Wikipedia talk:Words of wisdom

Old words
I'd appreciate it if someone reformatted the page and made it nicer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems totally redundant to policies already in place. And, unfortunately, a lot of editors seem more focused on pointing out that the relevance of this to everyone who disagrees with them, rather than considering that they themselves are also not the center of the universe. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get the point of this, other than being in your face. Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox and neutral point of view already cover this well enough without being kind of snarky in the process. DreamGuy 01:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see a need for this page either, jguk 07:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree, there is nothing here that isn't said elsewhere. If there is a need to combine some bits then those locations should be where it happens. Thryduulf 12:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is very useful, simply because there are cases where it more accurately describes the problem at hand. I'd like to see a much larger collection of notes like this, to deal with the wide variety of problem users we run into. It's much nicer than having to say "Well, look, it's bad." Snowspinner 19:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This may be true, but maybe they should be put on Words of Wisdom (WP:WOW) or something. The inclusion of all of these special notes is a form of instruction creep. We cannot allow our policies to grow too cumbersome. &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  talk 02:18, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

A Words of Wisdom sounds like a good idea. I think we should have somewhere, and there would be a good place, where we can direct people to a brief explanation of the benefits of such advice as When you are in a hole, stop digging, 'The universe does not revolve around you, etc. Thryduulf 02:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing is that this page is cited as 'proposed policy'. This and similar pages when put on WP:WOW would necessitate making WP:WOW proposed policy. That could end up being a thorn in my side, because I now want to make WP:WOW a reality, in order to combat instruction creep. &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  talk 06:25, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I don't see why WP:WOW needs to be proposed policy. Why not just state This is not a policy page, this is advice. Similar to the Staying cool when the editing gets hot (I can't remember where that is atm, I'll link to it when I find it). Thryduulf 10:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it shouldn't be proposed policy, but I think it might go against the wishes of the users who uploaded it if I were to state that it is strictly not policy. But on the other hand, a lot of it wouldn't be reasonable policy, so maybe I shouldn't be agonising over it so much. &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  talk 14:50, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Actually, if we accept the theory that the universe is infinite, it can be argued that it revolves around everyone, including me, you, Jimbo Wales, Tarja Halonen, George W. Bush, and a whole lot of other people. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the universe revolves around Jimbo! -- Thus Spake   Lee Tru.  19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

move page?
The Wikipedia does not revolve around you? - Omegatron 01:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the current name is fine. The syndrome is not Wikipedia-specific. But that would work fine as a redirect. Created. --cesarb 01:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMO
From the past few weeks on Wikipedia, I don't believe TINC is entirely accurate anymore. Granted, TINC rings true with those who believe one monolithic force that guides Wikipedia other than maybe Jimbo, but its gotten too big for even him to control completely.

However, if you look at certain niche places such as WP:AFD, or on certain articles, especially those that are disputed, signs of loosely aligned cliques or cabals or whatever you want to call them arise. Some of them do good and positive things(Esperanza), some of them have beliefs that can be positive or negative depending on your POV(Inclusionists, Deletionists, etc.), and then there are some that are just plain disruptive and/or harmful to Wikipedia IMO(usually sockpuppet brigades from outside websites or groups of editors that wish to shut out or intimidate other users from their opinions either with personal POV advocacy or Instruction Creep)

Most, if not all of them are very loosely aligned and focused from what I've seen, but they do exist, and understanding them and learning to encourage positive cabals and discourage negative cabals is far superior than just putting our hands over our eyes and believing that they're a figment of our imagination. Karmafist 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just saw this, and unfortunately, I am apparently not alone in my beliefs. I wonder how many more editors we'll lose before this problem is dealt with. Karmafist 23:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It's even more strongly cabal-ized than that now that there are going to be multiple invite-only committes, with their own private wikis and whatnot. --Delirium 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this about?
''"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks''

I mean, how come this is possible? Does he has a book written? I mean, I guess there can be a justification, but this looks weird to me. I recall there os a rule against this.--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, what are you talking about? How come what is possible? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what he's saying is that khaosworks is a non-notable author! ;-) T-man, we only require citations from sources in the main namespace, where the articles are. Pages that start with Wikipedia: are about Wikipedia, and often quote people who have been important on the project. So no, this doesn't violate any rules, it's intended to be this way. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 07:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabal
There is a cabal. Don't let them brainwash you too! AHHHH! Эйрон Кинни 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He's right, you know. There is a cabal:

Oops - Sorry, forgot to sign. I'll sign now. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC) The cabal cannot be found in Special:Cabal, nor could it be accessed by using the &action=cabal command. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because that's too obvious. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Special:Upload contains a message from The Cabal! It says in big letters: "Do not lie to us." The use of "us" is clearly a reference by The Cabal to The Cabal. They must grow angry at continued efforts to evade their omniscience. — deathlime 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification?
"The Mediation Cabal comments somewhat ironically on the mediation/arbitration situation."

I'm confused about the above statement - what/which "mediation/arbitration situation", and in what way does it comment? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Meaning that by naming themselves a "cabal" they are making an ironic comment. - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the "ironically" part, I don't understand the rest. (What/which "mediation/arbitration situation"?  The cabal situation?  And in what way does it comment?) --AySz88 ^  -  ^  01:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For your last question, it comments ironically. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fnord?
Who fnorded the no-cabal image?  B. Mearns * , KSC 16:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fnord. ~  Ghelæ  <span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #FFFFFF;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#C0C0C0;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;">talk<span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #FFFFFF;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#CD7F32;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;">contribs 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Please remember that the majority of the editors are human"
Just curious, but.. what's everyone else? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC) the above comment is sarcasm, don't kill me
 * bots. --AlisonW 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, approx. 0.000003% claim to be aliens. But yeah, the rest are bots. ~ <span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #FFFFFF;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#FFD700;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;"> Ghelæ   <span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #FFFFFF;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#C0C0C0;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;">talk<span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #FFFFFF;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#CD7F32;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;">contribs 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am a highly intelligent dodecahedron.-- Thus Spake   Lee Tru.  19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa!
''If you think everybody's out to get you, consider the alternative possibility that nobody cares about you. Paranoia is just another form of grandiosity. If you express your belief that everybody is out to get you, you affirm your arrogance in believing that you are that important. ''

What is this? Insulting comments are not needed in the WIkipedia namespace. This page explains the concept quite clearly without getting snappy or belittling. This little tidbit at the end is insulting and unnecessary. Propose deletion of it, but I want to conduct a survey before editing it out. Actually, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, but if someone reverts me, I'll let it go until consensus is reached don't jump down my throat if you don't like it :-) Karwynn (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, remove it
 * 1) Karwynn (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, don't remove it
 * 1) Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment above or below, thanks. 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I think it's a worthwhile reminder. - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is a cabal" section
Why is this section necessary to the page? It seems not to fit with the rest of the information on the page, and actually go against it. I'd like to remove this section. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 03:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that 5 years is long enough to wait for a reply. I shall remove this section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Implicit collusion
"If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy."

I am familiar with this phenomenon from playing Poker, where I like to call it "implicit collusion". --Ideogram 07:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this impression of collusion can be amplified when the selection process for the editors naturally creates a bias. We do not have the same kind of editors within Wikipedia as outside Wikipedia. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pics
Image:CabaleNoNeko-couleur-Rama.jpg Image:Villianc.svg To add to the article, perhaps, someday...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh
I don't get this article. What is it about? If someone's emailing here please tell me also in non-suffisticated words--Angel David 22:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete
Super Silly. Page should be deleted. Some one from the "Cabal" should nominate the "article" for deletion. Master Redyva  ♠  22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current months-long controversy over furtive IRC-channel behavior and secret ArbCom decision-making processes bear out an ordinary editor's perfectly plain understanding that the following is no longer currently true: "A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility. Wikipedia's editors, as unlikeable and unfair as the ideas and actions of some may seem, cannot be accused of those failings." Perhaps the meaning is simply that editors may not be accused of those failings without being threatened with bans for personal attacks. Wouldn't that be more correct? --Wetman (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep What a wonderful page with a sense of humor and wisdom applicable to all Wikipedians. Well done!--Utahredrock (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the caption to the pic says it all. by the by- the cabal is the kkk. sike. but it might as well be. they used to march on washington ya know. the kkk. free speech and all.
whoa. going on three hours. I guess no one watches this page. the content is pretty weak. yet the issues, themes and concerns to be expressed or addressed are FUCKING VITAL. if someone understands my edit-- let's talk shop. if anyone understands the message or relevance of the previous version, PLEASE TELL ME. thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is proclaimed by Wikipedia that no such as a cabal ever has or will exist. At the same time we see behaviors that contradict this so bluntly, that I can only ask myself "Are they joking?" We have users awarding medals to other users for doing a good job on a common goal against other users, we have cliques pushing forward nationalist claims in broad daylight and Wikipedia saying NO to democracy, many times, NO to common sense, no to validated, verifiable hard evidence. We should be able to do better. Alfadog777 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and the Cabal
This section does not clearly convey any concept I can ascertain. While I can see the outline of some general thoughts, I can't see any nugget of wisdom contained therein. It's very poorly written (way too many you / they pronouns), and others have noted its deficiencies in the past. It needs to be re-written or completely removed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

4-dimensional geometry and you
Given that the universe is theorized to exist in the form of the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere, upon which all points are topologically equivalent, I feel compelled to point out that, if, in fact, the universe revolves, then it does, in fact, revolve around me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please clear this up for me?
What does it mean if an edit is "Cabal Approved"? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a secret or perhaps they would have to kill us if they tell us. See above edit as well.  I will remove this section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whew, what a relief! (This is not a Cabal approved message, as such a thing obviously doesn’t exist). Happy editing! Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Worth Revising (To Avoid Use Of The Second Person)
Although an essay - and qualified as such - the quality of the material enclosed is high enough that consideration of revision, to avoid use of the 2nd person, would be worthwhile. The essay's tone is jarring when beginning to use 'you' (experienced Wikipedians) as the 2nd person voice does not feature in Wikipedia more generally; one can accomplish the same ends by being a bit more circumpsect & careful with the use of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idfubar (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Split?
This would have been fine if this page got regularly updated, but as it only has 2 real sections that aren't really related to each other (namely, WP:WORLD and WP:TINC), I think it would be better if this page were split off into 2 pages, WP:The universe does not revolve around you and WP:There is no cabal. Thoughts? —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 19:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)