Kelly Martin wrote:
Deleting encyclopedic articles harms the
encyclopedia. Just because
a "consensus" of professional deletionists decide that some article
or another isn't "notable" doesn't make it unencyclopedic. See
Snowspinner's post that started this iteration of this discussion.
Then exactly the same applies to deletion of links. This proves that
if there is a well-organised mob opinion claiming to be a consensus,
that a link isn't notable while an opposing one is, to argue with
that view and reinstate the link for balance's sake is not "link
spam" or a blocking offence. Least of all is it grounds for an
admin-imposed block without any due processes,followed by a permanent
block for the offence of claiming to have any rights against it.
So Kelly has here proved conclusively that I was abused, and is
proposing that Wiki's functioning pattern should incorporate that
proof.
Hey, I've got this really great idea! Let's make everything static HTML,
and have a 12-step review stage through an academic committee before
anything gets changed! Some sort of New Encyclopedia!
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards