Wikipedia talk:Non serviam

Comments

I'm not the best writer. Any help is welcome. Synergy 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm looking for a template for this essay, but I was having trouble with the image. Anyone care to do this? One last thing. If others feel it more appropriate in the project namespace, you are free to move it there. If there are any objections, move it back. Synergy 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just started to work on my own essay in my sandbox. It's a work in progress. I'm not sure what I want to do with it yet. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

Well, I think the title is misleading as per Non serviam it would mostly covey unwillingness to obey or to conform.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This essay is not focused on conformity. Its focused on the idea of "serving" (e.g. I'm an editor; I make a mess. You, the admin; are here to clean it up). This essay is based solely on the unwillingness to perform these types of edits. I don't think there is reason to suspect that our editors need to obey or conform either, but that could be the subject of another essay? Synergy 17:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)I don't think I'll be writing that essay

"I am under 12"

Wow, what a poorly-presented straw man. "They think age equals maturity" is a perspective held by no one whose opinion is esteemed. Vocal users opposed to young admins are of the general opinion that age correlates with maturity, and that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that he's the above-average exception. While there may be some criteria that tend to absolutely no minors as admins (the idea that a minor shouldn't be part of a decision process with possible legal ramifications is one that comes to mind), that's not fairly represented in this blurb either. This section is a disservice as it stands, and should probably be pulled until rewritten. — Lomn 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the header is the problem, then change the header. What falls under the header is a valid representation of opinions that have been expressed at RfA. Synergy 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Amusement

Follow up on my WT:RFA comment.

I found it amusing because of the context in which it was written.

I also agree with Lomn.

That is all. Giggy (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)