The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I have corrected what I believe to have been a mistake on your part that rendered your user page uneditable, and the history unreachable, on Mozilla Firefox. In case it was not a mistake, let this be a notice that while the former is merely blatantly against the spirit and ethos of Wikipedia, the latter is a violation of the GFDL. Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently-skilled to be able to correct the defect that rendered the page uneditable and the history inaccessible while leaving your "there is no cabal" text intact; I encourage you to re-add that text at your leisure. Jouster (whisper) 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you find it objectionable then I will correct it properly. While I agree that it may be against some source of "ethos" of Wikipedia, I was waiting for someone to make their feelings clear on the matter before I assumed anyone even wanted to edit the page. As for GFDL, it does not apply since I am the only author of that page. 1 != 216:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Jouster already knew how to edit that page as he went ahead and did so. I imagine his insistence on undoing this was based more on principal than personal desire to use my user page. 1 != 216:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A delicious, fresh-baked cookie for you, sir!I used Nuke Anything to remove the DIV that sat atop the edit buttons, as I had seen the technique used before and knew Nuke Anything was effective. I was not aware of the accesskeys method; thanks! As to my GFDL concerns—you are correct, and I am wrong. As far as I can tell, no content added by other users to your talk page is still extant; therefore, as I understand the GFDL, you are in the clear. Thank you very much for correcting this out of goodwill, rather than at gunpoint; you are rare indeed amongst people who modify pages bearing their name in this way! Jouster (whisper) 16:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Until(1 == 2), I saw that you're active at RfR. Can you please give rollback to my legitimate alternate account, Bellatrix Kerrigan? A couple of other admins have rollback on their alternate accounts, and I'd like the same on mine. I would change the rights myself, but I felt it inappropriate to do so; plus, filing a request at RfR for the account might have been pointless too. Thanks! Acalamari18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say a quick thanks for the rollback, and the compliment in the acknowledgment. I'm glad to be a useful contributor (even if not as much as I was for a while there), and look forward to being able to get rid of vandalism that much quicker! :) —Krellis (Talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your boldness in editing Ignore All Rules, you should really stop making changes against consensus on the project page, and instead join the conversation on the talk page. For example, your wording change about What "Ignore All Rules" Means is completely inappropriate, as consensus has been formed for quite some time now that the page is a supplement, not an essay. You even stated on the WIARM talk page that you agreed that the page is a supplement, which makes your actions even more strange. From now on, I think we all would appreciate discussion rather than blind and erroneous reverts/changes. Rockstar (T/C) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never agreed to anything except that it was not a policy or guideline. I have talked plenty and am not about to start repeating myself further. Supplement, essay, seems to me to be a rather odd distinction. It is opinion, that is the best word for it. 1 != 202:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you stated here that you agreed with Father Goose's edit to What "Ignore All Rules" Means when he changed the tag from "essay" to "supplement." Now, if you read the definition of {{supplement}}, you will see that there is no mention that the supplement page is an essay, nor that it is opinion. So what, exactly, about all of that screams "essay" and "opinion" to you? Furthermore, and this is what I am most curious about, why, after witnessing editors working very hard to find consensus (and finally finding it), are you suddenly going against what you and other editors agreed upon and making unilateral changes against consensus? And don't get me wrong; I'm not looking for you head here, I'm just looking for an apology. Rockstar (T/C) 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I hope in the future you'll approach your actions when editing a page with a bit more thought and respect for the editors who have actually spent time building consensus. Rockstar (T/C) 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll talk about the subject at hand, but if your coming here looking for an apology for making an edit then don't hold your breath. 1 != 207:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the edit, it's your attitude towards the whole thing. First you demand consensus, then you ignore it once it's formed. I'm just a bit confused, that's all. Rockstar (T/C) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole "essay" vs "supplement" thing is really blurring the line between policy and opinion. The fact is that other than choice of words it is basically an essay until there is a consensus to make it more. I accepted a tag that said it was not a policy or guideline, but the way it was presented on IAR seemed to convey a level of legitimacy that the opinion based page has gained, whether you call it an essay or supplement.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
