- Sorry, I'll watch that in the future. Corona688 21:31, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about the quote thing, I thought that I had edited that. i2amroy
- Editing on a wiki is no no way a permanent change since everything is preserved in the history. Changing the article, either by adding things or removing them, is an expression of how you think the article is better off looking. Just putting things on the talk page rather than putting it in yourself makes things move at glacial speeds, so it's generally better to risk a little bit of conflict by just editing it into the article and then peacefully resolving anything that comes out of it.
- Also, you havent responded to my question above. I'd like to have a conversation with you about this, but for this I really need your help.
- The reason I'm writing on your talk page rather than the quote page is because the quote page issues have long since been settled. You can see the result here. This conversation is about your editing philosophy rather than what you want to happen on the quote page. VengefulDonut 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your "question" -- exaggeration at best, baiting at worst -- is irrelevant to the quote page, and I already explained why in the talk page for quotes. But I'll reiterate here since you want it. Most pages on this wiki are matters of fact; verifiable, testable, who edits them is irrelevant if they get them right. The quotes page, on the other hand, is a matter of taste; at present, whoever last enforces their sense of humor "wins". I think that kind of competition leads to a removal of good material and decrease in quality of the page in general since the deleters are generally more vigilant than the folks who try and add material. I'll also add to that the goal of a quotes page, a variety of material, is the exact opposite goal of factual wiki pages, the concise display of information. --Corona688 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you what the result of your proposed editing approach is because I'd like to know what you think about it and why. I'll admit I think the result would be bad, but this makes me curious if your view is similar to mine in any way. I did not intend to bait you. Also, if it was an exaggeration, then how does your approach work? If we agree that sometimes things need to be deleted, then what is a fair way to decide what and when?
- Based on what you just wrote, that 'whoever last enforced their sense of humor "wins"', it seems to me that you either didn't read or don't expect anyone to follow the guidelines posted on the quote talk page. If this statement was aimed at the current policy, could you elaborate a bit?
- You and me have the same end goal: the overall improvement of the wiki. What is your opinion of the officially endorsed editing approach on the quote page? What are your arguments in favor of adopting your method instead of it?
- You come off as a programmer type, so I'm sure you have very rational, structured support for your views that I would readily agree with if you got the necessary information across. VengefulDonut 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the question along with your vandalism, so here it is again: "This idea of letting content sit there, no matter what it is, just because someone else put it there. What kind of results come from that kind of system?"
- I consider the question baiting since it grossly exaggerates my position, and contemplates it in a context I never considered appropriate -- editing that way in general. The quotes page was never edited the same way other pages are in the first place, though:
- Imagine if someone came along, decided the opening paragraph of the main page was awkward, then removed it! No matter how awkward they found it, the page is hardly improved by its absence. Removing useful content without improving the page otherwise is destructive behavior.
- If you're asking me how I'd manage the quote page, its pretty simple: Don't remove quotes if you can't replace them. Deleting content is easier than writing it, expecting people to fill in holes you leave is unfair. --Corona688 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- With apologies on injecting myself into this conversation
- First, sometimes the quotes page is improved by removing content. You only ever see one of them, so the more bad quotes you remove, the better the average value of a randomly generated quote. There is some value in diversity, but you hit diminishing returns sometime well before the ~80 quotes that currently remain.
- Second, expecting every deletion to be accompanied by a replacement is ridiculous - truly good material takes longer to find than bad material. Fortunately, self-selection in what gets added also occurs, so you still expect growth over the long term, (and someone, reading the forums or elsewhere, might be struck by inspiration while nowhere near the wiki). Basically, the processes which involve removal of bad material from the quotes page are fundamentally different than those that involve adding quality material to the quotes page - they happen at different rates and involve different amounts of attention paid to the state of the quotes page at some moment in time.
- Third, I've tried to add material to the quotes page, but Karl is apparently throwing a hissy fit because I'd dare ever delete anything off the page, and worse, dare to demand page policy be enforced in full. Every quote i've tried to add has been deleted, not on its merits, but solely because I added it. Needless to say, *that* kind of behavior is truly destructive and not appropriate.
- --Squirrelloid 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Net loss of content?
By what criteria did you decide we are experiencing a net loss of content? While there seem to be a few short-term dips, it doesn't look like we have a problem in the long run. PS: When you write comments with an emotional or sarcastic spin to them, it makes it more difficult to take you seriously. You will be better able to influence people's opinion if you learn to control that. VengefulDonut 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)