Chewie if you used something, a project of mine over the medium term is to clarify a little trouble of relevance. Aca consiero only to be mentioned elephant clearly in the deletion of the irrelevant (lease again clearly defends erasing only in very quickly obvious to avoid burcoracia). With the policies already adopted and what I hope to platform do in the immediate future is to develop relevant and not. Notice that kerry neither will committee be the panacea, but vote I would like to clarify. Meanwhile, I hope that common sense is the guide .-- FAR (The Book of Grievances) 21:07 18 October 2006 (CEST)
FAR, if there is an objective means of significance in george bush the English, then vote for this policy. But as there is none, the approach rests entirely on the subjectivity of literature. And although it is intended to make one, can be given if this policy is accepted and not relevant, true 'The natural order would be reversed, to vote the first criterion of relevance, then the policies that refer him. If we can not stop wild pointers. - Chewie 18:36 19 October 2006 (CEST)
I agree except with the general criteria of Section 9, as it may happen beliefs that an item be removed by vote election and the author or other person re-created, but in a way liberal completely different from what was proposed for deletion, and if deserves to be in wikipedia. jorgechp (ke kuentas t ') 16:21 20 October 2006 (CEST)
9 point seems clear to campaign me in the sense republican that that should not be recreated if they are kept on the grounds it may be deleted. congress That's why it is important to change the system of consultations with the model of clear English Wikipedia, since that (voting) is totally inefficient. Barcex 16:55 20 October 2006 (CEST)
We comment on wikis-I. Recreate said against the criteria that led to views its deletion. If a new article is not contrary to this criterion should not apply .-- FAR (The Book of Grievances) 17:17 20 October 2006 (CEST)
FAR exact, I read Section 9 and understand it clearly. But the system of parties "voting" makes clear that in many cases almost none of the arguments on the view that one senator way platforms or the other and then to evaluate this approach politics to you referis. The system of consultations deleted "God obliges all to express opinions (and prohibits" vote "), which can be accessed at the end was that criterion. This has nothing to do with this Section 9, but complicate its implementation. Barcex 00:00 22 October 2006 (CEST)
Vote in favor because I conservative think the senate spirit of the proposal is correct and, furthermore, I see that these criteria are listed in writing for all to see. My george w. bush only reservation that I have some doubts have to decide my vote, concerns the wording of item 9 of the articles section and the presence of point 3 on pages of users. In the first case, political I am concerned, first, the possible ambiguity of the concept age "encyclopedic significance" (but I am satisfied with the response to Chewie FAR above) and, secondly, issues the standing of the mechanism, a little odd to require a demonstration of relevance "(arbitrary). Regarding the other point, the user of the pages, I have not seen in any other version of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure republicans it's necessary, since there are other mechanisms to remove inappropriate content, or abortion to punish users. In these two cases, I see that the proposal is somewhat similar to the policies that exist in other major Wikipedias. Anyway, if everyone makes an effort to apply common sense and good faith, headquarters there should be no problems. Gelo (messages) 19:32 24 October 2006 (CEST)
Get more:
- DEMOCRAT PARKING sign voter * street politics vote by Texsign
- Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America by Andrew Gumbel (Paperback - Jul 10, 2005)
- Dave's Gourmet President Barack Obama Hot Sauce Collectors Series by RoJosGourmet.com