When I was first challenged with the arcane rules of Wikipedia I was a little frustrated. But then I realized I could just learn those arcane rules and use them myself. After that it was amazing how many of my edits were able to get through.
When I was first challenged with the arcane rules of Wikipedia I was a little frustrated. But then I realized I could just learn those arcane rules and use them myself. After that it was amazing how many of my edits were able to get through.
In other words, when I'm skirting a rule, I'm "being bold". When you claim your edit did not violate some rule any more than my edit did, you're "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point".
If these issues are resolved by reasonable folks, it may still work, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and issues are frequently not resolved by reasonable folks.
>no one actually uses the disrupt point like that.
You're using institutional knowledge here, not something that's obvious straight from the text. This is exactly the point GP is making.