User:TheDoctor10/Lightbulb

Let's lighten up a bit, with a joke

Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: At least 115 – they are split as follows:

1 to hold the lightbulb.
2 to pull him off the lightbulb until consensus is reached.
1 to propose what to replace the lightbulb with.
13 to give opinions as to the proposal.
2 to butt in and tell the 13 that they’re stepping out of line.
3 to go through the debate adding links to mailing list rulings regarding the changing of lightbulbs.
4 to go through the debate removing links as it’s not allowed to edit other people’s comments.
1 to blank the debate.
1 to revert the blanking.
2 to propose the blocking of the blanker.
7 to enter into a debate regarding the question of blocking the blanker.
1 developer to talk about the technical difficulties of changing the lightbulb.
2 to resign from Wikipedia because their comments have been ignored.
3 to consistently add pornography to the debate page.
4 newbies to mistakenly add their opinions in the wrong place.
8 registered users to bite the newbies.
1 to remove the old lightbulb.
3 to painstakingly replace the old lightbulb.
2 to close the debate.
1 to inform everyone of the rules against closing debates without consensus.
2 to begin a drive to get consensus to close the original debate.
13 to give opinions as to the proposal.
2 to butt in and tell the 13 that they’re stepping out of line.
3 to go through the debate adding links to mailing list rulings regarding the changing of lightbulbs.
4 to go through the debate removing links as it’s not allowed to edit other people’s comments.
1 to blank the debate.
1 to revert the blanking.
2 to propose the blocking of the blanker.
7 to enter into a debate regarding the question of blocking the blanker.
1 developer to talk about the technical difficulties of changing the lightbulb.
2 to resign from Wikipedia because their comments have been ignored.
3 to consistently add pornography to the debate page.
4 newbies to mistakenly add their opinions in the wrong place.
8 registered users to bite the newbies.

And the punchline is… the lightbulb doesn’t end up getting changed! This is all nearly true.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, because it's true. :-) Deco 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

115 people maybe, but I count myself at least four times in there. Can we multitask? --Golbez 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

at least 116! That lightbulb's a stub until it's been turned on - someone needs to mark it as such. Probably needs to be categorised as well... Grutness...wha? 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose creating Wikipedia:Lightbulbs for Changing (WP:LfC) to vote on which bulbs should be changed, and what should replace them. *Dan T.* 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've outlined a process for adding a nomination to LfC:

Turn the light bulb off. Make sure it's off for at least 5 hours before completing the next step.
Stumble around until you locate an alternate light source such as a flashlight or whale blubber lamp. Use it to shine light onto the light bulb.
Read the serial number. Post it to your talk page, the talk page of the last 3 people who changed the light bulb, and update the proposed date for next change on LfC.
Edit {{LfCRecentEntries}} and locate the template for the most recent month. Edit this template and use the {{LfCNominate1}}, {{LfCNominate2}}, and {{LfCNominate3}} templates in the main page, subpage, and summary page. For each one, supply the serial number, a description of why you think the light should be changed, and your top three candidates for the type of light bulb to replace it with. Add the entry to your watchlist and add links to it from the LfC section of your talk page and user page.
The entry will stay on LfC for 23 days. Each user will vote "Change", "Keep", "No Vote", or "I Have Seen the Light", including an explanation of at least 2 paragraphs. Each user is also required to comment on all votes by all other users.
At the end of the nomination period, the closing admin must close the discussion using {{LfCChange}}, {{LfCKeep}}, or {{LfCIHaveSeenTheLight}}. There is one version of this template for the log, the subpage, and the main LfC template. They also have the discretion to replace the vote page with a picture of Bozo the Clown (and not any other clown - any other clown will result in instant and permanent banning).
Next the admin elevates the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for Lightbulb Changes, where they request a bureaucrat request a developer to change or not change the lightbulb. If there is any dissent, the light bulb is sent back to LfC for a new vote. Jimbo has the authority to override any and all light changes.
Once the light bulb has been changed, the original nominator must within 5 days turn the light on, or it will be reverted to the previous lightbulb. They may also choose a "lightbulb elect" to turn on lightbulb nominations for them. Lightbulb elects must have at least 50,000 edits and a history of never breaking light bulbs. Any lightbulb elect found to have violated these terms is blocked indefinitely.
After the new lightbulb is turned on, its serial number must be recorded at the user's talk page, they must add themselves to the list of users who changed that light bulb with a timestamp, and the corresponding entry in the lightbulb reference table should be filled in. If there is no room in the lightbulb reference table, it must be archived and a new table created.

You get the idea. Deco 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You should post this in the proposals section so it'll get the right attention. If it takes so long to change lightbulbs here, we should get a working policy as soon as possible. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many, as long as you have consensus!
I don't know, but if you don't put it in Bugzilla for the devs to see it'll never get changed.
After a 5-day discussion period, 75% of those who comment or so, unless someone has really good reasons not to—unless Jimbo decides he wants to go turn on the light.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggestion of a "whale blubber lamp." Whale oil is an animal product from an endangered species. We clearly must spend an additional 137 posts arguing what would be better to put in place of the "whale blubber lamp." Don't forget to include a sprinkling of ad homs about tree-huggers vs. planet destroyers. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot one to start a poll to "gauge consensus", three to vote in support of changing the lightbulb, five to oppose, six to abstain, three to make nonsense votes such as "this poll is nonsense on stilts" or "I still haven't stopped beating my wife yet", and five to vote for "polls are evil". Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)