| Revision as of 22:00, 8 June 2006 editNathanrdotcom (talk | contribs)6,409 editsm →[]: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:19, 8 June 2006 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: d, troll magnetNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Keep''' and mark as a rejected proposal. We don't delete rejected proposals, do we? --] 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' and mark as a rejected proposal. We don't delete rejected proposals, do we? --] 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' tagged as rejected, per above. Pointless, but we have many pointless failed proposals. ] 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' tagged as rejected, per above. Pointless, but we have many pointless failed proposals. ] 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to mark this as rejected - it has never been rejected since it was never even proposed. If we kept every pseudo-policy page that was inexpertly created in the wikipedia: namespace we'd be up to our ears by now. Delete its shortcuts too. --] <small>(] - ] |
*'''Delete'''. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to mark this as rejected - it has never been rejected since it was never even proposed. If we kept every pseudo-policy page that was inexpertly created in the wikipedia: namespace we'd be up to our ears by now. Delete its shortcuts too. --] 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Per nom. ] 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Per nom. ] 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' and mark as rejected. Misplaced Pages policy proposals should generally be kept so that we don't waste times with new proposals that are the same as previously rejected ones. ] | ] 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' and mark as rejected. Misplaced Pages policy proposals should generally be kept so that we don't waste times with new proposals that are the same as previously rejected ones. ] | ] 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Tag with {{tl|rejected}}.''' The concept of trusted users is good idea in general, but there's simply way too many editors around for it to work even remotely smooth. ]] <sup><u>'''] ] |
*'''Tag with {{tl|rejected}}.''' The concept of trusted users is good idea in general, but there's simply way too many editors around for it to work even remotely smooth. ] 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Tag with delete for ever - ''the concept of trusted users is one of the worst ideas''''' -- <small> ]</small> 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Tag with delete for ever - ''the concept of trusted users is one of the worst ideas''''' -- <small> ]</small> 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' with {{tl|rejected|}} so that we can continue to learn from such good faith proposals. ] <small>]</small> 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' with {{tl|rejected|}} so that we can continue to learn from such good faith proposals. ] <small>]</small> 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Comment''' as it's the way this seems to be going, I've preemtively tagged it as rejected, also changed the transclusions of all admins to a link. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | * '''Comment''' as it's the way this seems to be going, I've preemtively tagged it as rejected, also changed the transclusions of all admins to a link. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' with rejected status. Keeping old proposals help enhance new ones. // |
*'''Keep''' with rejected status. Keeping old proposals help enhance new ones. // ] 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Good-faith proposals don't need to be deleted. --] 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Good-faith proposals don't need to be deleted. --] 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' instruction creep. ]] 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' instruction creep. ]] 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep and tag as rejected''' per other proposals. ] 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep and tag as rejected''' per other proposals. ] 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep, tag, blah, blah''' as above. ] 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep, tag, blah, blah''' as above. ] 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Misza13. Trusted according to whom? We all have our own ideas of who's trusted (even if there's some sort of consensus, there will still be some disagreement). This is why I think it will never work. — |
*'''Delete''' per Misza13. Trusted according to whom? We all have our own ideas of who's trusted (even if there's some sort of consensus, there will still be some disagreement). This is why I think it will never work. —] 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' in this case. Troll magnet. --] 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:19, 8 June 2006
Misplaced Pages:Trusted Users
It's gone -- Tawker 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
An unused page whose only purpose is to create a new level of users: "Trusted users". However, as this will only serve to create more bureaucracy and red tape, I am nominating it for deletion. The creator claims it to be for apporving users for automated tools like AWB and VandalProof. He has also stated on the talk page that he doesn't care if it's deleted. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion has been reopened. Prodego 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-06-05)
- Delete per nom. --Coredesat 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and mark as a rejected proposal. We don't delete rejected proposals, do we? --Tango 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep tagged as rejected, per above. Pointless, but we have many pointless failed proposals. Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to mark this as rejected - it has never been rejected since it was never even proposed. If we kept every pseudo-policy page that was inexpertly created in the wikipedia: namespace we'd be up to our ears by now. Delete its shortcuts too. --Hughcharlesparker 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgeMoney 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. QuizQuick 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and mark as rejected. Misplaced Pages policy proposals should generally be kept so that we don't waste times with new proposals that are the same as previously rejected ones. David | Talk 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tag with {{rejected}}. The concept of trusted users is good idea in general, but there's simply way too many editors around for it to work even remotely smooth. Misza13 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tag with delete for ever - the concept of trusted users is one of the worst ideas -- Drini 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with {{rejected}} so that we can continue to learn from such good faith proposals. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as it's the way this seems to be going, I've preemtively tagged it as rejected, also changed the transclusions of all admins to a link. — xaosflux 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with rejected status. Keeping old proposals help enhance new ones. // TheTrueSora 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good-faith proposals don't need to be deleted. --TantalumTelluride 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete instruction creep. Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and tag as rejected per other proposals. RN 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, tag, blah, blah as above. Metamagician3000 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Misza13. Trusted according to whom? We all have our own ideas of who's trusted (even if there's some sort of consensus, there will still be some disagreement). This is why I think it will never work. —nathanrdotcom 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in this case. Troll magnet. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)