Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause/Archive 4

message: Hell. Note the complete absence of snowballs.
Who said Wikipedia editors had no sense of humour? ;) Raystorm 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it almost seems like the Snowball article can have this tagged onto it:
	This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any research or serious use (unless the research is about Wikipedia itself).
TheListUpdater 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Serious things can be expressed with some funny wit, where's the harm in that? I find the image _very_ funny, is all. That does not detract the serious content of the article. ;) Cheers Raystorm 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Should be replaced with this . --FlareNUKE 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I've wondered about those creepy "faces" for a while, but didn't realize they were intentional to the point of  — sneaky! Feezo (Talk) 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowball Image 

message: There hasn't been any discussion about the tagging of the page for a couple of weeks.  Could we try unprotection?  It's not that I want the content changed particularly, I am just opposed to unecessary protection in principle and the big protected tag is ugly.  Eluchil404 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we unprotect the page? 

message: Ladies and gentlemen, take a step back, and look around you. Do you notice the (somewhat amused) audience? You're edit warring over a tag for goodness sake. Now this page basically just restates common wikipedia practice, and common sense. So in that sense it has consensus. Some people don't like using this concept. That's fine too. You can use it or not as you see fit. No one is forcing you. I would have just said "ok, no tag, you both lose", but I know the community better. So I've put a custom tag on top, because some people think tags are pretty. So now there's a pretty tag neither side wants. Happy? :-P
Can we end this now please? Thanks. --Kim Bruning 13:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not thrilled about the patronizing lecture but the custom tag is actually excellent :) Haukur 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry for [[WP:LAME|wikipedias lamest edit wars]]? 

message: Not another attempt to start a tag edit war please? Of course it's the wrong tag :-P . Have a nice day. --Kim Bruning 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Version 

message: 
Adding this as a talk page comment, since Steel359 is expressing page ownership. This tag simply calls people's attention to review the page, if you don't want this page reviewed... then you don't understand how Wikipedia works. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Barberio 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ZOMG, ownership of talk page too! -- Ned Scott 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I'd prefer to just let this conflict die; he does have a point. —Random832(tc) 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm removing it again. WP:POINT, this template was made by Barberio less than a day ago.. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have problems with the template, I suggest you take it to the deletion process. Otherwise, can you please not make accusations that suspend good faith. Again, I do not see the problem of asking for this essay to be reviewed by the community. --Barberio 12:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: *Essay is considered negative by some because CAT:E contains quite a number of arbitrary or subjective rants. SNOW is not an essay because it's not somebody's opinion, but a description of what happens on Wikipedia; in other words it fits neither the "common" definition of essay, nor the Wikipedian one. Hope that helps! >Radiant< 12:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a description of commonplace activity, but it reads like the worst of POV rants! tone down the language and be more serious about the policy when you're writing and people might leave this article alone. BTW, this isn't policy, you should state that at the beginning of the article. Otherwise it might be confused as such. Ahudson 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've had several cycles of that discussion already, thanks. --Kim Bruning 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be a description of something that happens, but it also carries the value judgement that it ought to continue happening. That is the part that is an opinion. --Random832(tc) 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the page could be edited to a more descriptive tone.  I think the best language would be a sort of, "this is what some Wikipedians do, here are examples," construction, kind of like what's in the... tag-that-is-not-a-tag that's on it now. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1

message: *The point is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In particular, that means we don't have to debate everything to death, especially not multiple times. For instance, we make speedy deletion criteria not because we're t3h 3vil deletionists, but because some issues have already been debated to death (and ditto, speedy keep criteria, etc). Wikipedia would bog down entirely into repetitive discussion if we didn't short-circuit it at times. In the early days of Wikipedia, every block was discussed; nowadays, breach of 3RR is a block, no need to discuss that (yes, yes, there are always extreme circumstances). This, in essence, is the point of the highly succesful WP:PROD - if there is not a single objection to a deletion, there really is no need to debate anything (whom would you debate it with, anyway?).
*The original purposes of SNOW were twofold: first, on deletion review, some people would argue "yes, this article deserves to be deleted, but it was deleted out of process, so we must put it back into process, debate for a few days, and delete it". The circularity of that, frankly, is pointless. Second, on requests for adminship, novice nominees sometimes get swamped under semi-nasty opposes; it may be prudent to close down the nomination to prevent further nastiness. I'm sure there are some other purposes; but the point is that if your only argument is that process wasn't followed, you don't have an argument. (of course, if your argument is that process wasn't followed and a valid source wasn't mentioned before, you do have a point).
*Now, telling people to shut up now because they are wrong, is not a very nice thing to do and generally doesn't work. Closing down discussion on any discussion board (e.g. WP:AN) has been proven to aggravate the situation rather than calm it down. The important distinction is that closing down an active discussion under WP:SNOW is not a good idea; its intent is to close down a newly beginning discussion of something that has already been discussed. For instance, if an AFD was closed as keep yesterday, and someone nominates it again, that's a SNOW. We know the outcome, we had one yesterday, stop wasting our time, have a nice day.
*So yes, controversial discussions are a no-go, or rather, a no-snow. Of course you cannot please everyone and nothing really is unanimous on a wiki this size, so you may have to tell off one or two people who disagree with the snow, especially if they don't really make an argument. But it is important to realize that wikipedia is not in a hurry so leaving an existing discussion open for two or three more days is not going to hurt anyone, even if you Know that You Are Right.
*Wow, a lengthy rant. Hope that helped :) and enjoy the weather our there. >Radiant< 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiant's explanation

message: I have yet to see a WP page that couldn't be compromised if everyone involved truly wants to find a solution, instead of keeping the  argument going for the sake of making a point.  I think Jeff is correct when he says that there is no reason to invoke this clause if other provisions will do, just as there is no reason for a governor to pardon a person who is about to be found innocent. There may be some rare cases where we find our provisions not up to the situation, and then a clause such as this is the only rational way. 
:In such a case, the person invoking it takes the responsibility of being able to defend it if challenged. And such a challenge if sustained should have serious consequences, involving a least a loss of confidence if shown to be wrong.  No one should have the power of making single-handed arbitrary actions without review. If even one of the Foundation Board should start doing so, the others would remove him.
:The real problem is discriminating good faith challenges from others, because to the eccentric loner may honestly think that his view, though rejected as absurd by everyone else, is absolutely correct. There are honest zealots, and even honest bigots.  But there are also those acting absurdly because of a deliberate design to harm the project, as by repeatedly deleting the main page.  The person who files at DRV because of the rejection of an article reading "I am notable because I am the sexiest guy in my school," the person posting an article that the earth is a triangle because of a hallucination that he is divinely inspired, and the naive schoolboy writing an article about his favorite teacher, are not to be handled the same way. (And in all of these cases we do have appropriate rules, and do not need the clause.)DGG 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: possible modification

message: The exact wording is:
If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. 
If I read correctly, it is equivalent to: 
If an issue has a reasonable chance of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
If the clause's aim is to discourage excessive process to decide for things whose outcomes are almost certain, shouldn't it read:
If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
Is it just me, or is there an error in the initial clause?--Kylohk 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the exact line of the clause