Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Workshop

Discussion

You asked on the IAR talk page why nobody was editing this page. It could be that there is not much desire to change the current version, thus the workshop is not needed.

However this is a good place to draft suggested changes before presenting them on the IAR talk page. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean me? I just put up the last UGLY version from WP:IAR. But, whatever, it is a /workshop, update as necessary! Newbyguesses - Talk 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if you now would agree (Until 1 == 2), that having a Workshop for experimenting is worthwhile, if it means that experiments are not made willy-nilly at Ignore all rules itself, and so that page doesn;t have to get protected so often? Newbyguesses - Talk 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That is what I meant to convey in my third sentence from my post of 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Though I really don't get why people don't just use the policy talk page to suggest things, if an idea gets merit then this subpage is a fine idea to hone it, but it really does not get the attention the actual talk page gets. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit here, because this is a "dead" page. It is unlikely the community is even aware of its existence, and any edits to it are not going to lead to any useful discussion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, we are discussing now. Anyone who closely reads talk:IAR will find this page, I have "advertised" it extensively there. Edits to the page, just wait, see my reply at talk:Iar. Kim, you surprise me, you can be so negative sometimes. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is nice because it's okay for it to look incomplete or ugly, and I'm not going to pull a BRD on the core policy of thousands of Wikipedians after being here for, what, four days? So I'm putting my 'dream version', the current one at least, here for comment. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

If no-one has any objections, tomorrow I will change this to a redirect to WT:IAR. microchip08 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good idea, that will keep everything together. I modified your clarification notice a little, by the way. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Blocking

Please investigate something 'cause the editors Hurricane Hink and Scarian on Wikipedia are blocking certain names saying that we're making sock puppets and vandalizing Wikipedia when in fact we're not! Something must get done about Wikipedia editors should they threaten blocking us and we mean urgently! I cannot stand being intimidated by Wikipedia editors like Hurricane Hink and Scarian and others similar! Neither can my partners! These Wikipedia editors scare us, demanding sources while it's difficult to provide the actual sources! Please help us!

mcmlxxxviii 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no way around it, unfortunately. Wikipedia has a sources or GTFO policy.--Father Goose (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there any rules?

Despite the good faith and good will in general of our contributors still disputes are common. Standing agreements that are subject to constant re-evaluation help to unify Wikipedia's editors in their quest to build the gargantuan free encyclopedia that is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has very little in the way of a formal power structure; most enforcement of its rules is done by ordinary users, making ordinary edits; people agree that they should be enforcing by general agreement among Wikipedia's editors – and apply methods that usually work derived from the principles that guide the entire venture. This does have wide support and there can be support for applying it in a specific case if the community coalesces. Editors however are always free to consider news ways of doing things. NewbyG ( talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)