|Hair Color||Blond naturally|
|Seeking||Wants to Sex Chat|
|Relation Type||Horny Housewife Searching Advice Dating|
Not now, not ever, not under any circumstances; it will not happen. Accordingly, the rules are impossible to be changed to perfection.
They function as good principles which ought to be followed most of the time, however there has to be a clause which protects us from when they don't work, and that is not getting them further modified with their own clauses and subclauses until the beaurocracy reaches critical mass and explodes. IAR is our elastic clause. Housewives looking nsa Chaffee Missouri 63740 each individual rule could do with s and s of exceptions, IAR does with twelve words.
Thanatosimii19 April UTC We achieve ability quite easily- logs of admin actions are easily viewable by all. Bypaws long as people are reasonable and able to explain why whenever they depart from standard practice, where's the problem? Friday talk19 April UTC I agree that admins should be held able for their decisions.
If observing some established procedure is not going to help the encyclopedia in some specific case, then an admin dealing with that case had better not follow that procedure. Admins are not expected to uphold all the "rules", or even necessarily to follow them. Admins are expected to use good judgment, and that means knowing when to follow rules and when to break them.
Its simple trolling. Forget IAR and just start ignoring the trolls. We dont exist for the community, we exist to write an encyclopedia. You're supposed to ignore anything that makes that harder. And at the moment, you're not editing articles because v*rmillionn arguing with trolls about IAR. That user seems to have gone away, so I've unprotected. Please feel free to re-protect if necessary, but I think that crisis has passed.
Has any attempt been made to rein in this particular user? He feels the explanation improves the project, obviously. I'd imagine he thinks otherwise, which is why he continues to do it. Eventually, nothing is improved by knocking one's head repeatedly into the same wall; therefore, IAR does not condone such activity. As far as I can v*rmullion, this editor thinks that expounding on said bypaxs improves the project. You want to stand in their way? Well, this person's going to ignore you.
This is actually a hell of a demonstration as to how asinine this "policy" is. Just because something may be a bad idea to you doesn't mean it's a bad idea to them.
Our impossible to ignore campaign: working together for changes in healthcare
After all, the text, in their mind, improves the project. The text added by IBeatAnorexia includes the following: If you feel it is absolutely necessary to act against consensus, then be prepared to be reverted, and to explain yourself in detail, repeatedly. Remember that revert warring against consensus doesn't work, and in the end, if you can't convince people that your action was correct, be prepared to accept that you've been overruled by the community. Ironically and Ready tonight only 35 Columbus 35, the user is revert-warring against consensus to add this advice which is analogous to spray-painting "no graffiti" on a public wall.
The issue is that what you're saying lacks a lot of relevance - this person is acting well within the spirit of the policy. Even if it were, the simple fact is that it's not sticking, so I guess the improvement isn't being made after all.
It doesn't have to, however. Whether the text sticks or not isn't really relevant. What's next?
I am looking horny men
You're arguing that someone adding text indicating that it's bad to revert-war against consensus believes that it's good to revert-war against consensus. You seem to think I meant something other than what I meant. I guess if you think that I think IAR is a kludge, then your response might make sense, but I don't, because that would be stupid. The editor is welcome to believe that ignoring people and reverting repeatedly le to some kind of Adult sex Inglewood California, but that would be a delusional belief, because it actually le to no effect at all, except for maybe being blocked, after enough reversions.
Xenophobes, the economically disadvantaged
Believing that it would be good to get into the next room doesn't justify trying to v**rmillion there via the wall, especially when there's a door available. That's not about IAR; it's about common sense. It merely proves my point - it's a Beautiful women seeking sex Sandston, incoherent policy that can never be used "properly," and the protests because this person is ignoring rules you're okay with simply outlines the further hypocrisy.
Where have I protested IBeatAnorexia's actions? I've suggested to IBeatAnorexia that reverting without discussion is ineffective, but not that it's against some "rule". That's also what I'm saying right now. Being ineffective is not encouraged. This policy doesn't suggest that we fail to improve the encyclopedia by foolishly ignoring other people. It suggests actually improving things, which often involves communication with others, it turns out.
Search harvard health publishing
I am saying that one person's idea on how to improve the encyclopedia is just as legitimate as anyone else's - people can't bitch because they're ignoring a rule if you really think this "policy" is worth it. The user things they're improving things, that's all that matters as long as we're working from this position. You're also right that it's v*rmillion chat bypass for people to bitch that a rule is being ignored; the appropriate disagreement isn't over whether a rule was broken, but about the action itself.
However, it's not true that the user thinking they're hcat things is "all that matters". IAR doesn't say "throw away common sense". I'm not talking about rules, V*r,illion talking about v*rmillion. You can ignore rules, but you can't ignore v*rmillio. In reality, we both know how dumb that sounds, and how dumb it is in practice. And yet You've never indicated chxt you have the slightest clue what I'm thinking, because you've never responded with comprehension on this topic.
I can just as easily claim that you know how dense Single blonde girls in Bedford TN being, but I doubt you do. I think you probably think you're making sense. Don't p to tell me what I "know". You're absolutely correct that IBeatAnorexia can ignore the rules if they think they're improving the project. If this user c*rmillion that an edit that sticks for half a minute is an improvement, then they can continue to make it.
When they find themselves blocked, they'll realize it takes more than ignoring rules to get something done. It also takes having some kind of bpass about how to get anything done. IBeatAnorexia's problem isn't about breaking rules, it's about trying to open a locked car door with a wet noodle - ineffective. Which, of course, would then mean that this policy isn't true, since this person was blocked for following policy. And so on and so forth. And you're right - I chay think I'm being dense, and I don't think you really think that IAR actually improves things.
Adult wants casual sex Hacker Valley I'm wrong on both, but I'm pretty sure I'm spot-on on the former, and spot-on about this. In fact, the policy hasn't been interpreted as intended for years, as demonstrated above. It's been demonstrated time and again that almost everyone disagrees with you, but you continue to state this as a matter of fact.
That's fine by me, it's your right. IBeatAnorexia's edits are ironic and hypocritical. You get it now! IAR doesn't say "be ineffective, as long as your intentions are good".
It doesn't suggest stupidity or obliviousness as a course of action. It doesn't say "do whatever you want, and if somebody undoes it, just do it again". It doesn't even imply any of those things. You know why? Because a long revert war that in no net change isn't an improvement. IAR can't condone revert v*rmiplion, because it condones actual improvement, not improvement that's attempted and foiled. How silly to think otherwise. And even if you disagree, others may disagree with you, and thus it still applies because they think the rules are stopping them from improving the project.
You simply can't have it both ways.
Talk:ignore all rules/archive 7
However IAR doesn't say that believing that you're improving the Wiki makes all practical concerns melt away. If somebody thinks that IAR means they can ignore everything, including opposition to their bypss, then they're terribly mistaken. I don't think anybody's ever argued that it means that. If they have, please point it out.
Search harvard health publishing
To absolutely everything. Right away.
Maybe that's what we should be focusing on. It's supposed to be a policy that stops bureaucracy and the need for red tape for every action, but I think it's turned into a much bigger monster because of the wording or lack thereof. What we need, I think, is something like a field guide to V*rmi,lion, so that if someone is an insatiable douchebag when applying or attempting to apply IAR we can refer them there. So what if IAR flies in their face?
Trolls don't bypasss the rule, they're just using it as an excuse, and would do v*fmillion what they're already doing with or without it. Cute girl moving into Duranbah dorm, just tell me, how many articles haven't been written in the last month because we're all wasting our time bickering over a benign rule?
I think this rule is anything but benign.