Odd Master

Badvista.org critisims

There is also another policy here: its called consensus, which holds precedence over being bold (the latter of which is a guideline, and thus not canonical). Consensus for this article is to not refer to badvista, and discuss any such changes before making it live (I already said, the discussions in this effect can be found in talk pages).

Btw, I am preserving the original state of the article, nor "making them without discussion". Propose your concerns, and let others comment. This is how such articles are handled. Each party has to accept the majority decision.

Btw, you are not supposed to edit archive pages. Comments should go to the talk page. And removing comments from user talk pages without a pointer to where it is also frowned on. Btw, sorry for coming of as bitey, that wasn't my intention.

I suggest again, you propose the changes in the talk page, and let others respond. My comments are already there. The ball now lies with the community, and not either you or me. --soum ^talk 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice you already did. --soum ^talk 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Soumyasch:

• You cannot find consensus without being bold, so your statement to the contrary is incorrect.
• You used rollback. Unless you are rolling back vandalism, please don't do this. Always provide good edit summaries for all your actions, especially to do with good faith users.
• Guidelines are definitely canonical, and you can certainly be banned for violating guidelines (most famously, people have been banned for violations of WP:POINT, some essays are canonical too)
• If there's a previous discussion about not linking to badvista, you should provide a link to the discussion so that Odd Master can participate. The fact that Odd Master disagrees is a possible indicator that you do not currently have consensus. (At a later date we might anticipate that Odd Master is trolling or not acting in good faith, and please point out if he is, but I don't have any data that points to that right now)
• Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. The "majority decision" is irrelevant.

--Kim Bruning 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• That was my point, since it is controversial, none of us make any changes without further discussion.
• I used rollback before I inferred the user was acting in good faith. Plus I explained in person.
• Official policies pre-empt guidelines. Policies are given precedence over guidelines when there are certain conflicts.
• The discussions are very fragmented, but a significant of them was already in the archives Odd Master was thriving in. So, I didn't think it was necessary to point it out.
• The "majority decision" is not irrelevant. What is irrelevant is a count of opinion holders. The decision isn't by a count of who opines what, but by the quality and strength of opinions and arguments. Thats consensus.

However, all these are irrelevant. The only point was "discuss before making anything controversial". I might not have been the politest of people, but this was all there was. --soum ^talk 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)