User talk:JungianPPP

Hi! Nice to meet you. --JungianPPP 22:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

May 2007
I reverted your edits on WP:IAR. A discussion on adding something akin to your edit is taking place on the talk page. However, there are both proponents and opponents of an edit like this, and therefore I reverted your edit. See also WP:BRD. -- User:Krator (t c) 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I'd like to move this problem to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules due to BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Indeed, this BOLD, revert, discuss cycle apparently depends upon current Ignore all rules. -- JungianPPP 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your questions on the ignore all rules talk page. --Kim Bruning 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Accountability
You cannot declare policies by fiat. Please see WP:PPP for details.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to "declare policies by fiat", unfortunately. Please do it yourself instead of me, or teach me kindly.
 * I just obeyed Ignore all rules, Be bold in updating pages, Use common sense, etc., because I think I can't trust and needn't rely upon anyone who can't positively admit the necessity of Accountability and push ahead it properly toward wikipedia's offcial policy, though I know the cases in which eloquence is silver, silence is gold.
 * Don't you think that WP:PPP also depends on Accountability? If so, you should make WP:ACAB update toward Wikipedia's official policy. -- JungianPPP 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"False fork?"
You can't just create pages out of the blue and call them policies (or guidelines), even if they are just forks of other policies. You need to propose them so people can form a consensus on it. Seeing as this fork of yours was falsely tagged as policy, I deleted it to prevent further confusion and misrepresentation. Capsice? Picaroon (Talk) 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain more kindly. -- JungianPPP 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC), 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You said, "''You can't just create pages out of the blue ..."
 * I don't know. Does "the blue" mean "the blue link"? If so, where can it be? You deleted the page and changed the blue link into the red one by yourself. None of my business. Please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, now that you have clarified that you mistakenly tagged it with policy and intended to use essay, I have restored the page. See, that was easy! Picaroon (Talk) 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the page being restored, it's still a red link? WooyiTalk to me? 00:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It has already returned to a blue link. Thank you very much. See Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0) or its external link, though you may see the old cache. -- JungianPPP 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is still redlink, where is it? WooyiTalk to me? 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right here, in fact. Picaroon (Talk) 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Picaroon !
 * I could complete my edition of WP:IAR-SK1.0. WP:IAR-SK1.0 is precisely what I want to read about WP:IAR. -- JungianPPP 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="border:none; background:#eaeafa;" ! style="background:#bcbcec; text-decoration:none; font-size:120%;" | More detail
 * style="text-align:left; font-size:100%;"|
 * style="text-align:left; font-size:100%;"|

I just added my edit due to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules
"If anybody would like to add anything to the list, please feel free to do so, and to write it first, if it doesn't exist already. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)" I just obeyed it. Apparently, "Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0)" didn't exist. And I wrote it first by the words "(simple and kind version 1.0)". This phrase ( "simple and kind version 1.0" ), of cource, can't mean I want to create a new policy, guideline, or essay, therefore, I don't need propose something. I just need indicate people my version so that people can form a consensus on it. What is the problem with my edit? First, please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC),


 * Thank you very much. However, I have to say, "No, no". I'm going to just indicate the new version of WP:IAR which has been already a Wikipedia's official policy. This edit can't be "my" "essay". I have already experienced and explained about the similar matter. Please see Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules First and second sentences of my edit are from Wikipedia's official policies(WP:IAR and WP:5P). Third sentence ( "However, of course, please don't abuse this policy." ) is apparently just from ordinary common sense. Therefore, this page can't be "my" "essay". And, you have jumped to a conclusion such as "'This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors.'"Actually, it would have caused severe contradiction and misunderstanding. If you really want to prevent further confusion and misrepresentation, you need to replace with  or something like that. I will do it myself. -- JungianPPP 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! -- JungianPPP 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Who didn't leave deletion discussion in talk page?
You! Why can you delete the talk page on which you should leave deletion discussion, only because you didn't leave deletion diascussion? Please revive my edit. -- JungianPPP 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC), 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reviving the talk page. -- JungianPPP 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! -- JungianPPP 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * }

About Wikipedia talk:Accountability
I changed the section title from the one you named to Wikipedia talk:Accountability, according to the direction of WP:RFC :

Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral.

I have supported you. And now I realize why you leave in the first place. :-) -- PBeaver 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Accountability
Accountability has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment at this page's deletion discussion.Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Vandals are likely to eliminate "Accountability" from Wikipedia. Do you have time? If you hadn't deserted English Wikipedia trampled by Vandals, please visit :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accountability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Accountability#What_kind_of_status_WP:ACAB_should_have.3F

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Accountability

-- PBeaver 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already emailed you twice now, but my first email seems to have been stolen by someone. The copy of my first email didn't come to me. And then, the copy of my second email came to me. I am surprised with it! -- PBeaver 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)