| Revision as of 17:41, 13 September 2006 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits →{{tl|proposed}}: well, no← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:29, 13 September 2006 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits reading materialNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| That was two and a half years ago. The wiki evolves, and we strongly recommend against voting on any proposal these days. ] 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | That was two and a half years ago. The wiki evolves, and we strongly recommend against voting on any proposal these days. ] 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Well, no. The issue is one of educating new users that they should use consensual discussion as a strong preference over voting. The reason why this is important, is that it comes up exceedingly often, and novice editors tend to jump to the wrong conclusion. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. ] 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | *Well, no. The issue is one of educating new users that they should use consensual discussion as a strong preference over voting. The reason why this is important, is that it comes up exceedingly often, and novice editors tend to jump to the wrong conclusion. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. ] 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **It seems you're jumping to some wrong conclusions here. WP:DENY is ''not'' a good example (note how I am addressing the objections on its talk page, and how this cools down the war; voting would only polarize it further, and you'd get discussions on how long the vote would last, what suffrage is, and which % is required to accept, and more bureaucratic overhead). We have hundreds of proposals all over the wiki. I'd recommend you to read through some of the things in ] and ] to see how Misplaced Pages works and does not work with proposals. Some more recommended reading material includes ], ] and ]. ] 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:29, 13 September 2006
Archives Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised. |
|---|
| 1 2 3 |
Richardson
Hey John254 -- thanks for quickly reverting the recent vandalism on the Richardson, Texas page. Much appreciated... --nathanbeach 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Misplaced Pages:Process is Important
You added: However, some editors give a narrow construction to Ignore all rules, and claim that process should be adhered to unless there is a compelling justification for ignoring all rules. It is said that the repeated deletion and undeletion of this essay which began with a speedy deletion demonstrates the need to follow appropriate processes in most cases.
This doesn't make sense to me. Speedy deletion is performed hundreds of times every day. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
{{proposed}}
That was two and a half years ago. The wiki evolves, and we strongly recommend against voting on any proposal these days. >Radiant< 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no. The issue is one of educating new users that they should use consensual discussion as a strong preference over voting. The reason why this is important, is that it comes up exceedingly often, and novice editors tend to jump to the wrong conclusion. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- It seems you're jumping to some wrong conclusions here. WP:DENY is not a good example (note how I am addressing the objections on its talk page, and how this cools down the war; voting would only polarize it further, and you'd get discussions on how long the vote would last, what suffrage is, and which % is required to accept, and more bureaucratic overhead). We have hundreds of proposals all over the wiki. I'd recommend you to read through some of the things in CAT:PRO and CAT:REJ to see how Misplaced Pages works and does not work with proposals. Some more recommended reading material includes WP:3P, WP:POL and Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)