In today's world, User:Netoholic is a topic that has captured the attention of many. Whether due to its historical relevance, impact on current society, or its influence in the cultural sphere, User:Netoholic has generated endless debates and discussions. Over the years, it has been the subject of study and analysis by experts in different fields, which has led to a diversity of opinions and perspectives on this topic. With its presence in the daily lives of many people, User:Netoholic has proven to be a key element in shaping the world in which we live. In this article, we will fully explore the impact and importance of User:Netoholic, and how it has shaped our worldview.
I am a Wikipedia editor. Just a blip in a database.
Wikiphilosophy
Netoholic's Law
As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one.
Look, I've made thousands of "unilateral" edits, so probably have you. It's a wiki. Get over it.
Corollary: One can substitute any of the following for "unilaterally", and the law still works -- "against consensus", "mindlessly", "carelessly", "out of process". Any of these words indicates you might be facing off against a wiki-warrior.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not mean "Fuck the rules". Citing WP:IAR isn't something to get you out of giving a good explanation. Its an apology you give when keeping track of the rules got too unbearable and you just wanted to write an encyclopedia.
<jwales> There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
You don't have to like your subject to write a sound article about it. Sometimes it's better not to like it, as there's a greater incentive to be neutral. - Peridon
For standing up to the misguided masses (myself included), helping to free Wikipedia from the hidden horrors of conditional meta-templatesDavid Levy 15:20, 23 Dec 2005