Wikipedia talk:Don't be a fanatic

Old content

How can this page be a guideline without any discussion? It may be a good essay, but it is not authorized by consensus yet. Also, it doesn't seem actionable. Bidabadi 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed tagging as "behavioral guideline"

After creation, the original article was tagged by Radiant! (not the creator) as "guideline (probably)". Since then it has stood broadly accepted by the community, and probably reflects community consensus on behavior. It was retagged somewhere in the middle as an "essay" (see above).

I'm minded to re-tag this as a "behavioral guideline", on the grounds it is reflective of community consensus, and does in fact document a set of communal guidelines on behavior not really covered elsewhere.

Comments? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay. Until it gets more attention and discussion here. I think someone just tagging it as guideline is inappropriate, but I'm not a Wikilawyer. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on needing more attention and discussion here. That's really what the tag above is for: to solicit wider views, if "not being fanatical" in behavior, is in reality a behavioral guideline that editors are implicitly expected to follow (whether or not formally designated as one). Seems to me it probably is. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't be both. Does not need tagging as an essay i don't think. Bit silly really Delighted eyes 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi am back as requested. Am not sure I know enough about wikipedia to comment about weather it should be one or not. I have no idea wether wiki create their own guidelines. But if it is just opinion then i guess it is an essay. Delighted eyes 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly essay material. I don't like it as something people should be citing. I forsee edit wars between two fanatics with both of them waving that as a flag, more often than I ever see it helping. It's far too instructive. WP:TIGER is essentially the same thing, only less imperitive and more demonstrative. A_Man_In_Black {following private discussion with AMIB, I asked him to add his view as stated above to this page. AMIB in turn agreed that his words could be pasted verbatim if desired - FT2}

Good job

Nice guideline. It is very useful. - Davodd (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lighten up"

I will not endure "lighten up" anywhere. A man said it to me once, and then the next day drove me almost to suicide. It is an insult, and a badly hidden insult at that. It says: your suffering is an illusion -- can't you see that everyone else is well off? --VKokielov (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Another" Break? -- Remove the last "Remedy"

The last of the four "Remedies" reads, ""Lighten up and take another break!". My reason for adding a "Talk" entry is to ask, "What is the first break, that makes a future break "another" break?"

I noticed too, that user VKokielov pointed out that the phrase "lighten up" is probably an inappropriate suggestion, regardless of the context. I've considered his view and I agree with it. The expression, "Lighten Up!" is used to marginalize someone indirectly, by minimizing their feelings. So, what VKokielov wrote is accurate.

He created his Talk entry about 6 months ago and there has been no response to it. Perhaps what I've written, together with his remarks, provides sufficient reason to remove the last Remedy; the remedy I am asking about. Or, perhaps there isn't sufficient interest in this page for someone to have noticed.

I plan to remove the remedy in the near future unless someone tells me not to. I do not know if I am permitted to do so; so I hope someone comments on my plan.

[The quote included with the copy about "Zeal" is directly related to this: 'Fanaticism obliterates the feelings of humanity.' (credited to Edward Gibbon). The matter at hand pertains to these feelings, precisely!] Kernel.package (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)