157:, and because I kept finding material in the sections cited that disagreed with your interpretation it seemed that the policies and guidelines being cited were only token citations to avoid being called on points 3 and 7. I concede that in my frustration I had a much less civil tone than I like, and I apologize. That said, I still do not understand how the interpretations you and others have made are valid in light of the entire context of the rules cited, but my interpretation doesn't matter. If the traditional interpretation of the rules differs from the text of them though, I wish that the text would be updated to match--especially where the interpretation contradicts the current guideline directly. ~~sigh~~ Regardless of that, I can see that you are simply following the current interpretation, and intended no malice, so thank you again for your act of good faith. It may even keep me around long enough to learn the traditional interpretations myself. --
197:
make it hard for me to explain my position and difficult for others to understand my reasoning (Protonk, I think, made a much better OR case than I did, for instance). But, in any case, consensus is what we're going for and hopefully we can achieve it. As far as sticking around, hopefully you will as you obviously do have a lot of passion. It is a problem
Knowledge seems to be facing, the loss of new editors who leave due to the fallout from debates like these. Hopefully we can agree to continue to work towards what is best for Knowledge. If we can agree what that is. :)
263:, but a simple list (which is intended for less substantial categorizations) of Fictional characters by educational institution would be less notable as long as the list members are notable characters (i.e., worthy of their own articles in Knowledge). If the interpretation that you and others are championing is valid, then perhaps some of these other lists and categories need to be cleaned out, perhaps the examples listed in the
114:
do believe that the overuse of "cruft" as a reason for deletion is a real problem. Simply waving the "cruft wand" should not be enough to have an article removed (also I think the word "cruft" is itself hilarious and "cruftcruft" doubly so). If memory serves I have never referred to any work as "cruft" and hopefully never will. In our discussion I believe I have stuck to
Knowledge guidelines and policies.
268:
being put through this again, nor do I have the time for it. Deletionism and
Inclusionism are both only good in moderation. This attitude of ignoring the text of the rules in favor of deleting an article--when the rule is to improve if possible and delete only if necessary--has left a sour taste in my mouth. ~~sigh~~ And again, I am getting too worked up. This is why I'll be putting WP aside. I
226:
184:
139:
105:
76:
27:
196:
Different people will have different interpretations of the various guidelines and policies. This is normal and part of the process. I usually go for the spirit and intent of a rule, rather than the letter (this is
Knowledge after all, and the letter can change at any time). Unfortunately this can
113:
I've thought about this a little bit more and understand how what I had there could be inflammatory due to the discussion we are having. I have deleted it as a sign of good faith. Also, to clarify my stated interest in "cruftcruft", it was put there partly as a joke, but the serious side is that I
310:
Maybe it can work as a category. I don't know anything about categories. Maybe you could even add the info to People by educational institution category. For now, have it added to your userspace so it doesn't just get tossed, and maybe you'll find the time to re-work it. Nothing is ever really
267:
themselves need to be cleansed in favor of more notable examples... or perhaps the interpretation is a little over-interpreted and over-ambitious. Either way, unless the atmosphere here changes, I'm not likely to bother sinking my time into creating an article ever again. I have no interest in
42:
276:
specifically are doing this, I feel that the current traditional interpretation of the rules has been twisted to support a strongly deletionist viewpoint. Until that changes I doubt that I'll jump into this fire again. --
240:
I still feel that the rules are being over-interpreted in the direction of deletionism. There were sections of the guidelines that plainly show that this topic is fine. For example, in the actual
255:
topic been covered in secondary and tertiary sources? How is this topic notable? Where--other than here on
Knowledge--has this information ever been published before? I fail to see why
45:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
260:
256:
149:
I appreciate your act of good faith. I was getting rather frustrated and may have been oversensitive to the subtext of your page. After reading the
16:
248:
34:
244:
325:
You know, I really like the category idea. I've added it to the AfD discussion. Definitely something to look in to.
38:
41:. I do not feel that this article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at
330:
316:
202:
119:
87:
154:
150:
57:
326:
312:
198:
115:
83:
278:
158:
48:
53:
26:
43:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Alumni of Real
Universities
334:
320:
286:
206:
166:
123:
91:
61:
272:
when rules are twisted to suit an agenda, and while I don't feel that
311:
deleted permanently on WP anyway, just stored somewhere else. :)
22:
AfD nomination of List of fictional Alumni of Real
Universities
220:
178:
133:
99:
70:
25:
82:The content of my user page is mostly a joke.
245:Knowledge:Notability (people)#Lists of people
35:List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities
8:
155:Knowledge:Cruftcruft#Ways to spot Cruftcruft
261:Category:Fictional characters by occupation
153:page, point 2 seemed to be occurring (from
257:Category:People by educational institution
7:
249:Category:Wikipedians by alma mater
14:
224:
182:
137:
103:
74:
37:, an article you created, for
17:Archived Discussion 2008-06-22
1:
359:
251:is referenced. Where has
335:23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
321:23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
287:15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
207:14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
167:13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
124:12:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
92:12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
62:21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
51:of receiving this notice?
282:
162:
30:
29:
151:Knowledge:Cruftcruft
31:
301:
300:
219:
218:
177:
176:
132:
131:
98:
97:
52:
33:I have nominated
350:
228:
227:
221:
186:
185:
179:
141:
140:
134:
107:
106:
100:
78:
77:
71:
46:
358:
357:
353:
352:
351:
349:
348:
347:
297:
259:is fine, as is
225:
215:
183:
173:
138:
128:
104:
94:
75:
69:
47:Do you want to
24:
12:
11:
5:
356:
354:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
299:
298:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
231:
229:
217:
216:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
189:
187:
175:
174:
172:
171:
170:
169:
144:
142:
130:
129:
127:
126:
110:
108:
96:
95:
81:
79:
68:
65:
23:
20:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
355:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:the category
246:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
230:
223:
222:
208:
204:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
188:
181:
180:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
143:
136:
135:
125:
121:
117:
112:
111:
109:
102:
101:
93:
89:
85:
80:
73:
72:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
50:
44:
40:
36:
28:
21:
19:
18:
273:
269:
264:
252:
241:
32:
15:
327:Rejectwater
313:Rejectwater
199:Rejectwater
116:Rejectwater
84:Rejectwater
265:guidelines
242:guideline
39:deletion
54:ukexpat
49:opt out
67:Humour
331:talk
317:talk
283:talk
279:John
270:hate
253:this
203:talk
163:talk
159:John
120:talk
88:talk
58:talk
274:you
333:)
319:)
285:)
205:)
165:)
122:)
90:)
60:)
329:(
315:(
281:(
201:(
161:(
118:(
86:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
