Wikipedia talk:Enjoy yourself

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This is good

This is good, when can we make it "official"? Karm a fist 07:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this as an official guideline. It doesn't establish any actual new policy, but it is a good point to raise in conversation to keep relations friendly. Deco 08:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was its intent- "policy" is not at all an accurate term to apply to this. It's designed to show people that you should, well, be enjoying yourself! I hope we don't need consensus to make sure that people realize that, but it always helps :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whee! Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this a lot. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it official

Let's take this official!!--Alhutch 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah. It would not only be a very strange thing to make official (I doubt that there would be much support) but it is also extremely hard to enforce without the world turning into a real Big Brother (or is it already?) :) The Neokid talk 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly become a guideline though. The Neokid talk 15:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is great advice, I wouldn't see it as a policy, guideline or essay. It's just great advice. I consider the trend that every project namespace needs some box on top of it to be taken seriously silly. If we must, we can make a box like {{commonsense}} or {{hint}} (or even {{PROTIP}} :P), but I would have to laugh at that. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you're encouraged to edit it. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also

Yes, good article. I have sometimes thought about making this point, and perhaps this is a good article to add it to? I dunno, this is kind of a raw dump, but if anybody wants to edit it or whatever... maybe it should go somewhere else, if anywhere... Herostratus 14:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill

Chill. People are not converted to new philosphies by what they read on Wikipedia. If someone inserts favorable POV material in the George Bush article, very few Democrats are going to read it and go "OMG! I never realized how great he was!" instantly convert to the Republican Part, and vice-versa for Hillary Clinton. So don't worry about it so much.

Of course POV material should and must be rooted out. But its not going to be the end of the world if you take a couple days away from it if you've been locking horns with other editors. You're not going to be woken up by your neighbor shouting across the fence "HARRY! I READ THIS ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA! I'VE BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG! I'M DIVORCING CYNTHIA AND GOING GAY! IT SAID RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE THAT IT'S MUCH BETTER!" or whatever.

Related to this is WP:PANIC. Deco 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Problem

The generic advice section says, "Act like a mature adult. The process (italics) works. You don't have to win..." Every single problem I've ever had editing on WP has come an administor, acting under IAR, to subvert process in a case where our "common senses" disagreed. How can process work, when disdaining process is a part of the culture here? 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as America has legislative, judicial, and administrative processes, so too, Wikipedia has consensus processes (talking), which when they fail, become democracy processes (voting), which when they fail to help in the goal of building the encyclopedia, cecome administrative processes (dictatorship) whereby Jimbo and the board (that is legally responsible for the real world hardware Wikipedia runs on) act unilaterally. That is the process, not just the talking or the voting. WAS 4.250 08:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pragmatic rule application advice

For some reason the rules have gotten tagged counter-intuitively, here's advice on how to follow them:

Policy: Ignore (Example: Categories for deletion)
Guideline: Follow (Example: Consensus)
Essay: Worship (Example: 5 Pillars)
No Tag/Meta: It's the laws of wikiphysics (Examples: WP:NPOV,Don't be a dick )

If something is mentioned in multiple places or under different tags , then apply the strongest advice. (NPOV is mentioned on meta, hence it's a law of wikiphysics, same for DICK)

This page is obviously a law of wikiphysics, so it should remain untagged, or be moved to meta. :-)

Kim Bruning 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]