User talk:JzG/Wikipedia:Wonks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Changes

I objected to, and removed the following:

  • Labeling a specific user, should only be done by the user (they can add it if they wish) [1]
  • Complaints about a "charmed circle" should be discussed with alleged members of said circle, alluded to vaguely here. Of course, course, when combined with the prior point, this is a way of saying the specific person is in that "charmed circle". [2]
  • People are free to disagree with WP:OFFICE, but nobody should suggest it's being used on a casual basis. Nobody is going to use it, solely because "The subject's lawyer is on the phone?". [3]

--Rob 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice BUT

Disclaimer, I'm a self identifed process wonk. But I think I have major sympathy for policy wonkism. Process MUST support policy, it is not a be all/end all by itself or it is flawed. More importantly, BOTH process and policy must support WHY we are here, to write an encyclopedia. I think an essay about this topic would be useful and helpful to many readers so I'm glad it got started. My problem with this essay is the ending. I was nodding my head in agreement till the last couple sentences. Those seem to suggest this isn't at all a serious essay. It should be. Sorry if the joke is on me here but it seemed like that ending was purely humorous. It's not about whether people agree with you. You need to be able to see that others might be right and you might be wrong. Finding the right balance between policy, process, and content is crucial to moving forward on why we are here. Like I said maybe the joke is on me, but I'd rather see this essay be serious. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See that Edit button?... ;-) Honestly, I would have no problem with that. The terms "process wonk" and "policy wonk" need to be explained (for values of need which may include not actually needing but being worth the small effort involved anyway), precisely how it is done is a matter of some indifference to me. Although I will of course probably instantly revert any edits. Just zis Guy you know? 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I prefer to seek consensus first when I can... ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a spin, see what you think. Because I think in reality, all silliness aside, process and policy exist to serve the main goal here, product. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And this helps how? Looks to me like a load of hot air that should be in userspace. Most users don't give a f*ck about nonsense like this, honestly. --kingboyk 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wonk

What is a wonk?? HighInBC 17:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userspace

This is userspace material. (Like many of your essays, entertaining though they are, JzG.) It is written in the style of thinking out loud, offers no advice to Wikipedians (the purpose of WP: space) and apart from anything else will piss people off. If it belong on enwiki at all, it's beneath your userpage. Probably, it belong on Meta, however. I've moved it to userspace pending that transwiki. -Splash - tk 12:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)