You said: IAR makes it clear that the rules do not need to be followed, and changes to policy are unlikely to change common practice, policy is supposed to reflect practice not dictate it.
\o/
Thank goodness. I've been talking with so many people lately who simply refuse to believe that, that I was starting to think that maybe I was going crazy. I could sure use some help around here. :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Bolding, italicizing, and\or piping one word isn't "bold." It doesn't even change the meaning of the text. It was simply intended to emphasize the value of the individual editor. And even if it was bold, no particular policy requires that users discuss their edits, since, according to a rough consensus I've come across, WP:BRD is just an essay. If you'd like to make it a policy, a behavior guideline, or how-to page, you could attempt to seek consensus to do that. Even assuming your claims do reflect consensus (which is a claim that has at least some merit), per WP:IAR: No. In any case, you are free to revert my minor edits and I am not likely to contest it, because of the threat of what could be called "digital violence." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Until(1 == 2), I'm actually already following your advice. There have only been a few of reverts (note: I made several edits and there were several reverts, but each edit and revert was regarding a unique change). I'm currently worried that if I put my edits in more than once on WP:IAR, that somebody enforcing the 3RR policy will block me. It happened before on Austrian economics, when I only made like 4 or 5 reverts over random users that refused to discuss their changes, per WP:BRD. One of the admins even suggested on the talkpage that he didn't need to follow WP:BRD.
Hence, I'm not touching it. I don't want to get blocked. I concede the fact that, despite the lack of a rational argument to support the current version, you have overwhelmed me by sheer force of numbers and the intellectual hegemony of anti-intellectual inclusionism among administrators. I can do little in the face of your superior strength, while I am simultaneously disturbed by an inferior quality of yours which shall remain nameless, in accordance with WP:CIVILITY.
I can, however, attempt to engage you in the matter and unless you also believe that WP:BRD is "just an essay," I respectfully request that you discuss your views.
Lastly, something I forgot to mention: Policy pages don't necessarily reflect "wide consensus," because consensus can always change. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 06:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am using Firefox in Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon. To me my signature appears to have the until just above and in the near center of (1 == 2). For me they do not overlap, or increase the vertical size of the line. I am wonder what other people see, is it aligned, does it overlap with itself or any surrounding text, does it change the vertical size of the line? Any info would be appreciated, it looks good to me but if it does not work on other browsers I will likely change it. (1 == 2)Until 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks folks. I guess what I have learned is that while legible, it does not look as intended on all browsers. I will think about altering it in some way. (1 == 2)Until 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for talking on irc.
I mostly listened to your views, and I didn't get to present mine. When wiki-editing is applied normally, you can often get quite decent results. Editing that started at WP:SR finally ended up resulting in WP:5P in ~ 1 month (and mostly that long because we all took it easy). Check the early editing history, as well as the talk page.
now WP:IAR has been somewhat stuck for a while now, which I think has to do with Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus, to some extent.
As other methods have not worked, I'm trying some other way to get the page open for editing again. Several of the approaches you suggest do avoid direct conflict, but also avoid addressing the issues with WP:IAR.
That being said, your suggestion to instead do this kind of thing on essay pages is somewhat interesting. I'm going to think about that. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This was a previous discussion on the actual issue I'm worried about. Note the editing pattern/style of several of the participants since after that discussion started.
Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I now have found some reliable sources and ways to cite them. If you could re-add that page I can put on sources and help repair it. If you have any suggestions please feel free to tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdxstunts1 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
my email is HDXstunts1@yahoo.com thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdxstunts1 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Regarding this : Did you read the user's page? The guy is clearly intending the user name to be the juvenile and phallic " Big Johnson" and not any other meaning. Now, he may indeed be well endowed... :-) but it seems to me that it is a clear violation of the user name rules. Cheers, — Noah 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for checking it out again. Much obliged, — Noah 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
After hearing of his explanation regarding his user name here, and checking to see if there are any stations with the name "KVLT," plus checking to see if "kvlt" and "cult" are legit synonyms, I have decided that he is indeed telling the truth and I have unblocked him. I am letting you know. Mike H. Fierce! 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
May I suggest nonbreaking spaces in the subscript portion of your sig? I just noticed a post of yours where the '1' was dangling on a separate line from the rest of your sig. Maralia ( talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I have done so, and tested it a bit and it does improve rendering. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
My principal concern about IAR is that it presently gives no explanation about what it is supposed to mean; the natural conclusion editors will take is that WIARM is actually the explanation. I would rather have a consensus explanation in IAR than what you describe as a non-consensus explanation in WIARM that will be taken as "the truth" by users learning policy for the first time. What are your thoughts there? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Do feel free to mercilessly edit my text. I was not trying for BRD there; I do think that what I added has general agreement on the talk page. I am hoping to work out a compromise wording, not impose my own interpretation on everyone else.
My concern here is for new users who are at the point where they wish to learn about our documented practices. The purported goal of our policies is to explain practice, and all the current polices but IAR attempt to do so. It seems to me that the problem with WIARM being an essay is that it isn't - as things are currently set up, it is the definitive explanation of IAR for new users reading the policy. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed. But since there is no explanation about IAR on the IAR page, but a link to that page explaining what IAR means, we can only expect that someone readinging IAR will use WIARM to get an idea what it means, particularly, if IAR is cryptically short. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
It seems like a cop-out to move the explanation of the policy to an essay only so that we don't have to agree on it; the point of doing so seems to be so that one can say "but that's only an essay" and thus avoid any responsibility ofr its contents.
In practice, I find that many people are very confused about IAR (for example, they speak of "invoking" it as if it is a rule itself). The single sentence you quoted doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining what IAR means in practice; that explanation is what the policy page is meant to provide. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If we haven't agreed enough on what IAR means in practice, then we haven't agreed on enough to write a policy about it. I can't agree that IAR itself is a rule. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The IAR page is marked as a policy, I think we can agree on that. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Your comment "Indeed, IP userpages are not associated with a person like user userpages are. Tomorrow it could be someone elses IP, it would be like letting a guest move all the furniture in a hotel room." Until(1 == 2) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC) seems a bit odd. You don't move all the furniture if you want to? It's your room for the night. Use it any way you wish. Notices left on IP pages are very transient. They may or may not ever be seen by the person who triggered them. A check of page history is a trivial way to find out about previous warnings. The same rule applies - removing a warning implies that the user has seen it - or in the case of IP users that it doesn't apply to them. By the way, please reply here. Messages left on IP user talk pages are a nuisance. 199.125.109.49 ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Which the departing guest would never know. The management does not however post a notice in each room of each time that a chair or table was moved, or even how many times the room has totally been destroyed. So the best thing is to leave the room the way you found it - empty of any notices. 199.125.109.49 ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Please join the discussion here. WilliamKF ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
When you type in nbn group in google you get plenty of hits... the reasoning used to remove other users (inc, com... etc) should be applied to all users and not just some. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Queerbubbles (
talk) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
especially since now they're usepage is one giant advertisement.
Queerbubbles (
talk)
been taken care of.
Queerbubbles (
talk)
15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
You said: IAR makes it clear that the rules do not need to be followed, and changes to policy are unlikely to change common practice, policy is supposed to reflect practice not dictate it.
\o/
Thank goodness. I've been talking with so many people lately who simply refuse to believe that, that I was starting to think that maybe I was going crazy. I could sure use some help around here. :-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Bolding, italicizing, and\or piping one word isn't "bold." It doesn't even change the meaning of the text. It was simply intended to emphasize the value of the individual editor. And even if it was bold, no particular policy requires that users discuss their edits, since, according to a rough consensus I've come across, WP:BRD is just an essay. If you'd like to make it a policy, a behavior guideline, or how-to page, you could attempt to seek consensus to do that. Even assuming your claims do reflect consensus (which is a claim that has at least some merit), per WP:IAR: No. In any case, you are free to revert my minor edits and I am not likely to contest it, because of the threat of what could be called "digital violence." ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Until(1 == 2), I'm actually already following your advice. There have only been a few of reverts (note: I made several edits and there were several reverts, but each edit and revert was regarding a unique change). I'm currently worried that if I put my edits in more than once on WP:IAR, that somebody enforcing the 3RR policy will block me. It happened before on Austrian economics, when I only made like 4 or 5 reverts over random users that refused to discuss their changes, per WP:BRD. One of the admins even suggested on the talkpage that he didn't need to follow WP:BRD.
Hence, I'm not touching it. I don't want to get blocked. I concede the fact that, despite the lack of a rational argument to support the current version, you have overwhelmed me by sheer force of numbers and the intellectual hegemony of anti-intellectual inclusionism among administrators. I can do little in the face of your superior strength, while I am simultaneously disturbed by an inferior quality of yours which shall remain nameless, in accordance with WP:CIVILITY.
I can, however, attempt to engage you in the matter and unless you also believe that WP:BRD is "just an essay," I respectfully request that you discuss your views.
Lastly, something I forgot to mention: Policy pages don't necessarily reflect "wide consensus," because consensus can always change. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 06:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am using Firefox in Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon. To me my signature appears to have the until just above and in the near center of (1 == 2). For me they do not overlap, or increase the vertical size of the line. I am wonder what other people see, is it aligned, does it overlap with itself or any surrounding text, does it change the vertical size of the line? Any info would be appreciated, it looks good to me but if it does not work on other browsers I will likely change it. (1 == 2)Until 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks folks. I guess what I have learned is that while legible, it does not look as intended on all browsers. I will think about altering it in some way. (1 == 2)Until 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for talking on irc.
I mostly listened to your views, and I didn't get to present mine. When wiki-editing is applied normally, you can often get quite decent results. Editing that started at WP:SR finally ended up resulting in WP:5P in ~ 1 month (and mostly that long because we all took it easy). Check the early editing history, as well as the talk page.
now WP:IAR has been somewhat stuck for a while now, which I think has to do with Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus, to some extent.
As other methods have not worked, I'm trying some other way to get the page open for editing again. Several of the approaches you suggest do avoid direct conflict, but also avoid addressing the issues with WP:IAR.
That being said, your suggestion to instead do this kind of thing on essay pages is somewhat interesting. I'm going to think about that. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This was a previous discussion on the actual issue I'm worried about. Note the editing pattern/style of several of the participants since after that discussion started.
Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I now have found some reliable sources and ways to cite them. If you could re-add that page I can put on sources and help repair it. If you have any suggestions please feel free to tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdxstunts1 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
my email is HDXstunts1@yahoo.com thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdxstunts1 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Regarding this : Did you read the user's page? The guy is clearly intending the user name to be the juvenile and phallic " Big Johnson" and not any other meaning. Now, he may indeed be well endowed... :-) but it seems to me that it is a clear violation of the user name rules. Cheers, — Noah 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for checking it out again. Much obliged, — Noah 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
After hearing of his explanation regarding his user name here, and checking to see if there are any stations with the name "KVLT," plus checking to see if "kvlt" and "cult" are legit synonyms, I have decided that he is indeed telling the truth and I have unblocked him. I am letting you know. Mike H. Fierce! 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
May I suggest nonbreaking spaces in the subscript portion of your sig? I just noticed a post of yours where the '1' was dangling on a separate line from the rest of your sig. Maralia ( talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I have done so, and tested it a bit and it does improve rendering. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
My principal concern about IAR is that it presently gives no explanation about what it is supposed to mean; the natural conclusion editors will take is that WIARM is actually the explanation. I would rather have a consensus explanation in IAR than what you describe as a non-consensus explanation in WIARM that will be taken as "the truth" by users learning policy for the first time. What are your thoughts there? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Do feel free to mercilessly edit my text. I was not trying for BRD there; I do think that what I added has general agreement on the talk page. I am hoping to work out a compromise wording, not impose my own interpretation on everyone else.
My concern here is for new users who are at the point where they wish to learn about our documented practices. The purported goal of our policies is to explain practice, and all the current polices but IAR attempt to do so. It seems to me that the problem with WIARM being an essay is that it isn't - as things are currently set up, it is the definitive explanation of IAR for new users reading the policy. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed. But since there is no explanation about IAR on the IAR page, but a link to that page explaining what IAR means, we can only expect that someone readinging IAR will use WIARM to get an idea what it means, particularly, if IAR is cryptically short. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
It seems like a cop-out to move the explanation of the policy to an essay only so that we don't have to agree on it; the point of doing so seems to be so that one can say "but that's only an essay" and thus avoid any responsibility ofr its contents.
In practice, I find that many people are very confused about IAR (for example, they speak of "invoking" it as if it is a rule itself). The single sentence you quoted doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining what IAR means in practice; that explanation is what the policy page is meant to provide. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If we haven't agreed enough on what IAR means in practice, then we haven't agreed on enough to write a policy about it. I can't agree that IAR itself is a rule. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The IAR page is marked as a policy, I think we can agree on that. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Your comment "Indeed, IP userpages are not associated with a person like user userpages are. Tomorrow it could be someone elses IP, it would be like letting a guest move all the furniture in a hotel room." Until(1 == 2) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC) seems a bit odd. You don't move all the furniture if you want to? It's your room for the night. Use it any way you wish. Notices left on IP pages are very transient. They may or may not ever be seen by the person who triggered them. A check of page history is a trivial way to find out about previous warnings. The same rule applies - removing a warning implies that the user has seen it - or in the case of IP users that it doesn't apply to them. By the way, please reply here. Messages left on IP user talk pages are a nuisance. 199.125.109.49 ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Which the departing guest would never know. The management does not however post a notice in each room of each time that a chair or table was moved, or even how many times the room has totally been destroyed. So the best thing is to leave the room the way you found it - empty of any notices. 199.125.109.49 ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Please join the discussion here. WilliamKF ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
When you type in nbn group in google you get plenty of hits... the reasoning used to remove other users (inc, com... etc) should be applied to all users and not just some. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Queerbubbles (
talk) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
especially since now they're usepage is one giant advertisement.
Queerbubbles (
talk)
been taken care of.
Queerbubbles (
talk)
15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply