Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 3, May 06, 06

message: :Disagree that redrafting and rehaggling is wise. Time to let this die a natural death. Rejected. John Reid 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, per John Reid and the results of the Approval Poll . Please see comments below. Netscott 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This seems to be his personal project. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can I ask what made you think so? Resid Gulerdem 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Noosphere's 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please look at the note at the top of the page. More polls do not help. This polling session should end to be able to do something constructive. Resid Gulerdem 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with John Reid, Netscott, Noosphere, and Dalbury. This policy is toyed as a pet project. Rgulerdem should nurse it on his own sandpit and mould it in his own playtime where he is free to use his own pencil case exclusively. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Fresh Start 

message: If Resid Gulerdem intends to continue to work on this proposal then my recommendation would be that what is here be moved to User:Rgulerdem's user space. Netscott 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This seems to be his personal project. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can I ask what made you think so? Resid Gulerdem 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Noosphere's 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please look at the note at the top of the page. More polls do not help. This polling session should end to be able to do something constructive. Resid Gulerdem 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with John Reid, Netscott, Noosphere, and Dalbury. This policy is toyed as a pet project. Rgulerdem should nurse it on his own sandpit and mould it in his own playtime where he is free to use his own pencil case exclusively. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "No Fresh Start" Comments

message: I think we are talking about completing the proposal at this point. Approval poll is not valid due to the votes on the second poll. Talking about it open and public will improve it faster. The more contributions, the better results... Resid Gulerdem 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completion of the proposal 

message: I believe there needs to be a permanent record at the top of this page regarding the outcome of the archived polls, so that anyone coming to this page for the first time does not have to dig through the archives to find out what the outcome was. -- noosphere 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems logical and in accordance with WikiPedia Policies noosphere. Netscott 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am adding a poll summary to the archive as it is done in the other articles. Resid Gulerdem 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One should not need to look in archives to find out the results of previous polls.  -- noosphere 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at JP-MC case, for example, you can see how the polls are treated. Resid Gulerdem 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, Resid's statement above is a bit of a half truth. In fact after JP-MC's polls were completed they were prominently displayed on the main talk page. Only later were they archived. Netscott 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you meen. They were here for weeks... The polls here have been active even more than JPMC polls. Resid Gulerdem 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't help but notice Resid Gulerdem's curious interpretations of the previous poll results. Netscott 00:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very model of NPOV.  -- noosphere 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "do we need a poll" poll clearly does not invalidate the "approval" poll.  If 38 people voted against approval in the "approval" poll, and that total is more than the total number of votes in the "do we need a poll" poll...how can you claim that one supercedes the other?  By voting in an approval poll, these people are making their point known that they think there should be a poll.  Therefore, the results of the "approval" poll, in fact, invalidate those of the "do we need a poll" poll.--Metros232 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  To be perfectly honest with you Resid Gulerdem, I have the distinct impression that you are not familiar with what constitues WikiPedia Vandalism. Because this may be the case I'm going to remain calm and assume good faith that my impression is correct. I strongly suggest that you read WikiPedia's page on vandalism and adjust your comments accordingly. Thanks! Netscott 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we should both look at it. Resid Gulerdem 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Very interesting that he claims the approval poll to be invalid because of its unilateral start by a single editor (unilateral by a single editor...is that a redundant phrase?).  I'm looking back in the archives, I don't see the concensus of the community to start a "Do we need a poll" poll.  It appears this poll is also now officially invalid because it was started by a single editor without concensus.--Metros232 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, 'Do we need a poll' poll as its name implies, asking the opinion of the community and looking of a consensus. The approval poll is trying to kill the process by putting a draft to a vote without a consensus. Resid Gulerdem 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which you could have accomplished by voting as an opposed vote in the approval poll and leaving a comment as to such.  What effect does an approval poll have if everyone opposes it?  It just retains the page as it is.  It just means that the proposal needs to be changed before it can become a policy.--Metros232 02:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what I am trying to do here. I am trying to change it according to the opinions of the community. Some people is trying to kill this process. Resid Gulerdem 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  No, your statement is self contradicting: If editors can start a poll at any time, I can start a poll to ask opinions of the community about an earlier poll. There is nothing wrong with that. I am looking for community consensus. I am not sure why you cannot see that some people are trying to kill this process and do not like to give it a chance? Resid Gulerdem 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can start a poll at any time.  However, just because you're allowed to start polls doesn't mean that you can use them to violate policy or for disruption.  -- noosphere 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll summary needed 

message: Taking a closer look at the Archived Polls, I see that there are two polls archived: the "Approval Poll" and the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll.
As can be seen by this diff, the "Approval Poll" was started at 2006-03-17 00:22:33.  The archive reflects this start time accurately.
Now, this diff shows that the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll was started at on 2006-03-17 at 05:32:34.  However, in the archive the poll is described as starting at "00:00, 17 March 2006".  This is clearly misleading.
:: 'Do we need' is started right after the 'approval poll' and the date is put approximately. The date is posted at an early stage of the poll and has not been change since then. It does not change anything. Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll was started after the "Approval Poll" then the archive should reflect that accurately, not "approximately" (especially when "approximately" makes it appear that the "Approval Poll" was started after the "Do we need a poll at this stage poll" when it was the other way around).  And what it changes is people's perception regarding the history of debate surrounding this article.  -- noosphere 01:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will change it to a later time if you think is important. Thanks for pointing it out. Resid Gulerdem 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe, the Truth can always wait... riiight. Netscott 01:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what the truth is: you vandalized the poll for the days and changed its place as you wish from top to below. The date is posted approximately and it hasen't been changed since then. Where were you before? In all my statements I said that the poll is started right after the 'approval poll'.  Resid Gulerdem 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, we shouldn't be changing anything in the archives.  They're supposed to be an accurate historical record, not a page to be edited (even to correct mistakes).  -- noosphere 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK if you want to change it, change it as you like or to whatever you think is appropriate. Resid Gulerdem 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived poll start time inaccurate 

message: I aded remaining sections of the editorial guidelines to the Sections page for a discussion. I am assuming that the sections previously posted get approval as there were no objections against them. Please list your objections about these sections newly added to Sections subpage, if any. I hope you do not forget to propose your version if you think a change is necessary. Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Since the unfortunate placement (discussed above) of a later poll before an earlier poll in the poll archive, I suggest splitting the polls in to two archives, one for each poll.  That way neither poll will be blocking the view of the other poll.  The summary at the top of this page could provide links to the archives of each poll.  -- noosphere 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a summary is not a way to go at the first place. Resid Gulerdem 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name a Wikipedia policy that forbids it.  I notice you have your own summary sitting at the top of this page.  I don't see you objecting to that.  -- noosphere 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a summary, it is a guideline for efficiency of the discussion. There is no POV or bias in it. What you are trying to do is putting your POV at the top so that it effets the decision of all editors especially newcomers. That is not acceptible. You can start checking WP:POV, WP:NOT for example. Remeber that there is a common sense too and not all rules can be writtren. If you want to misuse something you can definitely find a way to do it. Resid Gulerdem 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no POV in my proposed summary of the polls either.  If you think otherwise please tell me exactly what this POV is and where in the summary it is.  As I see it the summary is perfectly fair.  It asserts nothing but what the numeric results of the polls were, and what the polls themselves said they were about.  How is a quote of the polls and their numerical results POV?  Surely you must be joking.  -- noosphere 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I am not joking. Numbers do not lie but people do lie using and playing with them. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the poll archives 

message: Noosphere, please go ahead and put the poll summaries at the top of this page. Here is the perfect example to counter User:Rgulerdem's very false  contention that such things aren't done. Netscott 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.  And thanks for finding that, Netscott.  There's nothing new under the sun, is there?  :)  -- noosphere 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When it comes to WikiPedia, it's a bit difficult to encounter something truly "new". :-) Netscott 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a pity! As you are always doing, you are cheating the community again here. First you posted a a summary and then you are giving it as an example here. Is that fair? Resid Gulerdem 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but your previous post appears to be logically challenged. Did you happen to notice the very prominent date of Revision as of 01:04, 20 February 2006 for your diff example? Netscott 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether Netscott's example is valid is really a moot point.  We're not violating any Wikipedia policies by summarizing the polls.  There are no opinions, just quotes from the poll authors themselves and hard numbers of the vote totals that anyone can easily verify by counting how many votes there were for each side (not counting stricken votes and votes that came after the respective deadlines).  This is as NPOV as it gets.  No precedent for doing this is necessary.  We're being bold.  -- noosphere 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although it would take a slight bit of time, I'm sure I'd have no problems coming up wiith additional examples of Poll Results being posted at the top of their article's respective talk pages.... besides doing such a thing is just common sense. Netscott 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need more examples.  It's done, and it violates no policy.  -- noosphere 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll summaries at the Top 

message: I propose we have two options based on the recent poll results and many discussions asking for this page to be rested.
:# Stamp the policy page  based on the outcome of the polls.
:# Wipe the policy completely clean and start writing from scratch, based on consensus discussion on this talk page.
Let us know your preference. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This calls for a poll!  ;)  -- noosphere 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: More seriously, I'd prefer the first option.  Resid Gulerdem could work on this policy on his own user page in peace, and propose a new policy when he's good and ready. -- noosphere 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected And Wiped Clear 

message: This discussion was moved here from the Administrators' noticeboard as it did not require admin intervention. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect, I have made edits to the proposal to attempt to make it into something that has a chance of passing but was reverted by Resid every single time in my attemps in his quest to violate WP:OWN which can be seen quite clearly by the fact that any edit he disagrees with in "his" policy he reverts so no real work gets done except his work and those of the people who he agrees with.  His second poll is also a violation of WP:POINT and of other policies as it is solely designed to undermine my existing poll and therefore is a blatant policy violation in itself. I urge admins to watch the page and block him if he decides to vandalize the page in violation of consensus once the poll is closed and consensus can be determined. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The history of the page shows clearly that Pegasus1138' only contribution to the proposal is vandalism. He deleted 2/3 of the page without discussion when he first come to the discussion. The points he raised in the discussion page are all answered but he did not respond the answers. He chosen to vandalize the page instead. Please not that I am the one announced the proposal in Village pump and many other places for community contribution. A person as he portrayed would not inform the community about it. Since he unilaterally started a poll without even mentioning in the discussion page, it was natural to ask the community if a poll is needad and it is done so. From the result it is clear that community do not approve that an approval poll is needed on a half-written draft. I would like to ask admins take some time to review the history of the talk page Wikipedia:Wikiethics to get familiarity with the issue and be aware of Pegasus1138's possible unjustified unilateral actions. Resid Gulerdem 02:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that on the 31st my poll will close which will show that there is a huge consensus that this policy is not only flawed in it's current incarnation (which is what Resid is disputing) but flawed in it's esential idea which is something that no number of revisions can fix and he is trying to hold back the floodgates on the fact that he started a crap policy that goes against Wikipedia and everything it stands for and thus has popular support against it.  When the poll is closed it will be marked as a failed proposal, he will of course revert and a revert war will ensue until an admin puts a stop to it hopefully blocking him for trolling and anyone else who may be in volation of 3RR (something that can hopefully be avoided).  I have been striving to work with Resid (as can be seen on his talk page history and on the wikiethics talk page history to resolve this peacefully but he has met all these attempts with the attitude of how dare I mess with "his" proposal and because I don't agree with him I am committing vandalism and in such he has even started an illegitimate poll to undermine a legitimate poll to gauge consensus.  He also has a long history of being blocked for this kind of behavior as can be seen by his block log. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When an admin has a chance to look at our talk pages, and history of the page in question will see what is what I believe. So there is no reason to repeat the same incorrect statements as repeating them does not make them correct. I told Pegasus1138 many times that I am ready to restart again to complete writing the proposal and improving it with him. I did not get a positive answer at all. I also proved my intentions by announcing the proposal in Village pump and many other places. I am sure admins will not definitely let Pegasus1138 take any further unilateral actions to kill the process. Pegasus1138 cannot and should not claim that the policy is rejected, as the approval poll indicates that the draft is not ready for the vote and other poll shows that there is even no need for an approval poll at all. Resid Gulerdem 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The oppose votes include quite a few admins. In any case this isn't an admin issue. RFC is that way.Geni 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have confidence in what will happen will happen so I'm just going to stop dealing with the proposal and I'll drop it off my watchlist.  Let me know on my talk page when it's done Resid, I definitely want to see what you work up in the end. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The resounding theme is that the whole thing should be put to bed. I believe  acts on consensus and always has. I have been an active contributor on the Wikethics article since the beginning and I am now willing to part with it. It is polluted. I have created a page explaining the issues regarding . Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear MB, if I had time I could list refactored It doesn't make sense and useless at this point. Your list regarding my logs are organized and refactored You will probably remember that I invited you to contribute to the policy. You then refactored Thanks for your contributions... Resid Gulerdem 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pegasus1138|Pegasus1138]]'s unilateral actions 

message: User:Rgulerdem has recently been blocked not only for 3RR violation, but warning messages he put on my page saying my edits were vandalism. This policy, if it comes into being, will be the result of community process. WP:OWN should be remembered by the authors of this page. Lets build an ethics policy we can all agree on. -Mask  01:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleting four section is significant in this proposal which is defined to be blanking. See WP:VANDAL - blanking. The sections are open to the discussion on the Sections subpage. I would be glad if the proposal get community approval of course. The best way to get to that point is discussion. I posted announcement on the VIlklage pump couple of times and invited many for their contribution. It itself proves that I am not acting like WP:OWN. Resid Gulerdem 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the unilateral notices at the top of this talk page. Discussion is taking place in the two sections above and current consensus is that the notices don't belong. Unfortunately User:Rgulerdem disagrees with this. Yet, I hold hope this isn't going to be yet another edit war over WP:OWN. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made necessary modifications on the note. Let me know what you think is not acceptable further. Resid Gulerdem 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not keep placing your notice at the top of this page until consensus on what such a notice should say has been reached.  -- noosphere 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]] and this page 

message: The name is foolish - ethics are not "edited by anyone", so they are not "wiki", even if we apply them on Wikipedia; the content is yet another tiresome attempt at legislating some random content policy.  The proposers of this are acting badly, breaking the very community customs and standards they are puporting to be writing about.  This is a terrible and pointless idea.  Have a nice day. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposers are only trying to keep the policy alive up untill completing it and asking for community approval. It is open for discussion not destruction as any other articles or proposals. People who have concerns about it can discuss before delete some sections. 'Edit after discssing' standard is not invented in this proposal. Resid Gulerdem 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only one I see trying to keep this alive. It seems clear to me that the community does not want this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resid is taking the most active role, but he certainly is not alone in working towards such a policy.  I can't support the policy in its current form, but I do want to see it improved and will contribute more to it when I have more time.  Johntex\talk 03:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see how much significant change this policy undergoes in a week, and what percentage of those changes come from Resid Gulerdem himself.  That'll be a good indicator of whether this is his personal pet project or not.  -- noosphere 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear noosphere, I am continuously trying to improve the proposal and looking for community input. I cannot complete the proposal without your input as I canot see what part you think is inappropriate. I cannot see why people do not list their concerns about it but rather talk abstract like 'it is no good'. If you have concerns please go the the sections subpage and list your conserns so that they can be fixed. Propose your version. If we cannot agree we can seek for community approval by some straw poll for even each section. Isn't it more constructive? How should I improve it to a level you might like without knowing your concerns? By the way there is no need for looking a significant change in a week, it may take months depending on the input from community... Resid Gulerdem 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 33 editors did voice their concerns (and more specifically than just saying 'it is not good') in the Approval Poll, and I've listed a few of those for you (at your request) at the end of the No ideas but intention to damage section of our discussion above.  If you are really interested in the other editors' concerns you could take a closer look at Approval Poll and edit the proposed policy accordingly.  -- noosphere 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if you don't understand why parts of your proposed policy violate and duplicate existing Wikipedia policies (beyond what the editors who voted in the Approval Poll stated) you may want to study the Wikipedia policies more carefully, spend more time as a regular editor of Wikipedia before proposing policy, or ask specific questions at the Wikipedia Help Desk. Good luck. -- noosphere 18:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a terrible and pointless idea 

message: Please note, User:Rgulerdem has made multiple advertisements for this discussion on some talk pages.  This may result in attracting specific editors, not nesicarily representative of a consensus of users. — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. I announced the page couple of times on the Village Pump too. Resid Gulerdem 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, having an open announcement is always good (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Wikipedia:Wikiethics ) — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are wellcome. Resid Gulerdem 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You've also placed these unsolicited advertisements on a large number of talk pages before, and been blocked for it. -- noosphere 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was informing selected group of people who might be interested in the proposal but might not be aware of it. I started a discussion on the page you linked above. It turned out to be that there is no administrative consensus on this being spaming or unacceptable at all. Resid Gulerdem 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- noosphere 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be a goose got cold :) Resid Gulerdem 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since I am fond of quotes, I thought this one would be appropriate: "The means do not justify the ends. The means define the ends"- from "The first idea".DanielDemaret 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for coming Daniel... A seperate guideline for it seems to be a good idea. Do you think the first part of this proposal constitute a base for it? The first part is actually meant to serve as 'ethics of discussion' as you suggested. Second part was for 'ethics of content' in my mind. Resid Gulerdem 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Is your solicitation of Resid Gulerdem's attention supposed to excuse spamming others?  Does Resid Gulerdem maintain that every one of the people he sent advertisements to specifically indicated their interest in this project, as you had?  If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that.  In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.  If you look at this administrator's noticeboard discussion, you'll see that Resid Gulerdem left messages on "upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages" in "blind alphabetical order".  I seriously doubt that that many users explicitly expressed interest in this project to Resid Gulerdem personally, as you have.  But I'm open to being convinced, if there's any evidence of that.  -- noosphere 02:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at carefully you will see my response and question to admins too on the same page. I do not want to repeat them here again. Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked carefully, and all you've said in that discussion is that the targets of your advertisements were a "select group of people".  You did not say how they were selected.  And you surely didn't provide any evidence that they (how many is it?  100?  200? more?) personally, and explicitly expressed interest in this project.  So, if you have any such evidence, please bring it out in to the open.  -- noosphere 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicsussion Advertisements 

message: The first rule I have learned here in wiki editing was: 'edit after discussion'. I was wondering why some people do not want to do that here on this page? I want to believe that they are able to discuss what they believe. This is nothing to do with WP:OWN, it is a well established standard.  
The note at the beginning of the page is just to improve the efficiency. I made modifications when some concerns are arised. In the last modified form, what is wrong now? The core of the note is just to remind the basic rule in editing: edit after discussion. Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit after discussion 

message: Based on the overwhelming feedback in the approval poll about how wordy this policy is I am trimming the repetition and the meandering phrases from the whole policy. Best intentions. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordy 

message: Resid! "Expl" is not a useful edit summary. Please make an effort to summarise what you do. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expl 

message: Resid! Reverting is for vandalism, not for undoing my edits. I am open to discussion here. Why don't you just step back and watch the efforts that will shape this into a better policy. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting is for vandalism 

message: Resid. You cannot use revert as a tool to oppose edits you disagree with. I have reported you on WP:AN and I can only hope that you get blocked from this behaviour soon. You should understand by now how reverting works. Please desist. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not revert, edited as you did. Can you see why I am blocked that much now? COnsider yourself as a factor... Resid Gulerdem 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you're up to 8 reverts now. Clearly you do not understand what a revert is. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 Reverts for the ''owner'' of this article 

message: The idea behind Wikiethics is noble and worth pursuing. After reading through the proposal, I think its more along the lines of "netiquette" than a moral code (moral being loosely defined here). User Rgulerdem has a penchant for getting himself into trouble but I think his heart is in the right place. How about we forgive and forget and start afresh. Let Rgulerdem be unblocked and let's restart the entire Wikiethics page. This time the page gets built slowly with everyone's input. Netpari 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rgulerdem gets unblocked why don't you and he work on this policy in his userspace.  That way there'll be no WP:OWN or WP:NPOV objections as will likely arise if he starts editing here again.  Then, when you're both satisfied that you've come up with a mature policy bring it to a vote.  Otherwise, I'm afraid all the silly warfare over the content of this policy is liable to start over again, which is just a waste of everyone's time.  -- noosphere 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that it's worthy of being continue, continue it.  You don't have to wait for User:Rgulerdem to be unblocked since it is everyone article's, not just Rgulerdem's. -- Metros232 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgive, forget, and restart

message: People do things in certain ways.  It might not be possible to set out an ethical guideline or policy. The statements in it might be too general to be broadly understood.  Yet such behaviour does exist, whether it is spelled out or not.  For example, one administrator, User:ChrisO contributes to a personal website, he says, ] and then edits in articles which cite the information of that website.  Is this ethical behavior or not?  In one situation, a statement might be taken as a joke, in another context it might be taken as a literal threat.  Which statement would be ethical, when the words of both statements might be exactly, literally the same?  Yet ethical standards exist, whether they can be spelled out for common understanding or not. Terryeo 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May you should also mention the discussion at User talk:Terryeo#Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources, where I find your interpretation of policy to be a bit strange. In any case, if you have a dispute with ChrisO, please don't try to sneak in an apparantly off-hand, casual remark that is a criticism of ChrisO into this page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical behaviour exists, whether stated or unstated