WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines (edit)

Revision as of 04:36, 23 September 2009

1,522 bytes added , 23 September 2009

Relocating the my critical review question to Lumeniki since I have no policy proposal there (too difficult) and no one responded. Adding section on noncommercial spamming.

Lumenos

1,136

edits

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 :Since I have been critical of article protections, I've been accused of "spamming" Recent Changes, by [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk:RationalWikiWiki&diff=prev&oldid=71491 Dilley] and then [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThis_is_not_the_solution&diff=71588&oldid=71587 Felix]. Ordinarily I would think Felix' rules are not in reference to what I was doing, but I'm not sure, given [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThis_is_not_the_solution&diff=71649&oldid=71591 this (enraged?) reply]. "Assume good faith." That would be nice. But my question is about the "irrelevant" content. Are you referring to talk pages, or only articles? It sounds sorta uum.... over the top, to say we are going to '''"mercilessly"''' remove something that is merely irrelevant. It is just weird after being accused of trolling and all these things. It is kinda intimidating. Maybe it is not meant to be. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:15, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
 :: Twisting my words again, are you? Feel free to put milder words in that rule. It's just a proposal. I went out and put it directly on the actual page because nobody else would, but it's still just a proposal. As a wise man said, this website should be always under construction. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 00:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
+:::Thank you for rewriting the policy proposal, telling us that this is not an official policy, and that you don't mind non-administrators editing it. I didn't know your intentions on those three subjects, until now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
-== Notability ==
+=="Noncommercial" spamming==
-===Notability of critical reviews===
+===Category spam===
-Critical reviews are often controversial. How shall we decide which criticisms are notable enough for inclusion in an article?
+We should probably have some criteria for a wiki to be included in a category. I propose it be that the wiki has at least so many characters devoted to the category subject, since this is relatively easy to measure by copying text into a text editor (if anyone cares to check). Only problem is it may be difficult to find the pages on these subjects. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
+:It would have to be an arbitrary number, say 15,000 characters on the category subject? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
+===Edit spamming===
+Putting too many links to a single favored wiki unless it happens to contain information pertinent to the subject being discussed. For example, Wikipedia or [[MeatballWiki]], are often cited regarding policy, definitions, etc. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
+===Hijacking Recent Changes===
+A proposal that there shall be no specific rule against "hijacking" (spamming) Recent Changes, but that this would regulated by:
+*The "commercial spam" policy.
+*"Edit spam" policy.
+*An etiquette policy on making the first edit right so it doesn't have to be corrected.
+*WikiIndex inclusion policy. So long as the subject is otherwise appropriate for WikiIndex, I see no reason to make a specific rule against hijacking Recent Changes.
+[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)