Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 178:
:::::I just feel like it goes against the NPOV policy, even though it isn't an article. If a person has an opinion and supports it with valid and good argument, should that opinion be on the project page in bold fonts? If I had used this as an argument in support of this policy, those who argued against it would have said that such an argument is invalid, the fact that Jimbo supports something or not doesn't make it right or wrong. I don't have anything against Jimbo, I just don't like to think of him as something more (or less) than an equal even though he might be thought of as a first among equals. --[[User:Fbd|Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð]] 17:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo expressed his support only ''after'' the close of the straw poll and the {policy} tag was added only ''after'' Jimbo had expressed his support. It was not used for recruitment purposes, and is there merely as a justification for the {policy} status of the page. And anyway, if Jimbo says we do something, we do it. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
:I wasn't accusing you (or anyone) of rigging the votes, but using this as a justification is silly. The votes justify the policy (and are sufficient), Jimbos comments are completely irrelevant as a justification in this example. If Angela had noted somewhere she didn't like the policy, should that be in bold fonts on the policy page? --[[User:Fbd|Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð]] 18:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
== Voting is evil ==
| |||