|
Someone wrote "(and, as a matter of fact, neither is policy, though we advise the use of common sense)". However, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA are most definitely binding policies, and if you violate them there might be bad consequences. Hence I have remove this text. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR overrides NOR, NPOV, and NPA as well. The latter three defines what an encyclopedia is most of the time. We don't know if they define an encyclopedia all of the time. Note that an essay that covers both other main project namespace categories does exist (though imho it's imperfect) : Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument --Kim Bruning 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt Jimbo or the Wikimedia Board would see if this way. You should never put in original research, you should always write from a neutral point of view, and you should never make personal attacks. I can't see any cases where this would be overridden! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Argumentum ad Jimbonum? IIRC that was a logical fallacy. Note that the board probably has a more open position than you think. Other wikimedia projects definately have different rules, to do with their differences in mission. Wikibooks drops Neutral point of view. Wikinews drops No Original Research. Even on wikipedia, rules like de:Sei grausam seem to carve exceptions out of No Personal Attacks.
- --Kim Bruning 11:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for other Wikimedia projects. I do know that NPOV, NOR and NPA are non-negotiable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suddenly everything is non-negotiable. This is rather tricky then, for how does one explain how wikipedia works, without running into nomic players yelling "non-negotiable" all over the place. Perhaps en.wikipedia is irrevocably lost? --Kim Bruning 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that. I'm just saying that all the above policies are non-negotiable. Those ones are set in stone. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would indeed be one set of parameters for which en.wikipedia would be in big trouble on the long run. Things are changing at a constantly accelerating rate. We cannot afford to be inflexible. :-/ --Kim Bruning 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone makes a personal attack that is endorsed by the Wikimedia board, I will protest and leave Wikipedia. If a partisan view is expounded that the Wikimedia board endorses, I will protest and leave Wikipedia. If anyone introduces original research onto Wikipedia, I will protest and leave Wikipedia. However, as Jimbo Wales himself has stated that they are not negotiable, I don't think I have anything to worry about here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ARGH! What's up with all these "let's make this wikinomic" essays lately. With due respect to Ta Bu Shi Da Yu. Could we please mark this as rejected? --Kim Bruning 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So done. I'd better provie an explanation though. The problem is that I've been slowly writing descriptions of wikipredia best practices or what have you, only to get essay tags slapped on. (Ahuh, everyone is doing this... yeah, right, essay). Well ok, so that was my first experience. Elsewhere, I've also seen ignore all rules marked as an essay, or consensus marked as a guideline (with consensus can change marked as policy, nota bene). Then we have things like speedy deletion being unmarked, but somehow a page describing categories for it (categories for speedy deletion, which is only ever referenced as WP:CSD) being marked as policy. And the list goes on. Some of these have since been fixed, after having explained this situation several times. Maybe I should just write an essay called "Project namespace is a mess" ... I keep having to write this story everywhere, and I'm getting slightly tired of it. --Kim Bruning 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't like essay's either. However, why don't you apply this to all other essays - for instance, WP:ILIKEIT? I've put back the essay tag, as I've been informed by many that essays don't need wide community consensus. Sucks I know, but until this changes, this is a valid essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you mean well, but...
- Well, there's a certain amount of errr ...quality variation... among essays, guidelines, and policies. Some "essays" are superior to some "policy" pages. Not to mention such "essays" like Ignore All Rules that only suddenly got promoted to "policy" by direct intervention of jwales.
- At one point in time it was true that basically you should obey the essays, take note of the guidelines, and just ignore policies.
- Now some people have been catching on, and have been randomly switching the tags around, so I can't really tell you what should really be done. At any rate the tags are so random that I'd prefer to just remove all of them.
- The only thing that could conceivably cause more chaos would perhaps be to declare some random subset of pages in the project namespace more authoritative than some other random subset. Did I mention that the distribution of tags is random and held no relation to reality, the view from my window, or the existence of green cheese on the moon?
- Then again, I guess this essay does have a point, because it demostrates how to make things worse ;-) . ZOMG! Disrupive, and makes a point!. --Kim Bruning<- worries about the long term viability of wikipedia> 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. I created this article in good faith, and not to be disruptive. I don't appreciate you saying that. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was a <this is supposed to be funny> tag :/ --Kim Bruning 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad... I get a little heated sometimes :( - Ta bu shi da yu 12:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad for not sounding funnier! :-P Hey dude, look at the section above this one, do you have a reply for me there? :-) --Kim Bruning 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more useful to say what essays ARE for, and how they help to generate a consensus that eventually feeds into a policy. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means add this to the essay :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... why? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And still noone tells me why it should be merged. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on the talk page of the OTHER article. The discussion link in the tag points to the correct location. --Kim Bruning 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not your bad, the tag was broken. Just fixed it. :-) --Kim Bruning 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Kim :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on? Can someone please notify me where the VP discussion is? I can't find it anywhere! Why wasn't I told? Where is the discussion to userfy this essay on this talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find any mention on VP either. I don't see any problem with this essay being in WP space. — xDanielx T/C 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit turned the text from:
- If someone quotes essays like they are policy, a gentle reminder that the essay is not binding on the community may be necessary or desirable. In doing so, remain polite but note that others have an opposing point of view, and also bear in mind that the point of view you object to may be as valid and clearly thought through as your own. It would be most helpful to state what the opposing points of view are. Here it may be useful to quote an opposing essay or, if you can think of a cogent argument, perhaps write a new essay detailing what this may be.
to
- Consider that "quoting as if it were something" is not a meaningful term. Just because somebody quotes something does not in fact imply anything about the "status" of the quoted page. If you assume it does, chances are good that you're wrong.
In other words: be horrible to the other person, they don't know anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiant! has told me on my talk page that I have not discussed my change. This is wrong, I have noted what I'm changing and why I'm changing it - see above. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about how-to pages? In particular, is Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, which failed a RfQ to promote it to a Guideline, an essy, a Guideline, or something in between? What if someone quotes a how-to as if it were policy? Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
