Forum:Ignore all rules

Forums: Index →

Administration

→ Ignore all rules

Should we have an ignore all rules policy? We need one...badly. FB100Z • talk • contribs 15:49, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a fairly good idea to me. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

^ -- stercus accidit -- cjc 16:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to include into a general policy page.  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:54, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I now await NHL's eight-paragraph opposition and ajr's ten-paragraph rebuttal of the opposition. FB100Z • talk • contribs 21:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

• Don't expect me to worry about this one- I don't even get it. If people are going to go on sprees doing things against the MoS, I'm still going to warn and eventually block them anyway regardless of this. NightblazeSaber 00:17, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  ...you don't get it... ajr 00:23, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  I know, I said that didn't I? :P NightblazeSaber 00:33, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  laouwl. Two things. First, I gave a link above, and I kind of expected you to click on it and actually read the policy :P Second, the MoS is not a policy, just guidelines for how content should be written. If someone "violates" the MoS, the worst thing one should do is drop a polite notice on their talk page about it. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:32, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well here is a essay about what it means? WP:WIARM So common sernse. :P --{{SUBST:Dog4591/sig}} 14:36, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Copy-pasting doesn't count in the "longest reason explaining your view" contest I'm afraid. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 16:25, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies for editing your post, it was a bit long. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:37, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

LOL, never the less, Support. Do you want my ten paragraph reason for supporting it? ;) -NBP 00:30, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

No, that's Tatooine's job, since people actually listen to him :P FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:34, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here are some points for and against IAR:

Pros of introducing IAR

• We lower our chances of ending up like BS01 by focusing more on building an encyclopedia than making up rules for building an encyclopedia.
• By making IAR a fundamental principle and adapting all other policies to fit it, newbies no longer have to slog through a bunch of arcane legalese documents to start participating in the community.
• IAR directly contradicts the 200 mainspace edits rule. In fact, I've been violating it a lot recently as a result of IAR.
• We become more familiar to Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia becomes more familiar to Brickipedians.

Cons

• Some wise guys might misinterpret the rule to mean "I can do anything I want." Not much of a problem, though. Illegitimi non carborundum.

So...do we have a consensus on this? FB100Z • talk • contribs 23:33, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but let's call it "use common sense" instead :3 ajr 23:42, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Ajr, otherwise some smart alec will come along and do what they like.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:20, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. In addition, "use common sense" doesn't sound like it overrides existing policies and guidelines, does it? FB100Z • talk • contribs 20:04, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Once again, do we have a consensus? FB100Z • talk • contribs 23:37, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

I count supports and a confused :P . Kingcjc 08:42, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

'k then, I'll go make the policy. FB100Z • talk • contribs 16:46, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

At Brickipedia:Use common sense please :P ajr 23:30, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

no u FB100Z • talk • contribs 23:31, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Ajr on the name of the article. (although the abbreviation of UCS may confuse some people :D) NightblazeSaber 00:02, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

There are two serious reasons why UCS is better than IAR (though the content is the same). First, it allows common sense to be applied to everything, rather than just areas which have overly bureaucratic rules. Second, it clarifies that you can't just go doing whatever you want and ignoring the rules all the time, but rather should use common sense when determining whether or not to take an action. ajr 00:18, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

<immature sarcasm>Ultamite Collectors Series!!!!! Where???!!!!!! me want! :D</immature sarcasm> Skdhjf^(Talk!) 05:36, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Brickipedia:Use Common Sense, please. Jag 08:03, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really think that IAR sounds stronger and more "important" than UCS. UCS doesn't sound like it overrides any other policies. See also WP:COMMON. FB100Z • talk • contribs 16:57, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Renamed to Brickipedia:Use Common Sense (5/1). Can always be moved back if there are more opinions yet to come. NightblazeSaber 00:12, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

We haven't reached a consensus; why'd you do that? 0_o FB100Z • talk • contribs 02:26, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we make IAR a policy, and UCS a fundamental philosophy? FB100Z • talk • contribs 02:39, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose- we've got one, why do we need another? + all reasons as to why everyone wants the page at UCS not IAR. NightblazeSaber 23:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

May I once again cite WP:COMMON? FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:34, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

We aren't Wikipedia, and furthermore I, and about everyone else here feels that using UCS better serves our interests. ajr 04:36, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Then can we make UCS something beyond a policy, at the least? FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:52, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

*bump* FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

I recognize your bump, but haven't followed this discussion, so shan't add anything of value other than what is basicly a bump, to your bump. Kingcjc 19:33, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

My, how...informative. FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:35, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

I fixed your coding. --{{SUBST:Dog4591/sig}} 19:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice that, thanks :) FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:35, June 19, 2011 (UTC)