly unlikely, as there was no "existing practice" backing it up.
Nobody had ever removed a useful link because the website it was on also contained pages that were deemed to attack Wikipedians?