A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset

A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Process question about how this site works.

I have read the guidelines and the trust-level page and I still have a question about the mechanism rather than the rule. Specifically, I would like to understand the reasoning behind it, because I suspect the reasoning is better than the rule sounds.

Not a complaint. If the answer is "because of a failure mode you have not seen yet", I would like to hear about the failure mode.

Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.

The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.

That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.

Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.

A modest claim, modestly supported.

The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.

Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.

Building on post #50 rather than restating it.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

Post #65 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

Say what would make the page wrong. A page whose failure conditions are stated is much easier to review honestly.

I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.