Geogre

Revision as of 11:59, 18 October 2006

Revision as of 15:03, 18 October 2006

Line 302:

*It's not as contradictory as it appears, because the moment a thing is announced, it's ossified, even in description. Therefore, the target has to be flat as a board, linguistically. I'm afraid that "not vote" is about 20 storeys high. "Discuss" is simple enough, and the pleasant and warm feelings all have about that nice word will allow them to rush forward to its defense and support, but the "not vote"...that's where it gets hard. Another factor is that there are a load of people (some of whom pushed me in front of the crowd recently) who are worried, very worried, about people quoting essays as if they were guidelines, guidelines as if they were policies, and policies as if they were for suckers and the other guy. Whether they're justified in thinking this way or not (and I don't think so, because the people who abuse this way are bluffing and can be slapped down if necessary), they do think that way, and so the voltage on the third rail increases. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

**I believe the people you mention are more than balanced out by those who thinks essays are just some random guy's opinion, guidelines have enough exceptions that whatever they happen to be thinking of now is precisely such an exception, and the only policy worth thinking about is IAR. Some of that is hyperbole, but many users, especially novices, will happily ignore anything and everything that is not marked as consensual. To educate those people, it would be prudent to accurately mark which pages are and are not consensual. There are some misconceptions in Wikipedia culture, and while clearing those up is always a good idea, it is not useful to not address a ''particular'' problem because of a ''global'' misconception; any objection that applies equally to every issue is usually irrelevant to discussion of any singular issue. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*Aha, but that's the question, isn't it? Is this merely the global misunderstanding that applies to all issues, or is there a specific misunderstanding that should be addressed? I think it's the latter. It's true that there are people who will do/say virtually anything, but the profile of the people who have been acting like bulls or bullies is fairly specific and has made the rest quite nervous. The only reason I accepted the job of Stuntman for the Opposition recently is that I believe enough that this is a specific phenomenon that can and must be dispelled as to have risked wearing a target for a while. The best way, I think, is being explicit. (I wonder if one could unilaterally delete IAR in the spirit of IAR? The fact that those who don't believe in the misuse of it won't do it, while the people who misquote and misuse it would, if it pained them, is the heart of my involvement in the recent unpleasantness.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)