User:Hoarier

Being bold

Hi Hoarier

I just sought the text were I first heard of "be bold" wiki philosophy and linked the new be bold page to that text passage (of You). I remembered it when I found a similar "be courageous" hint in a German wiki, and now I found the related page in Wikipedia. So You didn't necessarily needed to revert that "tampering", it was just a special attempt of honoring Your idea as being established now in this wiki. I made the new page because some makers of this project already became too doubtful concerning changes, because they could be "damaging" to the whole project. But I learned from another wiki: No change, no life. We want a living project, so we can't discourage change. If we won't allow anonymous edits that would be good, but the ones who have decided to become project members shall not be discouraged by doubtful discussions, they should find a place to become creative with their ideas to enrich this camera knowledge base. Be bold, of course carefully, not loosing view for good compromises and consent, and let this wiki grow.

Best regards, U. Kulick 10:52, 29 April 2011 (PDT)

What an extraordinary response.

1. That was my comment, signed by me. I do not tamper with your comments; you do not tamper with mine. (Are you interested in Wikipedia guidelines? Here's one that covers this.)
2. You say it was just a special attempt of honoring Your idea. Amazing. Here's my idea, exactly as I wrote it, though with emphasis added: English-language Wikipedia has a policy "Be bold"; it's well intended but it doesn't transfer well to this kind of article here [...]. So, simply, my idea was that "Be bold" was a bad principle for editing that article and others like it. Your "special attempt" to "honor" my idea seems to have been to pretend that I said the opposite.
3. You say that what you call my idea (actually your idea, and in some ways the opposite of my idea) is established now in this wiki. That's in your article "Be bold". (This is in mainspace. Why? Is "Be bold" something like a photographic process, or a kind of camera?) You've stuck it in Editing guidelines. How is it "established"? There seems to have been no discussion of it whatever. It's merely your idea. If this were Wikipedia, it would certainly not be a "guideline"; it would instead be an "essay" until somebody objected to it (which would happen quickly), whereupon it would be moved to your userspace. (Here is what Wikipedia has to say about essays.)

I stoutly reject your panglossian clichés above about "change". Changes for the better are good; those for the worse are bad; it's as simple as that.

I reject your new, simplistic pastiche of Wikipedia's "Be Bold". The latter is intelligent; you manage to violate it, by (for example) ignoring differences among namespaces.

You are an administrator here. I expect any editor here, and certainly any administrator, to behave responsibly. Some aspects of responsible behavior are:

1. Reading others' comments carefully. If you don't understand them, ask. Avoid misrepresenting them.
2. Keeping your hands off others' comments.
3. Providing edit summaries for all your edits.
4. Getting agreement for changes of policy before you announce them.

-- Hoarier 16:59, 29 April 2011 (PDT)