I Am Ready Horney Titties V*rmillion chat bypass
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 chatt us from when they don't work, and that is not getting them further modified with their own clauses and subclauses v*rmillin the beaurocracy reaches critical mass and explodes. IAR is our elastic clause.
Hair: Long natural
Relation Type: Granny Adult Marrieds Mcgee Eye Center
Seeking: I Looking For Private Woman
Relationship Status: Not important
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 v*rmiloion 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.
What is a bypass trust?
IAR is our elastic clause. What each individual rule could do with s and s of exceptions, IAR does with twelve words. Thanatosimii19 Bypasw UTC We achieve ability quite easily- logs of admin actions are easily viewable by all. As 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.
Wodonga rail bypass -
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 v*rmilliob 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 chxt your 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 by;ass 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 see, this editor thinks that expounding on said "policy" 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. After all, the text, in their mind, improves the project.
- alaska bypass mail delivery: a broken system
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 v*rmiplion against consensus doesn't work, and in the end, if v*rmollion can't convince people that your action was correct, be prepared to accept that you've been overruled by the community.
Ironically and hypocritically, the user is revert-warring against consensus to add this advice which is analogous to spray-painting "no graffiti" on a public wall. The v*rnillion 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? You're arguing that someone adding text v*rmullion 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 v*emillion 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 v*rmilion to some kind of improvement, but that would be a delusional belief, because it actually le to no effect at all, except for maybe being blocked, after enough reversions.
Believing that it would be good to get into the next room doesn't justify trying to get 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 disruptive, 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 chag 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. 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 silly 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 improving things is "all that matters". IAR doesn't say "throw away common sense".
I'm not talking about rules, I'm talking about reality. You can by;ass rules, but you can't ignore reality. In reality, we both know how dumb that sounds, and how dumb it is in practice. And yet You've never indicated that 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 you're being, cat 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 v*rmilluon thinks 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 clue 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 don't think I'm being dense, and I don't think you really think that IAR actually improves things. Maybe 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 c*rmillion 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.
What is a bypass trust?
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".
How a bypass trust works in an estate plan - smartasset
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 warring, 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 bpyass rules are stopping them from improving the project.
You simply can't have it both ways. 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 actions, then they're terribly mistaken. I don't think anybody's ever argued that it means that. If they have, please point it out. 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 IAR, 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?
Bloomberg - are you a robot?
Trolls don't misunderstand the rule, they're just using it as an excuse, and would do exactly what they're already doing with or without it. Really, just tell me, how many articles haven't been written in the last month because we're all wasting v*rmilllion time bickering over a benign rule? I think this rule is anything but benign.
Our new persons
Click to create and send a link using your application The vampire Planeswalker Sorin Markov has walked the Multiverse for thousands of years.