Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:90/10 rule"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(you're joking ... and so am I) |
(→Oppose: I incorporated two of your ideas) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Oppose=== | ===Oppose=== | ||
#--<font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | #--<font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | #*I incorporated two of your ideas '''after''' you voted. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | |
===Comment=== | ===Comment=== | ||
Revision as of 16:33, April 24, 2007
Vote
Support
Oppose
- --ColinRtalk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- I incorporated two of your ideas after you voted. --Ed Poor 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
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)