Talk:Wikipedia Anti-rules

The Cunctator's Anti-Rule: Delete or overwrite that which annoys you in any way.

Response to rule 9):

I'll break the ice in replying to these to suggest that there is at least one good reason for changing an article from British English to American or vice versa: if you, a writer of one dialect, add paragraphs or otherwise substantially change the content of an article in the other dilect, and don't feel competent to copyedit your own changes in the other dialect, by all means just copyedit the whole article in yours, regardless of where it started. --LDC

LDC: Surely editing British English isn't that hard? I can easily write either. (Though in practice I'm lazy so I write a mishmash, using British spellings one moment and American spellings the next...) -- Simon J Kissane

I'm probably far more qualified than most Americans; I wrote most of the article here on British/American differences. But no, I don't consider myself qualified to copyedit British text, so I wouldn't consider 95% of Americans (and probably 80% of Brits :-) qualified to do so. It's a far more complex issue than making sure you spell "colour" and "specialise" differently, and even grammar like "the team are..."; there are also matters of usage that are not covered in that article. Also all texts are understood in the context of a culture, and even those of us who have mastered the spelling and grammar differences can't be sure that the words we use have the same cultural connotations. Often that doesn't matter, but when you're writing, say, about politics or culture itself, it matters a lot. --LDC

First of all let Cunctuator sell a Cunctipedia when enough HD space exists on the PC-unctuator. Second, it does grow weary to try so hard to propose that a new paradigm in an article exists(see New_Age revison history), then find all these "science guys" slamming the book of rules(the 500 yr old scientific progress report) down. Third, where the hell is Kuala Lampur and why doesn't he feed them Koalas instead of making them wait around while he over-edits anything he wants ? "The Mate with a grate" eh ?--BF

BF - I'd gladly respond to this if I even vaguely understood what your complaint was. Kuala Lumpur is the capital city of Malaysia.

You're not supposed to be proposing new things. You're supposed to be reporting on existing things in an unbiased manner. If you are interested in doing something different, do it elsewhere!

Ok and if we all were unbiased you who are such experts in wikipediatrics would either be at peace or more boring than you already are. Thanks Manning for that nice lecture in newage/talk. I am learning =)

wrong - I never said I am unbiased. Hell, I have some very some very strong beliefs. But I endeavour at all costs to ensure I don't report them as "the truth" in the Wikipedia. It's an issue of giving fair consideration to all. - MB

Manning is biased against bias.

You got a problem with that??? Meet me outside!

A comment on the "anti-rules" page at present: this page is a disgrace. I wish you would all agree to delete it. It just causes more ill-will, and the joke has run very thin. --LMS

Larry - with all due respect, could you substantiate your claim that this page causes "ill-will"? I acknowledge that you have opposed it from day one (as is your right), but I find it quite funny myself, and I suspect I am not alone. However, if it is really upsetting the majority of people then by all means delete it. I'm just not convinced that that is the case. - MB

LMS, you are, generally speaking, the most biased person i have encountered on the Wikipedia and the most insistent about imposing your biases on others. It seems to me that you are hypersensitive to any criticism of yourself, your opiions, or Wikipedia. I'm sure your motives are of the best but I really think you need a serious re-examination of your values on this.

That's what he's paid for. Without someone "imposing values" on the project, it will just degrade into Everything2. The primary value we want to impose is to direct our efforts into producing a useful product: an encyclopedia, with good information, well written, easy to use, and easy to update. I happen to think a little vigorous debate and black humor along the way is a good thing too; Larry apparently is less enthusiastic about those things. But I don't for a moment argue with the need for Larry to enforce a sense of direction on the project. Without that, we won't have an actual product. --LDC

Yeah, what LDC said :) - MB

Agreed. But I like this page. Lighten up, Larry. :) --STG

This page encourages us to treat each other with contempt and hostility, when we should be working together on this project, in a spirit of friendly collaboration. I really don't think you people get it. Not all humor is constructive. I do think we should delete this page. It sucks and it is completely unfunny. --LMS

No, Larry, it encourages us to remember that though we might disagree about many things on Wikipedia, we should keep things in perspective and not take our squabbles as deadly serious. Many Wikipedians do see this page as increasing the spirit of friendly collaboration that we like in Wikipedia.

Right, we shouldn't take our squabbles as deadly serious. The page decidedly doesn't increase the spirit of friendly collaboration, though. It constitutes a way for people to humiliate other people at work on the project in good faith.

This is humor, Larry, the "contempt and hostility" are joke "contempt and hostility", a reminder not to fall into real contempt and hostility on these bases.

There are others who might very well take it differently. I certainly do. Because you, if you were to write one of the items here, wouldn't intend contempt and hostility, that doesn't mean that that'd be an illegitimate interpretation.

Monty Python used to have a "pantomime Princess Margaret". Nobody mistook her for the real Princess Margaret. We would have to wonder about anyone who did.

You are missing the point. --LMS

Methinks the Larry doth protest too much - clasqm

I guess I'll have to wait for the next round to find out what that's supposed to mean. :-) --LMS

Larry, if you don't like the damn page, stop checking up on it!

Other people like it. Is anyone else complaining to you about it?

Why do you care what I think about it? :-) Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I really care about the point I'm making. I'm stressing the point because I hate what the page represents: the wrong attitude toward the social atmosphere of Wikipedia. The page can be very easily and justifiably regarded as unfriendly, unwelcoming, and hostile to newcomers. You might not see it that way, but it can be perfectly justifiably taken that way.

To take the first example that fell to hand, someone wrote:

20) Use font colours and formatting to express your individuality! . We want to fill the Wikipdia with personal touches.

Hey - that someone was me!!!! - MMGB

There are new members who might, seeing this and seeing that they are the butt of a joke, will understand that there are other people lurking about--maybe everyone on Wikipedia, for all they can guess--who get a low sort of pleasure from making fun of, rather than gently and diplomatically correcting, the bad habits of others. I guess that many of you who are defending this page don't really realize this, or care.

Don't worry; I won't delete it myself. That's really all I want to say. Now, keep flaming away. :-) --LMS

It's not that we don't "realize" your point, it's that we don't agree with you. I think that everyone recognizes this as a good-spirited spoof. Except you, of course. ;-) --STG

Good lord, I think we might be taking tentative steps toward a consensus on this page. We must be eating too much tofu or something. :-)

I know. This is probably the strongest community consensus in all of Wikipedia. Too bad Larry isn't in on it. :) --STG

Hey !! Think Pink ~BF

Hey, BF, about rule number twenty:

20) Use font colours and formatting to express your individuality! . We want to fill the Wikipdia with personal touches.

Since it was inspired by you, let me ask you this: do you consider this to be a mean spirted dig, or good-natured teasing? (Or something entirely different, perhaps? I don't want to ask a leading question here.) --STG

As the offender who created this rule, BF and I get along just fine - I assume she took it as a joke (I hope so, anyway). If she was offended I'm sure she would have said something. - MMGB

You know, I still find this page really funny. Especially rule 0, hey - Cunc said to delete whenever you felt like it! (Who did that btw?). - MMGB

This one is actually even funnier than you think. It was originally just: "0) The Cunctator's Anti-Rule: Delete or overwrite that which annoys you in any way." and I added "Especially the parts about". There never was any more of the second sentence and no part of it was deleted!

Unfortunately, when I see how funny everybody thinks it is I start to wonder if Larry's take on this is right. (Larry, that's "start to wonder", not a whole-hearted move to your camp. No offense. :-) )

I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Just discovered this article. Took away all the tension from thinking about having to deal with articles in which people obeyed these rules verbatim. Thanks for having this here! Made my day. Of course, reading this talk page brought me back down to earth again... I'm thinking I might have to delete all of it so it doesn't give anyone else a downer in the future, and as a new admin, I want all newbies to know that this is exactly the sort of critical decision and action that all admins take on a regular basis. Elf 15:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page had me in tears (LOL). Just the ticket for wikistress. ··gracefool 14:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just read the latest additions about ALL CAPS TAKING UP LESS SPACE and "Bad bad bad bad bad bad excessive redundant duplicate redundancy" and just about turned myself inside out laughing. You guys are just way too good at this! Elf 04:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) again.

Not to rain on anyone's party, but during my entire editing career, every time the "Edit Conflict" screen showed itself, I always thought Rule 102 was genuine standard practice. I rarely incorporate changes from edit conflicts, and the chance of me just replacing it wholesale with my text increases the more times the EC happens in succession. w:User:Chriscf

--- Spent the lastt few hours trying to cut out six paragraphs in an article that repeated itself in each, with different terminology, due to what looked like weeks of edit wars and reverting- all in the worst english of any kind I've seen in a long while. This saved my brain from imploding.

having been banned indef at arabic wiki with no specific policy violation, the admins there cited the ignore all rules to justify it. long live the idiots. Azdiyy 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]