Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.sinclair > #179 > unrolled thread

Re: CSSCGC 2011

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.sinclair

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: CSSCGC 2011 digitalprawn@googlemail.com (Digital Prawn) - 2011-04-22 16:31 -0500
    Re: CSSCGC 2011 "Chris Young" <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> - 2011-04-22 23:33 +0100
      Re: CSSCGC 2011 digitalprawn@googlemail.com (Digital Prawn) - 2011-04-23 17:20 -0500
        Re: CSSCGC 2011 ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2011-04-24 00:30 +0100
          Re: CSSCGC 2011 digitalprawn@googlemail.com (Digital Prawn) - 2011-04-24 08:18 -0500
            Re: CSSCGC 2011 ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2011-04-24 18:19 +0100
              Re: CSSCGC 2011 digitalprawn@googlemail.com (Digital Prawn) - 2011-05-04 13:39 -0500

#179 — Re: CSSCGC 2011

Digital Prawn <digitalprawn@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> I promise! Hopefully I'll get around to putting a crap game together
> after I've finished my current projects. Might be a while though.
> 
Well, at least I did do the above, eventually!

Anyway, the reason for this post:- some (presumably sensible) person has
nominated the CSSCGC Wikipedia article for deletion today.

Since I started that article over two years ago, I've learnt a lot more
about Wikipedia and given the quality of the article, I can't honestly
defend it. Besides, I don't really have the time or inclincation to do
so at the moment. Although fortuitously, rejection from Wikipedia is
probably the re-inforecement of crapness of the compo that it vitally
needs, a sort of renewed validation of crapness, if you will.

Having said that, I have backed up the article for posterity and if it
does get deleted (I guess we'll know in a week) I may well transplant it
to my rarely updated, rarely visited website - just for the sake of it!

Regards, DP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:31:11 -0500 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
to MC Digital Prawn:

> Although fortuitously, rejection from Wikipedia is
> probably the re-inforecement of crapness of the compo that it vitally
> needs, a sort of renewed validation of crapness, if you will.

The competition so crap that even Wikipedia couldn't be bothered with
it.

> Having said that, I have backed up the article for posterity and if it
> does get deleted (I guess we'll know in a week) I may well transplant it
> to my rarely updated, rarely visited website - just for the sake of it!

Yes, definitely.  At least keep hold of it to send to Matt when he
sorts out csscgc.org.

Chris


-- 
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
|  http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk  |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration              |
+- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+

DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181

Chris Young <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, definitely.  At least keep hold of it to send to Matt when he
> sorts out csscgc.org.
> 
> Chris
> 
Aye, will do!

To my surprise, it looks like some "crap game crusader" has actually
attempted a defence of the CGC article.

Well, to them I say, I don't know who you are or even if you read the
newsgroup, but thanks for your efforts!

Funny thing is I even found a book on "Google Books" a few weeks back
which mentioned the compo, perhaps it might've been helpful. For some
reason I just can't find it anymore.

In any case, I will check what the outcome is in a week's time or so.

DP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182

On 23/04/11 23:20, Digital Prawn wrote:
> To my surprise, it looks like some "crap game crusader" has actually
> attempted a defence of the CGC article.
>
> Well, to them I say, I don't know who you are or even if you read the
> newsgroup, but thanks for your efforts!
>
> DP
Indeed I do read the newsgroup.
(Yes, 'tis I, the crusader for all that is crap beyond commodity)
-E
-- 
'sane', adj.: see 'unimaginative'
   on the web - http://jttlov.no-ip.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183

ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Indeed I do read the newsgroup.
> (Yes, 'tis I, the crusader for all that is crap beyond commodity)
> -E
>

Ah, yes I do know you now, I'd previously read some of your posts over
on the WoS foums. Well, thanks to your involvement, despite my initial
reservations, I felt somehow obliged to chip in to the Wikipedia
discussion. I was initially reluctant to get involved in a potentially
week-long debate over the article which would no doubt distract me from
the things I'm really supposed to be doing.

However, I've now given my honest assesment of it. It looks like it'll
probably get deleted anyway. Crucially, and rather unsurprisingly, those
reliable secondary sources are proving rather hard to come by! 

I will do some further ferreting around for anything potentially
relevant, but I'm not really expecting to find anything at this point. 

DP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#184

On 24/04/11 14:18, Digital Prawn wrote:
> However, I've now given my honest assesment of it. It looks like it'll
> probably get deleted anyway. Crucially, and rather unsurprisingly, those
> reliable secondary sources are proving rather hard to come by!
You're right; under policy as currently implemented, it's probably going 
to get deleted.  The fact that policy is dick and doesn't match with its 
intentions is apparently not relevant enough to be discussed.
Damned WikiLawyers :(
-E
-- 
'sane', adj.: see 'unimaginative'
   on the web - http://jttlov.no-ip.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#200

ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> You're right; under policy as currently implemented, it's probably going 
> to get deleted.  The fact that policy is dick and doesn't match with its 
> intentions is apparently not relevant enough to be discussed.
> Damned WikiLawyers :(
> -E

Well, thanks to all who defended the article, it survived the extended
deletion debate on a whisker!

In the context of Wikipedia, whilst I beleive the article is a
borderline case (and completely understand the deletion nomination), I
do believe the spirit of the law rather then the letter of the law was
followed in this instance.

The closing admin did leave the door open for a possible merger/redirect
though, which is fair enough.

So if the article somehow survives that fate then I may even attempt a
tidy up/improvement of it at some point. Also, we still have the option
of copying it to the Sinclair FAQ wiki at
http://www.zxshed.co.uk/sinclairfaq , where it would remain publicly
editable.  There are pros and cons to this. Pro: The article is not
subject to Wikipedia's policies. Con: It would perhaps not be found by
as many people (outside the Sinclair community at least). Although as I
previously mentioned elsewhere, we probably don't want two copies of
this thing out there.  We'll see how it goes.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.sinclair

csiph-web