I am glad we have some common ground, lets work from there. I think that there needs to be a general agreement that something is widely accepted for it to become policy, and there needs to be common agreement(perhaps after the fact) if one is to use IAR and not get into trouble. The rules are not set in stone, and they are meant to describe not prescribe. However, neither of these facts diminishes the importance of consensus, both existing and new, which is how we determine if something is describing accepted practice, or if a ignoring of the rules was justified. (1 == 2)Until 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Per your comment about John Q. Stinkbomb is the President Elect of Canada - hoaxes are part of speedy deletion under G3, so you didn't really IAR ;) the_undertowtalk 03:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But if the person who wrote it was misinformed and really believed it, then it would not be vandalism but a good faith edit. (1 == 2)Until 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha. Okay so in the case of John Q. Stinkbomb you really assumed good faith. the_undertowtalk 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case I think vandalism was a reasonable explanation, however I think my point about IAR having valid uses remain. hehe. (1 == 2)Until 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Zen, it doesn't matter how minor your edit is, if it keeps getting reverted you should stop doing it. The policy that describes this is WP:EW. I have no desire to make BRD a policy, the existing policies that forbid contentious editing do just fine. If you don't choose to follow my advice then at least my post will serve to show that you were advised. (1 == 2)Until 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So how do you achieve a negotiated consensus, if one of the parties refuses to negotiate? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I often cannot tell how the things you say are related the conversation at hand. I suggest WP:DR if someone refused to negotiate with you and you wish to proceed further, perhaps step 6. (1 == 2)Until 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it happened, but things got shuffled. The question above was to Zenwhat. He states: "no particular policy requires that users discuss their edits,". My question in return then: "So how do you achieve a negotiated consensus, if one of the parties refuses to negotiate? :-)". Zenwhat, would you like to answer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. (1 == 2)Until 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I certainly do think BRD is an essay, but not just an essay, also good advice for someone who wants to try one way of editing that has a history of being effective. One of many good ways to edit. It is widely accepted policy that policy is to be widely accepted, if you disagree try proposing a change at WT:POLICY where it currently states just that. I am glad you are following my advice, I should have realized you said that in the first place. I don't think any hegemony of admins has done anything to you. I also don't think it is nice to call people anti-intellectual, I have not seen any such thing in these disagreements.
If you think you are being bullied in any way I suggest you get the attention of other admins at WP:AN, so many watch that page that it is unlikely those viewing it would be limited to a particular "hegemony". (1 == 2)Until 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Message to those watching my talk page, want advice on sig.
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)
It overlaps a little bit and is somewhat difficult to read in Firefox 220.127.116.11 on WinXP SP2. Doesn't seem to change the size of the lines, though. —Krellis (Talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the SIG above, in IE6, the small red bit does overlap perhaps 40% with the datestamp, which does make it a bit easy to miss. It might be better to redesign it a little, but it is up to you. (I just saw this question here, first time I have visited this page.)Newbyguesses - Talk 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. FF18.104.22.168, text size normal: Until starts just slightly to the left of (1 == 2). How it is now: (1 == 2)Until. How it is when I see it centered over the ==: (1 == 2)Until. It does, however, change position if you view it with a different text size. WODUP 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Actually, using IE6, the sig still overlaps slightly with the timestamp on posts such as your latest at talk:Iar. However, we do know it's you. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
I think the idea is not without merit, and would make a fine essay. I really like the idea of a rotating allegory about IAR on an essay page, and there may even be consensus to link to it from IAR. I just think it is not a good idea for policy because a) it changes and thus the text will not have wide acceptance as policy needs to, and b) Policy is supposed to be clear declarations, not vague ponderings. What is great in one venue is not appropriate in another. If this gets going, I personally have a few ideas for IAR parables.
Sometimes one on one communication is not the best way for people to know each others ideas, and perhaps your essay will help me figure out what your mindset is all about. (1 == 2)Until 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
/me butts in: it sounds like what you're looking for are kōans (in the teaching-story sense). Jouster (whisper) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
We have a very strict policy in regards to negative information about living people. It must be referenced to a reliable source. I hesitate to restore the page history. Since sourcing is very important, and the deleted article lacks any sources at all I think it would be better to start from scratch. Please limit the article you create to information that has already been published by a reliable source, and cite such sources. (1 == 2)Until 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I can e-mail you the deleted contents of the previous article to you if you set an e-mail in your preferences. Your e-mail address is not revealed to me unless you reply to the e-mail I send. (1 == 2)Until 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to e-mail you through the Wikipedia interface, so if you click "my preferences" at the top right of the page, and enter that address in to the field labeled "E-mail (optional)*" I will send it. (1 == 2)Until 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: 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)
Hehe, no I did not read his userpage, but having done so now I am left with no doubt as to the inappropriateness of his name. I have given a username block and blanked his userpage. Thanks for pointing that out. (1 == 2)Until 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out again. Much obliged, —Noah 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Well, the domain in the username does point to a page with ads, which is the main reason I blocked. Perhaps just a coincidence. Regardless, I will respect your judgment in this area. (1 == 2)Until 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Good idea, I will look into that. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done so, and tested it a bit and it does improve rendering. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay for easily solved problems, eh? :) Maralia (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
My thoughts are that attempts to explain IAR beyond its current form are simply interpretations of the existing rule. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, then ignore it. I have not seen any text that describes it better than that. WIARM is one way of interpreting it, there are others. But to attempt put an interpretation in the policy itself to me seems faulty as the rule has no "official" interpretation, and I think one would limit its intended scope. (1 == 2)Until 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I disagree with your addition, though I do think it would server better on the essay page. I made a stylistic modification. (1 == 2)Until 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
But it is an essay. It is not the definitive explanation of IAR, I don't think so at all. It is one of many possible explanations of IAR. It was created as an essay, and has never had a consensus to be anything more. (1 == 2)Until 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
And that is a fine purpose for an essay to hold. Frankly I never understood how "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." can be described as cryptic. It is in plain English and tells you exactly what it is all about. These "explanations" are more an exploration into the ramifications of IAR than an explanation of IAR, which is really self explanitory. (1 == 2)Until 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I disagree. It can be invoked as a justification for actions, it is a rule which can be followed or ignored. Where are these people confused about IAR? I never see them. I don't think something being an essay diminishes the value of its advice. I also don't think making something policy increases the value of its advice. The distinction between an essay and a policy is not the value of the advice, but the level of consensus and community desire for it to be enforced as a rule. IAR has such a consensus, the text of WIARM does not. Someone can interpret IAR differently than WIARM and if that improves the encyclopedia in doing so they have used IAR correctly despite not following WIARM. What IAR means in practice is not something we currently have agreement on, nor do I think that is needed. (1 == 2)Until 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
It is core policy, how can it not be a rule? You do realize that because of IAR being a rule is nothing special, more of a designation of acceptance than a law. (1 == 2)Until 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The IAR page is marked as a policy, I think we can agree on that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the one rule that keeps the other rules from preventing us from reaching our goal. (1 == 2)Until 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One might move the furniture in the hotel room, but it would be moved back by the management. (1 == 2)Until 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.