User talk:Rockstar915

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1
2
3


Contents

[edit] Template:Supplement

Thanks for catching the image size! :) Rockstar (T/C) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem!  :) —David Levy 06:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

There is a discussion on the talk page, please contribute to it. Also there never was consensus to make it more than an essay so please revert yourself until such a consensus forms. 1 != 2 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about this: until consensus is formed on the talk page to either describe the page as an essay or supplement, we leave the page without template. Rockstar (T/C) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it without templates is a reasonable compromise for now. Though unless a consensus forms for it to be more than an essay in a reasonable amount of time it should go back as an essay. The reason for this is that an essay does not need consensus to be an essay as they are an exposition of opinion and it is made clear it is advisory not binding. 1 != 2 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, the whole {{supplement}} discussion is a strange thing. I would be fine to delete the template if we weren't so quick to give every single page a tag. Would it kill us for a non-mainspace page not to have a template? There are certain pages which have advice or behavioral guidelines that we must follow (unless we desire to be blocked or desysopped), but aren't necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the policy page (IAR/WIARM is a perfect example of the policy/supplement relationship being formed).
See, tagging a page like WIARM with {{essay}} gives the wrong impression to new users who are confused about exactly what "Ignore All Rules" means. We've had many instances of someone coming along the IAR talk page (and other users' talk pages) asking "What exactly does this policy mean?" and we've pointed them to WIARM. They read the page and understood the policy better. If we were to tag the page with the essay template, the new user would read the template and be confused -- why are editors pointing them to a page that says that they're not obliged to follow it? I think excessive {{essay}} tagging to otherwise very useful pages is unhelpful to new and otherwise inexperienced users. Rockstar (T/C) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a rather strange dispute, I can imagine an outsider not understanding what it is all about. A user being sent to WP:WIARM is well advised that the information is an essay and not mandatory. To tell them otherwise would be misinforming them. If the community wanted that pages content to be policy they could do so, but they have not.

That being said, I think our fundamental disagreement may be one of semantics. Your comments have led me to believe that you feel the wording of WP:IAR, without further qualifications, will lead users into performing actions that will lead to them being blocked. I disagree, as WP:IAR nowhere says that others need to accept you actions or that you will be immune to the results.

If one reads the policies as a whole it is clear that certain actions such as disruption will lead to certain actions such as blocked. While WP:IAR invites you to violate those rules for the benefit of Wikipedia, it does not state any immunity to the consequences of your actions.

Our disagreement about how the policy should be aside, I would like to talk about how policy is decided upon.

My primary concern is that policy should not be written by well meaning people who are sure they are correct. Using the "supplement" to replace an essay tag does two major things: 1) It removes the statement that the page is advice and is not mandatory, 2) it labels it as a supplement to policy which gives the impression that it is policy.

This is all well and good if there has been a consensus to do so, but that is not how it is being used at all.

All told, I am not opposed to changing most policy. I think that if there is to be an explanation of WP:IAR that it should be on a different page. I think that if that explanation has consensus to be policy it should be. But I do not think there has ever been consensus for that explanation of IAR to be policy.

While I did agree to the addition of the supplement tag, I will point out that at the time it was worded as such: "This essay supplements Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. 1 != 2 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, and for what it's worth, I liked the old wording on the supplement tag, too. And don't get me wrong: I'm not wedded to {{supplement}}. I guess my big problem is that tagging a page with {tl|essay}} is that a) on occasion, it does give out advice that is absolutely necessary and useful to new users, and that tag gives the wrong impression, and b) it puts a page such as WIARM on the same level as WP:Five pillars of evil. That is unacceptable.
We really do need some kind of consensus about what to do with the pages that are in between an essay and a policy/guideline. Maybe that tag is {{supplement}}; maybe it's not. Maybe the answer is to not have tags on articles like WIARM. I don't know. What I do know is that tagging a page that dispenses very useful advice and then states that no one needs to adhere to it is disruptive. Rockstar (T/C) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In respond to point a), If the community felt the advice was necessary it can make it policy if it so chooses to, if they do not choose to do this than its necessity is an opinion not a fact. In response to point b) Just because some essays are not good advice, does not mean that anything tagged an essay is diminished, nor does it mean that a good essay is suddenly more than an essay.

You seem to be under the opinion that "essay" is a diminutive term, it is not. It means an exposition of opinion, and however good the advice may be it is still opinion until consensus decides to call it more. Wishful thinking or really thinking it should be so is not a basis for making an essay policy. Make your argument and reach a consensus, if you fail to reach that consensus then that must be accepted. The creation of this vague quasi policy state called "supplement" seems to create the illusion an essay is more than it really is, and I dare say there was some intent behind that.

This whole matter has been confused by the fact that while consensus was reached for the supplement tag to be used, that tag at the time labeled the page as an essay and has since changed to give the impression that it is part of polict. There was never a consensus for it not to be an essay. If you think users disregarding the essay may have a bad result, then state that in the essay. But it must be clear that the page is opinion based advice until there is consensus for it to be more. 1 != 2 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Feh. We'll be twirling around in circles for days if we continue here. The thing is, on Wikipedia, "essay" is a diminutive term. In their current form, essays mean nothing. Opinions? No necessity to adhere to the text? We might as well add "Sure, you can write an essay on Wikipedia if you want to feel better about yourself, but it won't do any good or improve the project" to {{essay}}. Would that get the point across?
That's the great thing about the supplement tag. It allows for certain pages to exist that help to explain a part of a policy that wouldn't otherwise fit into the policy page. Wikipedia is expanding, and with it, so are the policy pages. It's just as simple as that. And I think that one major problem we're dealing with here is the fact that it's nearly impossible to enact a new policy or guidelne. It would be all great and good to spout out the cookie cutter response ("Don't use {{supplement}}, use {{proposed}}), if the process actually worked, but as Kim has noted on many occasions, it doesn't. As it stands right now, we have a process that needs to be fixed. {{supplement}} helps fix that problem. Rockstar (T/C) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Those black and blinking versions of the projectpage back in 2007 looked awful, tho I can't recall which particular diff was most outrageous. However, I do have some saner diffs showing the oldest, and older versions of the page, looking pretty much like the current revision. Cheers! Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought the black version was rather eye-catching. Good compilation, though! Although now that I refresh the page it looks as though you deleted them... to bad, I had some additions to some saner (and, for a while at least, consensus supported) versions. Rockstar (T/C) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Those diffs are still at the link above. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you want to make a list of revisions that are sane, you can do it in your userspace, that would be cool, I think. I wasn't involved in that episode, which anyway is well in the past now. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is well in the past. That said, a chronicle of change is always a useful resource. Rockstar (T/C) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

I was wondering if you ever did a checkuser on this guy. I was going to put one in for one of the puppets (which is how I found your page) and thought I ought to check with you first. I notice you haven't edited in almost a month so I don't even know if you'll be reading this. You can reply here, I'll watch this page. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll just go ahead and put it in. Thanks —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)