Wikipedia talk:Follow all rules

message: Perhaps one of those This is a joke templates would be best for this hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better if humor pages are a little more subtle, and only give it away at the end.  (eg. the last link on the page is irony, hopefully clearing it up...)  --Interiot 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joke templates

message: The commentary that originally went with this, in my sandbox, which I removed from the page as being too much my own point of view and also, not funny:
:Some people will take this as a dig on people who oppose "ignore all rules". It's not. It is a criticism of the philosophy that opposes the existence of IAR; as the message states, a "modest proposal", a bit of irony to make a point. It is my opinion that most of the opposition to IAR comes not from the guideline itself, but either from misunderstanding of it or reaction to others' mistaken citation of it. IAR must exist, because policy cannot provide for everything, every crazy corner case or unforeseen situation, and because the more of them policy covers, the less reasonable it is to expect everyone to keep all of it in mind at all times. 
:Policy and process occasionally lead us to blindingly stupid results. Should it be changed in these cases? Well, yes. But should we have to wait for it to be officially changed before we correct something that is wrong? Absolutely not. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, forget the rules. We made the rules, ourselves; they weren't handed down on stone tablets. We made them assuming they would help lead us to the desired outcome, not because it is fun to make rules or because rules should exist for their own sake. 
:We should never accept the outcome of a process unthinkingly assuming that it must be right, or state that we would like to change an outcome but our hands are tied because of the process. (In the same vein, we shouldn't throw it out unthinkingly; process doesn't exist independently of the people who make it happen.) We have process because we're too big for everyone to get together and argue every little decision individually when the vast majority of them are not at all contentious. Process exists as an aid to making decisions, not as an end in itself.
Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that a dig on such people is direly needed, and likewise those citing IAR with no coherent argument (never mind consensus) as to why it's to the benefit of WP (and what's worse, such interpretation isn't logically incorrect, just drastically unwise) I don't see that this works as such.  Rather, as Kat says, it's a dig at opposition to IAR -- and thus, Evil and Wrong, since IAR as currently constituted is pretty boneheaded, and far more trouble than it might ever be worth (as a written pseudo-rule, as opposed to as an occasional action)).  But to be fair, it's a heckuva lot funnier than WP:ROUGE, if that doesn't sound too much like faint praise.  However, since (ironically enough) WP:IAR has been handed down on stone tablets, it's probably futile to argue the toss.  Alai 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original commentary

message: I think this humorous essay's tone and language is seem to be inflamatory for people, especially newcomers. I know humorous content is funny, but this is not seem to be funny. --TL22 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language? 

message: 55378008a (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't smuggle the milko 

message: How do i get out 209.171.85.237 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  My bg has me under hypnosis