Wikipedia talk:Be bold

Political Spectrum

This is coming from a kid who wants to be a politician one day. There is something which would require LOTS of people due to the sheer scale of how widespread this issue is, but a fix is badly needed and I cannot do it by myself since it would require the changing of Wikipedia's standards for a Political Position. Wikipedia currently uses a simple left-right divide under the "Political Position" For a Party or Faction, but this causes a lot of problems and we need a more detailed section for the political position. I am going to write this on other talk pages just so more people can see it. Anyone wanna help? Petjayso (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It is best to choose a single, relevant location for a conversation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics would be a good place to start a discussion about this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect from WP:JUSTDOIT was blanked

WP:JUSTDOIT now points to a page that just says "Giatricotloi". The blanking was made three weeks ago, first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists, then by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and then by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b. I reverted again and will be taking it to WP:ANI shortly. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a sentence

I’d like to add a sentence as follows:

“ The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed. Likewise, changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy, are less likely to be problematic for the bold editor, as compared to changes that substantively alter existing policy. ”

In future, if people get into hot water for boldly editing policy (as once happened to me), a person who raises this particular issue should not be ignored or dismissed, because it’s an important distinction, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Any comments, plaudits, or objections? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this text will do anything to discourage status quo warriors from opposing any change to policy and guidelines. And if it won't then it's kudzu. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• User:Butwhatdoiknow, the purpose of my proposal is to protect bold editors of policy from hostile administrative action (bans, blocks, et cetera) if they make a bold policy edit that merely rephrases, clarifies, makes more explicit. Bold policy edits can get an editor into a lot of trouble, especially if he relies upon those policy edits at some later date. But they shouldn’t get anyone in trouble if the bold policy edits do not make any *substantive* edits to policy. As you can see from the blockquote above, bold editors are already protected if they fix “spelling and grammatical errors”. Why stop there? I don’t care much whether bold policy edits are reverted or not, what I mostly care about is whether the bold editors are sanctioned for no good reason. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)