| Revision as of 21:11, 16 December 2005 editDeathphoenix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,544 editsm →Not a guideline (yet): bypass template redirect← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 16 December 2005 edit undoPeter McConaughey (talk | contribs)689 edits →Not a guideline (yet)Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :I've protected the page to cool-down the dispute. Peter, please listen to some of the other editors's advice, and also try and follow the guideline on your proposed page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | :I've protected the page to cool-down the dispute. Peter, please listen to some of the other editors's advice, and also try and follow the guideline on your proposed page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::] You can take off the protection tag. I won't restore any more reverts. If the Cabal doesn't want to call this a guideline, that is fine with me. I don't see any difference between this and ], but you're the Cabal and what the Cabal says goes. | |||
| ::Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal. --] 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the others. I have no doubt that your proposal is made in good faith, but if you want this to pass without a hitch, you should go through the proper process. As for other guidelines, they were either discussed in other places, or have generally been followed by Wikipedians for a long time. New guidelines should go through the approval process. The very existence of the {{]}} template suggests that this is the proper way to go about getting a guideline approved. --]]]] 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | :I agree with the others. I have no doubt that your proposal is made in good faith, but if you want this to pass without a hitch, you should go through the proper process. As for other guidelines, they were either discussed in other places, or have generally been followed by Wikipedians for a long time. New guidelines should go through the approval process. The very existence of the {{]}} template suggests that this is the proper way to go about getting a guideline approved. --]]]] 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't consider this to be a proposal. It is a guideline that I follow. If the Cabal has a monopoly on what can be called a "guideline," then I will call it something else. The Cabal's official approval process doesn't interest me. --] 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 16 December 2005
um, don't you need a number of collaborating editors before you can call an article an actual Misplaced Pages guideline?--MONGO 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is a guideline for all those who accept its use. Just like every other rule, law and guideline, it gets its power through consent. I consent to this guideline as does any other person who edits it. --Peter McConaughey 19:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Consistency
The guideline template delineates standards that are used by only part of the members of Misplaced Pages. If we want to use a different template to delineate that function, we have to be consistent about it, including use on guidelines that are similar to this one, like the Misplaced Pages:One-revert rule. --Peter McConaughey 20:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a guideline (yet)
There needs to be some sort of concensus that this is a generally accepted guideline before adding the tag onto the page. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines for more info. Carbonite | Talk 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't you put a proposed tag on any of dozens of other guidelines that people created without going through the Cabal's official Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines? What difference is there? The only difference is that the Cabal loses power when people are voluntarily nice to each other. A policy like this one, where people show respect for other editors without being forced goes against your Modus operandi of required top-down power and despotism at Misplaced Pages.
- Carbonite, you have no clothes on. --Peter McConaughey 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- No personal attacks, please. Note that I've also changed the one-revert rule page to a proposed guideline. Carbonite | Talk 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded. Peter, please see Misplaced Pages:How to create policy. If you would like this to be an enforced policy or guideline, this will guide you through the proper steps. Of course, you can always just follow a personal policy as many editors do with the 1 revert rule. --LV 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've protected the page to cool-down the dispute. Peter, please listen to some of the other editors's advice, and also try and follow the guideline on your proposed page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal. --Peter McConaughey 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the others. I have no doubt that your proposal is made in good faith, but if you want this to pass without a hitch, you should go through the proper process. As for other guidelines, they were either discussed in other places, or have generally been followed by Wikipedians for a long time. New guidelines should go through the approval process. The very existence of the {{proposed}} template suggests that this is the proper way to go about getting a guideline approved. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't consider this to be a proposal. It is a guideline that I follow. If the Cabal has a monopoly on what can be called a "guideline," then I will call it something else. The Cabal's official approval process doesn't interest me. --Peter McConaughey 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)