Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:90/10 rule"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(you're joking ... and so am I) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
This rule is just an excuse to stifle criticism. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | This rule is just an excuse to stifle criticism. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Nick, that's not true! (blocks your account ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:29, April 24, 2007
Vote
Support
Oppose
Comment
While I recognize the good intention behind this rule, it's hard to correctly use it. After all, an editor could make mostly worthless edits, cause problems on talk pages, and yet not violate the 90/10 rule. Or an editor could work really hard on one or two amazing articles, engage in a lot of discussion on talk pages about improving said articles, get in a small squabble with a sysop, and get blocked for 90/10 violation. If we're going to be blocking "dissidents" for too much "talk page use," we need to base our blocks on more than just the number of edits. ColinRtalk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
This rule is just an excuse to stifle criticism. Auld Nick 12:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Nick, that's not true! (blocks your account ;-) --Ed Poor 12:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)