User talk:Friday/samepage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Emotionally loaded language

Can we stop with the emotionally loaded language? It does nothing to advance the discussion. Specifically, I mean things like "attack". I did not attack you- I told you to stop being disruptive. Also, the notion of a "powerless" user doesn't really apply here. Anyone can click the history tab. As for disruption, don't look at WP:DIS- it's hardly accurate. Please also stop accusing me of bias- you have no evidence of this, and I assure you, it's not true. Unlike many other editors, I think we ought to judge edits on their own merits, not on the basis of who made them. I've said this many times in many places. As for the letting things fly- yes, there's a ton of inappropriate content on the ref desks that I don't have the time to take care of. One reason I see you as a significant part of the problem is that you're one of the few who shows up on the talk page and defends your "right" to include inappropriate content, sometimes, in my view, against all reason. Friday (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System of law

Comparisons to a system of law will almost always break down. Wikipedia is very very different than the law- Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Editors can, without worrying much about the rules, go on their way doing what's best, using common sense. They will almost never get in trouble for doing so. Also, there's the tradition of ignoring the rules when necessary- this means the end result is more important than how we got there. This is a pillar issue- we shouldn't debate it. Friday (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable people can disagree, but don't try to reason with the unreasonable

Reasonable people can disagree. But, if someone, with a straight face, defends their "right" to make an article like "So-and-so is lame." (this is a real example from Special:Newpages) then we really shouldn't spend much time debating this issue. So basically, there are some things that are so obviously indefensible that anyone defending them will be seen as unreasonable. And nobody will listen to them, or spend time talking to them. Maybe this isn't right, but it's how people are. I doubt we can change this. So, people who defend their right to say "George W. Bush is evil!" or "George W. Bush is good!" on the ref desk may be seen by some as irredeemably unreasonable. Yes, I understand that this isn't necessarily good - impatience on this issue has hurt discussion before, but there's nothing to do done about it. Maybe we're just drawing the line of what makes someone irredeemably unreasonable in different places. Friday (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, what looks to me like "irredeemably unreasonable" could also be explained by a simple difference of opinion on what Wikipedia is for. Some people don't know that it's not for soapbxing- to them, it's a forum, and their opinions are welcome. Whether or not soapboxing is appropriate here is a pillar issue that we should not debate. But, how do we convince people that this issue is already settled and should not be debated? Friday (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)