that's not a list of things "allowed to exist", it's a work queue of things that need to be inspected to determine whether they should exist
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
Same thing, especially in an environment where people fashion the rules as deterministic and objective.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
interpreting the fact that a bureaucratic process that exists for the sake of diligence in not letting automated tools make ham-fisted false-positive-prone judgments hasn't yet gotten to a flagged article as an endorsement of that article's existence isn't even *good* propaganda
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
All I'm saying is that someone deleted one of few women to have won a physics Nobel Prize, an obviously notable figure per WP's other guidelines, and the article was given less time to work through its issues than any of the things on that list which has some entries from 2014.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic @chaosprime
One way someone can warrant a Wikipedia article is simply by winning a famous award. She did. The admin could have recognized her notability, marked the copyvio/ref issues, & told the new editor to fix it. If the admin's not up for that, why are they patrolling new articles?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
there may be outlier cases i'm not aware of, but i've never personally known "tag and fix" to be used for copyvio that has been determined to be copyvio after inspection; you delete the offending material and notability doesn't enter into it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
This is where I think we differ: I say that is a bad approach. Notability should come first, and the new editor should be given the chance to fix an issue with the article they want to contribute. The article's potential should be prioritized over its ignorant first edit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
sure, and that's largely how it goes down. copyvio 1) potentially threatens the integrity of the whole project and 2) reflects zero damn effort from the contributor, though, so it's not handled the same way as an honest noob attempt
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
1) No it doesn't, as the worst thing that could happen is a takedown request that would be complied with anyway. 2) That is unnecessary hostility that leads to unnecessary haste. It should be treated like any other rule violation by a new editor.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lethargilistic
1) legal opinions vary 2) it's called a criterion for *speedy* deletion for a reason. anyway, these are things you can argue should be the way it's done, but they're *not* the way it's done, and it's not reasonable to expect the admin to suddenly have started doing it this way
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
like, these are arguments suitable for the Village Pump, not Monday morning quarterbacking aimed at identifying systemic bias for pillory
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.