User talk:129.67.162.133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wonderful. Can an admin clear me of the above, please? --129.67.162.133 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that just the timing between the two seemed a little bit suspicious, and one can't be too careful. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Oxide radio

Please clean up the references to this article. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

You'd have to give me an example of what you had in mind more specifically. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of that article appears to violate WP:NOR anyways, so there are larger issues than just those lists. But yes, I agree with you that those lists should be removed. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C68-FM-SV/Workshop

  • Even after looking through B's evidence, I can't support this remedy. Maybe it's because I share FM's pro science stance, but I think he made mostly acceptable decisions where he couldn't have gone by the book because life in the trenches differs from many high hopes. I'd even roundly reject this remedy, if FeloniusMonk could bring himself to re-examining the evidence and maybe do as Cla68 did here. dorftrottel (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, so are you saying that people should ignore WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ENC when they feel like they're not getting their own way? "In the trenches" seems like a strange metaphor, since WP should not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND; if you have to go against policy in order to fulfil your objectives, you need to seriously stop and think about what you're doing. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes people should do the exact opposite. But ok, I'll look through the presented evidence once more for instances where IAR was not a good option and where, like you allege has happened, FeloniusMonk went both against consensus and against the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. dorftrottel (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I thought it was you who alleged that these policies had been breached, since you linked them as high hopes where he shouldn't have gone by the book. I haven't had enough free time to completely examine all the evidence against FM yet, so I wouldn't know whether the evidence does specifically support violations of those policies. I do disagree with over-liberal use of WP:IAR, however, which is what I was hoping to communicate. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You did. With the 'high hopes' policy links, I just tried to illustrate my own (and many other users') experience that working in mainspace (='the trenches', which come to think of it is indeed a questionable metaphor) is often less than ideal, because of the human nature. dorftrottel (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain (I hadn't actually understood that you were asking me that question): What I tried to express in my initial posting was that during every article work, situations may occur that cannot possibly be handled by the book (i.e. they depart from our noble ideals (=high hopes) of how the project should normally work. I firmly believe that policy, and especially the concept of consensus, should be followed wherever possible, as far as possible. But I'm ready to cut users involved e.g. in contentious areas some slack with possibly suboptimal decisions. Get to think of it, I do not entirely agree with your statement if you have to go against policy in order to fulfil your objectives, you need to seriously stop and think about what you're doing. Policy cannot (in fact, shouldn't) be prepared for every nutjob's quirks. Even I (and I'm not a big content contributor at all) have had multiple situations where I was left with two options: Aggressively pursuing a matter (i.e. possibly violating policy, e.g. though 3RR), or just leaving that article alone (i.e. leaving it to people whose judgement and/or motivations I do not trust). I do however agree that a pattern of regular, easily avoidable policy violations is bad in any case. I hope this helps clear things up. dorftrottel (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

it's really up to interpretation of the evidence - Exactly my opinion. If only more people could be as open minded about this simple but crucial fact, we might have to deal with a lot less useless polarisation of debates. Wrt IP: Like most users, I started out as an IP editor myself and know the feeling of not being part of the club. But I was under the assumption that you are an experienced editor understandably opting not to reveal his account for fear of retribution (your input is welcome either way, and don't let anyone bullshit you over this). dorftrottel (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
:) Agreed, let's enjoy it as best possible, but let's also not forget that it's just a ride. dorftrottel (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPA tag

Good call imho. dorftrottel (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)