Wikipedia talk:Don't object to proposals

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Objecting to this essay is strongly discouraged, per WP:DOTP – Gurch 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, Your Honor... *Dan T.* 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what everyone else says first then support or oppose this essay, I can't be bothered with actually reading this. :-D daveh4h 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to make a fictional scenario, it's what I do to proposals

What would happen if this was followed at the founding of VfD?

I think that there should be a process to discuss if pages should be deleted. So, we have a discussion page, with support and oppose section, and whichever side gets a majority happens. -User:onoesiissmart 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu1 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu2 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu3 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu4 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu5 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... this is a terrible idea. A strict vote-counting system is too easily gameable, and even if it weren't, 51% is a terrible standard for deletion. I agree with the sentiment of discussing deletions, but this is not the way to do it. -User:Iactuallyevaluatemorethanbroadsubstance 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (struck out, I realize that this violates WP:DOTP)[reply]

Yaaaaay. -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, it's not 'don't object to any proposals', it's 'don't object to proposals you agree with in spirit.' It's kind of misleading and needs a rewrite though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither of those. It's "don't object to proposals that have a significant level of support" – it explicitly says so just before the bold text. In this case, being an obviously bad proposal with no support none of this would apply. Being first to comment on a proposal is something else that should be avoided, but I won't go into that further :) – Gurch 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't an obviously bad proposal. We elect the government this way, so it's not obvious that this is a bad idea. -Amarkov moo! 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if I think this is an obviously bad proposal, I should.... support it, right? Or does it say I should oppose it? Yeah, I think so... but should I then do the opposite of what it says, if I think it's a bad proposal, so then I should support it... or what? *Dan T.* 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should say nothing, and ignore it, and quietly follow any new policies/guidelines that may result. You won't get at say in how things are run, but at least you won't earn the dislike of the proposal's supporters – Gurch 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly good advice for those who wish to become or remain popular. It should be handed out to all those young people who wish one day to become admins. Well done! Grace Note 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The path to adminship now seems to be holding no opinions. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a ludicrous page

It flies straight in the face of consensus building. >Radiant< 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the page, or just the title? -- Gurch (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication Proposal

I think this page really doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace. With the exception of some vandalism and subsequent reverting, User:Gurch has been the only one involved with this essay. This page is just plain rediculous and is against the basic tenant of proposals on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter: don't support a proposal you don't entirly agree with. This page lacks simple common sense and is a bad idea in general to have in the Wikipedia namespace where editors might think it has at least a modicum of support. So I propose that it be moved to User:Gurch/Don't object to proposals. I will let this sit here for three days and if no one objects, I will move this page to the suggested name. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this proposal. (sorry, I just had to :) Seriously though, I replaced the "Essay" template with the "Essay Parody" template to make it clear that it's meant to be humorous and sarcastic. This brings it in line with other such essays like this one. Let it stay where it is. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Gurch as to if it's parody or not. This will be illustrated in my now underconstruction essay, Wikipedia:Don't tag somthing as parody without asking.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, Ipatrol, have you no sense of humor? This article is perfect right where it is. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems leaving it where it is, as far as I'm concerned. A sense of humor would indeed be helpful. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it stay--more visible, as it ought to be. DGG (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good essay, it should stay in the WP space. Darkspots (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to take an approval poll at the villiage pump to gague how much people really belive in this essay. Gurch says the essay is serious so any humor tags from this point foward will be reverted as vandalism.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read up on WP:VAND. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this essay is fine where it is. Many essays exist in Wikipedia space, some of them less accepted than others. --Iamunknown 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--deindent. Okay, two weeks of this notice and the general feeling expressed is for the article to stay in place. I'm taking down the notice. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Wikipedia:Don't object to proposals → Wikipedia:Not making enemies is more important than improving Wikipedia — Better reflects the goal of the essay, which does allow for objecting to proposals, just as long as everyone else is too. 76.116.5.48 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, it would be marked {{humor}}. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not suggest a move, have this redirect here. Rgood erm ote 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the move tag. Hope I didn't make any enemies there... Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to in spirit. WP:IAU who really cares what a hoard of lemmings decides to do anyway? All I can say is when something needs fixing, don't break it more.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]