1048:. But in reality an explanation later upon request is also fine. And if someone makes a good edit but then does not provide an explanation later upon request that is also fine (maybe they are busy irl or their internet went out due to a hurricane or they are sick or whatever I dunno). Their lack of an explanation is not enough to retroactively make the edit bad. We don't punish people for writing bad editsummaries that are incomprehensible and of no use to anyone. And we can't demand that people are here 24/7 to explain any edits they made. They are not our employees, demanding they do something is a bad idea.
76:
55:
24:
203:
164:
410:
1773:
has not failed (or even proposed?) at TFD. Afaics, the debate is only how firm the encouragement should be: it seems obvious from the comments above that most editors believe that summaries should certainly be encouraged and the lead should reflect that. (Although the current versionย โ with nothing
1087:
Again, Knowledge is not a court of law. The purpose of this page is to give as "the long answer" to editors who seem to believe that the the edit summary box doesn't apply to them. And the only time that anyone will feel sufficiently irritated to draw their attention to this page will be in response
1464:
But these are (very) edge cases. Coming back to substantive edits to main-space articles, frustration happens when somebody makes a series of non-obvious changes without any explanation for doing so. In my book, that means that the editor concerned has no interest in consensus or even acquiescence:
1848:
I've seen the situation before where people who do not agree with the consensus watchlist a policy- (or help-)page and derail any attempt to implement the consensus. The solution is simple, either they allow improvements that are in line with consensus (even though they personally disagree), or we
1088:
to a series of seemingly pointless edits. Or indeed if they have given a summary but it is singularly unhelpful. So if you need this page to lend weight to your friendly advice, it needs to say clearly what it means. Of course there are exceptional cases but they don't need top billing in the lead.
1068:
95% accurate based on which namespace you edit and how many bytes the edit is (e.g. add the editsummary "My 2ยข" on every edit over x bytes in the "talk" namespaces) but how would that benefit anyone? It would not. Note that the overwhelming majority of my edits are typofixes, YMMV depending on the
1714:
Well you are using the word "edit" twice in a row. And there is no consensus to strongly encourage edit summary use. The fact that the policy is worded badly is not steady ground to build on; au contraire. The policy should be improved so that it follows consensus, and so should this help page. I
1051:
The idea that editsummaries are somehow useful for vandalfighters is obviously false. Vandalfighters often see vandals using editsummaries that do no accurately reflect the content of the edit. Even good faith users often use editsummaries that do not accurately reflect the content of their edit.
1334:
The policy says edits "should" be explained (except in certain cases). It does not say they are required and, with the exception of a heading which has been changed, this page does not say otherwise. I'll post soon with a suggestion to move this discussion forward which, perhaps will reduce the
867:. The editsummary is very often meaningless when not looking at the actual edit in its context, and I can almost always judge the actual edit without ever looking at the editsummary. In rare cases where I can't judge the edit without an editsummary, that is where using an editsummary is useful.
1236:
This help page is used to fool people into believing there is consensus to require editsummaries, when in reality there is not. Clarifying communal norms means explaining that editsummaries are not required, but can be useful in some cases, it does not mean that we should misinform people.
1063:
they want others to use editsummaries, especially when you give some examples of editsummaries they used and ask how these were useful. I think it has a lot to do with a sunk cost fallacy, they spent all this time and effort and now it is hard to admit that a large portion of that was
1368:? I don't. I think this page should tell people what an edit summary is, how to post make one, how to write a decent one, and maybe even how to find other people's, but I don't think it's purpose is to tell editors they're wrong if they don't live up to someone else's standards.
1460:
the editor and (b) maybe there was a problem with that welcome. That gives them a clue as to whether it is likely to be useful to visit the page or, deeper still, look at the diffs. Without a summary, you remove that choice. That would be a discourtesy if it were a main-space
1279:
Turning to the substance of your post, we all agree that edit summaries aren't requited. That doesn't change the fact that policy says edit explanations "should" be provided, with certain exceptions that are noted herein. That seems like stating a best practice to me. And
381:
When something you add is edited very soon afterwards, it's easy to feel as though the next editor is 'marking your work' (sometimes without being at all qualified to), when really all they're doing is integrating it into the article or noticing a typo that you didn't.
1159:
True but this article will never reach that type of editor, so I suggest that we just set them aside. IMO, the purpose of this article is (a) to help new editors who want to understand how do it right or (b) those very few editors who challenge the basis for a
994:
be useful to provide an explanation. But when the consensus is 25 for and 1 against, it does not matter if an edit has been explained or not. And even when someone disagrees with an edit and it is 1 for and 1 against an explanation is not always required see
1857:
or whatever) which ensures that a minority viewpoint can't block the implementation of a wide consensus. So it is probably wise to add some stuff to make the page more in line with the consensus, and if they get reverted move to the less-preferable option.
1447:
In your first case, a change that I made to my sandbox, the edit summaries for are for my benefit, nobody else's. In the history, I can see what I was doing when, especially as I may have deleted the item since then. I fail to see its relevance to this
296:
Hello! I notice that when I add descriptions to articles using the
Android Knowledge app, no edit summary is possible. Anybody know who to talk to about getting this fixed? "Short description added" or something equivalent would be all that's needed.
1581:
to that list we still end of with a small minority of edits that are actually improved by an editsummary. And a large majority of edits where adding an editsummary is pointless. I can't think of any other valid reasons to use an editsummary, can you?
594:"Except for the automatic summary when creating a redirect, which usually says all that needs to be said, these are not a substitute for a proper edit summary โ you should always leave a meaningful summary, even in the above cases." โ Nope. See
742:
I wonder whether the problem is the complexity of the diff, or the size of the change. For example, if someone takes a neglected three-sentence stub and turns it into a 1,500-word-long article, how much of an explanation do you really need?
377:
It's convenient, but maybe a bad habit. So I wonder whether a very brief mention would be in order, maybe as part of the point about civility. (Something about awareness of how the summary might be read. I'm happy to come up with something.)
1596:
Perhaps convenience for other editors, or even your future self. I fairly often need to find a particular edit in a policy or guideline. An edit summary that exactly which key word is being added is rarely present but usually helpful.
518:, which also uses the word "should." Since EDITCON is the policy, I'm thinking you should focus your efforts to clarify the meaning of "should" there first. Meanwhile, what would you suggest as a better wording for the H:FIES heading? -
1465:
they are treating a main-space article like their personal sandbox. That is what I mean by rude and inconsiderate. Trivial changes don't fall into that category. To put it in perspective, I have very rarely given someone a
1433:? You are aware that those editsummaries are completely meaningless without looking at the diff right? Also, you are aware that your views are held by a minority right? Do you recognize that the consensus is against you?
1312:
ButwhatdoIknow, I don't take the position that we should have fewer and worse edit summaries. I take the position that the help pages should tell people how to do things, and that our documentation in general should be
904:
I've removed the line, since no version has been accepted. I'm not convinced that this line is necessary, especially in the lead, but here are the four recent versions, in case anyone wants to keep workshopping them:
989:
does not accurately reflect consensus. If someone makes an obvious improvement, what is the point of explaining it when no one even asked for an explanation? It is only when people disagree with an edit that it
1455:
an editor's talk page) the case you cite is one of a pair of changes which, taken together, identifies what is going on. So if someone looks at the history of your talk page, they can see that (a) I welcomed
1486:
If the change is a just trivial few letters tweak, a summary is redundant. But otherwise, otherwise. The onus should not be on me to figure out what lies behind the changes your are making. True, you don't
858:
is bizarre and there is no consensus for that. Who really cares if someone does not use editsummaries as long as they are making good edits. Editsummaries are, in the vast majority of edits, pointless.
937:
Do we need to invoke The Policyโข? Also, that policy says "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)", and leaving off the exception feels like a POVish oversimplification.
1139:
591:"Always provide an edit summary" โ not "always". Perhaps "almost always in the mainspace", but the community doesn't care whether you use edit summaries when editing your sandbox or on talk pages.
277:
Is there any option to store a default summary (changed from the user's end)? For example, this week I was working only on the infobox, so the edit summary would be 'Infobox corrected/updated. -
1683:
Okay, I think we all agree on what the policy says (as opposed to what we think it should say). The question is how to present that in the lede. Here is a proposal for what to say there -
605:, you must at least put a link to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page." โ Best practice. Very extremely strongly preferred practice. But also not a fatal mistake.
1316:
That means, for example, that if edit summaries are encouraged but not required, then this page should not tell editors (as it did, until a few days ago) to "Always use edit summaries".
588:
Yes, I think that the must/should confusion is part of the problem, but I also think this help page is out of step with both the policy and with the community's practice. For example:
1023:
Also, I have noticed a gap between "explained" and "explained through the exact method of adding an edit summary", and it's primarily the latter that is relevant for this Help: page.
457:
And to be fair, it was very misleading. I have tried to improve the wording to accurately reflect the consensus that editsummaries are not required, but considered "best practice".
1508:
You are trying to convey meta-information not suitable to put on the page itself, and this meta-information is useful for others who try to understand the context of the edit (
713:
It may not be mandatory but if someone makes a big bunch of changes without any explanation, then I for one would have no guilt about reverting on sight (with the edit summary
429:
1505:
Thank you, that is easier for me to understand. So, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), the only times it is useful to use editsummaries is when:
610:
Overall, this feels like a page explaining what one person/group believes is the ideal. It doesn't feel like a help page. It might be helpful to compare this page to
1563:. It worked.). So its converse is a summary that says in effect "nothing to see here, have you no work to do?". This is what I mean by courtesy to fellow editors.
1872:
Or perhaps the correct approach in this case is to make no edits, and have the lead say nothing about the should/must/always/required-ness of edit summaries.
370:, or that I'm italicising some titles. But it can easily be read instead as an imperative addressed to a previous editor, so it comes across as "Don't say
717:). Choosing to make such an edit without explanation is contemptuous of fellow editors and deserves a response in kind. So yes, for minor changes it is a
454:
The wording on this page led people to believe that editsummaries are required, and worse still, that they could revert any edit without an editsummary.
1745:
What the helppage should do is inform people that the consensus is that editsummaries are not required. It can then go on to say that editsummaries
796:
This to me does not adequately reflect the sense of "you had better have a very convincing excuse for consistently failing do so", so I ventured
87:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
1925:
132:
1298:
The fact that bad wording on the
Consensus policy is misleading is a problem that should be fixed, not a reason to not improve this helppage.
1930:
1763:
I suggest you are over-interpreting the consensus. "Not required" does not mean "discouraged", which is how you appear to be positioning it.
223:
212:
826:
for their pains). The purpose of the protocol is have a basis to tell serial abusers in words of one syllable to shape up or ship out. --
1559:
Another criterion is when you want peripatetic page watchers to recognise that these are changes that could use a second opinion (as in
1252:
1069:
kinda stuff you do here. For example, if you are an admin it is more important that you are able to explain your edits upon request per
918:
It is a best practice to provide an explanation for all edits, or at least all edits that aren't completely and easily self-explanatory.
822:: nobody is going to get hauled up before ANI over the occasional oversight or trivial omission (not unless the complainant wants to be
1820:
I think I'd start with "encouraged" rather than "strongly encouraged". I'm also not sure that this needs to be mentioned in the lead.
1184:
I disagree with both of your comments on the main purpose of this page. This is in the Help: namespace. It's supposed to tell people
319:
on an article page, the summary is left blank. I try to remember to add it by editing the introduction instead, but frequently forget.
602:
420:
402:
188:
622:
142:
1138:
The problem is not a lack of edit summaries, it's edit summaries that are completely unrelated to what was actually done, such as
315:
I don't, but I too wish it did. If I add a description via the
Suggested Edits feature a default summary gets added, but if I use
1214:(bold added), help pages "are intended to supplement or clarify Knowledge guidelines, policies, or other Knowledge processes and
230:
226:
1920:
951:
595:
1193:
940:
This was objected to on the grounds that it provides (though in different words) approximately the same exception that is in
611:
1392:
is to tell rude and inconsiderate editors that they are being rude and inconsiderate. This help page (IMO) should explain
1259:
35:
1515:
You are using it as a bookmark/reminder for yourself or others (e.g. like I sometimes do when editing my javascripts) (
260:
92:
488:(unless the reason for them is obvious)โeither by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
208:
387:
324:
1527:
Do you agree that editsummaries that fall outside of the categories I described above are not useful to anyone?
239:
1704:
1656:
1353:
to give as "the long answer" to editors who seem to believe that the the edit summary box doesn't apply to them
1340:
1289:
1227:
1127:
1110:
854:
and what I would describe of good-faith users who do not see the point of editsummaries (like myself), need to
766:
572:
523:
1767:
1469:
1386:
1361:
1164:
1579:
when you want peripatetic page watchers to recognise that these are changes that could use a second opinion
1877:
1825:
1734:
1602:
1373:
1321:
1267:
1201:
1091:
If you care enough about a page on your watchlist, you will check all edits to it, summary or no summary.
1028:
968:
748:
664:
650:
282:
88:
83:
60:
1421:
you believe those things, which does not help me understand your POV. Can you explain why you think that
1475:, it really has to be egregious behaviour. But tbh, I am more likely to revert the lot with the summary
999:. Another exception is when things have already been explained, but not to everyone's satisfaction. See
41:
618:
1891:
1863:
1839:
1800:
1754:
1720:
1620:
1587:
1532:
1438:
1303:
1281:
1242:
1211:
1078:
1011:
895:
874:
694:
500:
383:
341:
320:
302:
1700:
1652:
1483:
and make at least some effort to understand the intent of the edits before giving up in irritation.
1336:
1285:
1223:
1150:
1123:
1106:
1070:
941:
910:
861:
Just looking at some of your editsummaries, I sometimes don't even know what you mean, for example
823:
786:
762:
568:
551:
519:
480:
471:
306:
191:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
514:
heading is misleading, but the text of that section seems to be a fairly accurate description of
424:
245:
1873:
1821:
1730:
1598:
1369:
1317:
1263:
1197:
1024:
982:
964:
744:
660:
646:
515:
374:, you idiot!" or "For crying out loud, won't you ever learn that book titles are italicised?"
278:
176:
1522:
You are RFA-ing and worried that people will call you out if the percentage is less than 100.
1774:
at all, leave it to the bodyย โ actually works rather well IMO. Do we need to change it?) --
241:
202:
398:
1887:
1859:
1835:
1796:
1750:
1716:
1616:
1583:
1528:
1434:
1299:
1238:
1074:
1008:
891:
870:
690:
582:
560:
534:
496:
337:
312:
298:
1577:
I was trying to make a list of all valid reasons to use an edit summary. Even if we add
659:
I've made a few changes. Perhaps that will help. We can try more later if we need to.
1834:
If we need to add anything, it is that there is no consensus to require editsummaries.
1143:
1105:"you will check all edits to it, summary or no summary" You give me too much credit. -
1053:
1000:
544:
75:
54:
1914:
1854:
1779:
1568:
1496:
1480:
1401:
1175:
1119:"Of course there are exceptional cases but they don't need top billing in the lead."
1096:
996:
831:
813:
It seems to me that we are pussy-footing around here, we either mean it or we don't.
730:
440:
100:
1850:
1356:
1352:
1262:โ namely, edit summaries aren't required (also, reviewers shouldn't trust them).
927:
922:
917:
908:
1258:
We should also write this page so that it stays consistent with the information
739:
In such cases, do you look at the diff and attempt to figure out what happened?
184:
1004:
816:
1276:
And you take the position that we should have fewer and worse edit summaries?
358:
I've caught myself writing summaries in the form of infinitival clauses like
243:
923:
Consequently, editors are expected to summarise their edits proportionately.
801:
Consequently, editors are expected to summarise their edits proportionately.
171:
96:
1895:
1881:
1867:
1843:
1829:
1804:
1783:
1758:
1738:
1724:
1708:
1660:
1624:
1606:
1591:
1572:
1536:
1500:
1442:
1405:
1377:
1344:
1325:
1307:
1293:
1271:
1260:
Knowledge:Perennial proposals#Automatically prompt for missing edit summary
1246:
1231:
1205:
1179:
1154:
1131:
1114:
1100:
1082:
1067:
It is easy to write a (java)script that can add a editsummary that is : -->
1032:
1015:
972:
899:
878:
842:
you had better have a very convincing excuse for consistently failing do so
835:
770:
752:
734:
698:
668:
654:
576:
555:
527:
504:
444:
391:
345:
328:
286:
1491:
to leave a summary but it is a courtesy to your fellow editors if you do.
1775:
1564:
1492:
1429:
if you didn't type those 4 mysterious letters in the editsummary box? Or
1412:
1397:
1171:
1092:
885:
827:
726:
435:
366:. I mean simply that I've reworded an ambiguous sentence so it can't say
334:
1749:
sometimes be useful if they fall in the 3 categories I mentioned above.
1059:
It is interesting to see that often people find it difficult to explain
1020:
That sounds like a very practical understanding of edit summaries to me.
629:
is not banned from guidelines, so we could add something like "The word
409:
1791:
no, I do not think it is discouraged. I just pointed out that there is
95:
and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
1715:
understand that that sucks for those who disagree with the consensus.
757:
Seems pretty clear to me that JMF is talking about complexity ("a big
715:
reverted, too many unexplained changes, try again with an edit summary
1690:
539:
The word "should" is weaker than "must" but stronger than "may". See
511:
1544:
yes, indeed failure to do so in this case is begging to be hit with
1056:
vandalfighters never even see the edits of longterm goodfaith users.
638:
564:
540:
430:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 ยงย Knowledge:โ
427:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
1651:
Both are problems. The first is laziness. The second is lying. -
1255:, where ButwhatdoIknow argued for more and better edit summaries.
1170:
and so need pointing at an article that gives the long answer. ]
563:' concern, as I understand it, is that some editors - unaware of
1451:
In your second example (which again is not in main space, it is
1192:
do it. It sounds like you'd like to write a persuasive page at
333:
Thanks for your reply. Oh, I think a request can be made here
1693:
and edit edit summaries are one way of providing explanations.
928:
It is a best practice to provide an explanation for all edits.
791:
It is a best practice to provide an explanation for all edits.
614:
and see how much duplicates TPG or could be merged over there.
246:
196:
158:
17:
292:
Add description on
Knowledge App doesn't allow edit summaries
1425:
editsummary was useful to anyone, and why you would've been
963:
Overall, I think that omitting this sentence might be best.
1789:"discouraged", which is how you appear to be positioning it
1284:
says informing editors of "common norms" is appropriate. -
1218:." That seems pretty close to "convince people that they
1251:
There have been attempts to do this elsewhere, e.g., at
1612:
1560:
1516:
1509:
1430:
1422:
865:
862:
415:
180:
105:
1417:
You keep making rather bold claims without explaining
625:. There's already a statement in there that the word
1357:
those very few editors who challenge the basis for a
847:
The consensus is that editsummaries are not required.
621:
problem, it's possible that we could address that in
947:
This seems unclear (what counts as "proportionate"?)
423:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
1793:
no consensus to strongly encourage edit summary use
585:
left a note for me about this discussion (thanks!).
1479:and I am far from unusual in doing that. But I do
1396:anyone might consider their behaviour that way.
1335:chances that it is misused to "fool" people. -
1188:to do things, not to convince people that they
954:is a best practice that involves deliberately
645:use the words in policy and guideline pages".
254:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1809:I think that both of these things are true:
1729:I think the duplicate word is just a typo.
981:makes much sense. Also I think the part of
814:
806:especially when we have a section entitled
104:
623:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines#ยญContent
162:
49:
34:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1849:need a wider discussion (something like
934:I think the objections to overcome are:
913:, in general, edits should be explained.
474:, in general, edits should be explained.
169:Text and/or other creative content from
1037:I also think that a lot of people read
51:
1792:
1788:
1578:
1476:
1426:
1042:
1038:
986:
978:
855:
851:
841:
800:
790:
714:
478:
469:
461:
264:when more than 4 sections are present.
111:and a volunteer will visit you there.
81:This page is within the scope of the
7:
1886:Hmm, maybe, gotta think about that.
721:but for significant changes it is a
291:
336:. I'll have to try that. Cheers!
40:It is of interest to the following
14:
1699:No doubt this can be improved. -
1541:"including, but not limited to:"
1216:practices that are communal norms
1194:WP:Always use good edit summaries
781:So what exactly is the consensus?
258:may be automatically archived by
23:
21:
1812:Edit summaries are not required.
950:This is not the best practice.
408:
201:
74:
53:
22:
952:Knowledge:Revert, block, ignore
596:Knowledge:Revert, block, ignore
433:until a consensus is reached.
120:Template:Knowledge Help Project
1896:22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1882:22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1868:20:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1844:20:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1830:19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1815:Edit summaries are encouraged.
1805:20:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1784:18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1759:16:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1739:18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1725:16:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1709:16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1679:What to say about FIES in lede
1661:16:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1625:21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1607:21:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1592:20:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1573:18:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1537:15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1501:15:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1443:14:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1406:10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1378:01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1351:Do you think that sounds like
1345:15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1326:22:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1308:16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1294:15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1272:01:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1247:01:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1232:00:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1206:20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1180:15:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1155:10:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1132:16:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1115:16:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1101:07:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1083:00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1043:All edits should be explained
1033:23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
1016:23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
973:23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
900:22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
879:22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
836:22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
771:16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
753:19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
735:19:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
699:21:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
669:19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
655:17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
641:for an explanation of how you
612:Knowledge:Talk page guidelines
577:04:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
556:21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
528:16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
505:06:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
462:Always provide an edit summary
450:Editsummaries are not required
107:ask for help on your talk page
1:
1926:High-importance Help articles
1039:All edits should be explained
987:All edits should be explained
850:The idea that, what you call
603:copying text within Knowledge
567:- read "should" as "must." -
485:all edits should be explained
307:04:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
287:17:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1931:Knowledge Help Project pages
137:This page has been rated as
977:I don't think referring to
1947:
810:, but that got reverted.
633:does not mean the same as
445:13:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
392:17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
143:project's importance scale
958:providing an explanation.
808:Edits should be explained
346:04:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
329:02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
175:was copied or moved into
136:
91:, where you can join the
69:
48:
890:sorry I forgot to ping.
421:redirects for discussion
403:Redirects for discussion
1691:are strongly encouraged
1477:rv unexplained deletion
493:are rather misleading.
1921:NA-Class Help articles
1689:Explanations of edits
1427:rude and inconsiderate
1003:and the article about
815:
261:Lowercase sigmabot III
172:Meta:Help:Edit summary
117:Knowledge:Help Project
84:Knowledge Help Project
1052:Thanks to stuff like
844:is not the consensus.
466:And these sentences:
364:Put titles in italics
856:shape up or ship out
789:summarises it thus:
460:The section header:
354:Inadvertent scolding
183:. The former page's
942:Knowledge:Consensus
725:. IMO of course. --
425:redirect guidelines
419:has been listed at
189:provide attribution
486:
36:content assessment
1355:or to argue with
1253:WT:CONS last year
1222:do" something. -
909:According to the
510:I agree that the
484:
479:According to the
470:According to the
268:
267:
195:
194:
177:Help:Edit summary
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
1938:
1772:
1766:
1474:
1468:
1416:
1391:
1385:
1367:
1366:
1360:
1354:
1169:
1163:
1146:
929:
924:
919:
914:
911:consensus policy
889:
821:
761:of changes"). -
547:
538:
481:consensus policy
472:consensus policy
443:
438:
418:
412:
263:
247:
205:
197:
174:
166:
165:
159:
125:
124:
121:
118:
115:
110:
89:the project page
78:
71:
70:
65:
57:
50:
27:
26:
25:
18:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1911:
1910:
1770:
1764:
1681:
1472:
1466:
1410:
1389:
1383:
1364:
1358:
1167:
1161:
1144:
883:
783:
545:
532:
452:
439:
434:
414:
406:
384:Musiconeologist
356:
321:Musiconeologist
317:Add description
294:
275:
273:Default Summery
259:
248:
242:
217:
170:
163:
139:High-importance
122:
119:
116:
113:
112:
64:Highโimportance
63:
12:
11:
5:
1944:
1942:
1934:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1913:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1846:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1813:
1807:
1768:Uw-editsummary
1743:
1742:
1741:
1701:Butwhatdoiknow
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1680:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1653:Butwhatdoiknow
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1520:
1513:
1484:
1470:uw-editsummary
1462:
1449:
1387:uw-editsummary
1362:uw-editsummary
1349:
1348:
1347:
1337:Butwhatdoiknow
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1314:
1310:
1286:Butwhatdoiknow
1277:
1256:
1224:Butwhatdoiknow
1165:uw-editsummary
1136:
1135:
1134:
1124:Butwhatdoiknow
1117:
1107:Butwhatdoiknow
1089:
1065:
1057:
1049:
1021:
961:
960:
959:
948:
945:
938:
932:
931:
930:
925:
920:
915:
881:
868:
859:
852:serial abusers
848:
845:
824:WP:BOOMERANGed
804:
803:
794:
793:
787:Butwhatdoiknow
782:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
763:Butwhatdoiknow
740:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
615:
608:
607:
606:
599:
592:
586:
569:Butwhatdoiknow
530:
520:Butwhatdoiknow
489:
451:
448:
405:
395:
360:Avoid saying x
355:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
293:
290:
274:
271:
266:
265:
253:
250:
249:
244:
240:
238:
235:
234:
219:
218:
206:
200:
193:
192:
187:now serves to
167:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
135:
129:
128:
126:
114:Knowledge Help
101:Help Directory
79:
67:
66:
61:Knowledge Help
58:
46:
45:
39:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1943:
1932:
1929:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1919:
1918:
1916:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1811:
1810:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1769:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1678:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1611:Thank you, I
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1506:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1471:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1388:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1363:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:WP:HOWTOPAGES
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1166:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
988:
984:
980:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
957:
953:
949:
946:
943:
939:
936:
935:
933:
926:
921:
916:
912:
907:
906:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
887:
882:
880:
876:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
853:
849:
846:
843:
840:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
825:
820:
819:non curat lex
818:
811:
809:
802:
799:
798:
797:
792:
788:
785:
784:
780:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
741:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
609:
604:
600:
597:
593:
590:
589:
587:
584:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
542:
536:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
490:
487:
482:
476:
475:
473:
467:
464:
463:
458:
455:
449:
447:
446:
442:
437:
432:
431:
426:
422:
417:
413:The redirect
411:
404:
400:
396:
394:
393:
389:
385:
379:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
353:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
289:
288:
284:
280:
272:
270:
262:
257:
252:
251:
237:
236:
233:
232:
228:
225:
221:
220:
216:
214:
210:
204:
199:
198:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
168:
161:
160:
144:
140:
134:
131:
130:
127:
123:Help articles
109:
108:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
62:
59:
56:
52:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
20:
19:
16:
1874:WhatamIdoing
1822:WhatamIdoing
1746:
1731:WhatamIdoing
1698:
1682:
1599:WhatamIdoing
1545:
1488:
1457:
1452:
1418:
1393:
1382:Not really,
1370:WhatamIdoing
1318:WhatamIdoing
1264:WhatamIdoing
1219:
1215:
1198:WhatamIdoing
1189:
1185:
1120:
1071:WP:ADMINACCT
1060:
1044:
1025:WhatamIdoing
991:
965:WhatamIdoing
955:
812:
807:
805:
795:
758:
745:WhatamIdoing
722:
718:
661:WhatamIdoing
647:WhatamIdoing
642:
634:
630:
626:
601:"If you are
495:
492:
477:
468:
465:
459:
456:
453:
428:
407:
401:" listed at
380:
376:
371:
367:
363:
359:
357:
316:
295:
279:IJohnKennady
276:
269:
255:
222:
207:
138:
106:
82:
42:WikiProjects
31:
15:
1548:UW template
979:The Policyโข
689:Thank you!
617:As for the
416:Knowledge:โ
399:Knowledge:โ
313:@Doctormatt
1915:Categories
1888:Polygnotus
1860:Polygnotus
1836:Polygnotus
1797:Polygnotus
1751:Polygnotus
1717:Polygnotus
1617:Polygnotus
1613:added that
1584:Polygnotus
1529:Polygnotus
1435:Polygnotus
1300:Polygnotus
1282:HOWTOPAGES
1239:Polygnotus
1196:instead.
1075:Polygnotus
1064:pointless.
1045:in advance
1009:Polygnotus
1005:Sealioning
985:that says
983:WP:EDITCON
892:Polygnotus
871:Polygnotus
817:De minimis
691:Polygnotus
583:Polygnotus
561:Polygnotus
535:Polygnotus
516:WP:EDITCON
497:Polygnotus
338:DoctorMatt
299:DoctorMatt
93:discussion
1561:this case
1313:accurate.
1140:these two
619:WP:SHOULD
181:this edit
97:Help Menu
32:help page
1461:article.
1431:this one
1121:Support.
639:rfc:2119
565:rfc:2119
541:rfc:2119
256:365 days
209:Archives
1615:to #2.
1517:example
1510:example
1448:debate.
1054:WP:ORES
1001:WP:IDHT
185:history
141:on the
1855:WP:RFC
1776:๐๐๐ฝ
1565:๐๐๐ฝ
1493:๐๐๐ฝ
1481:WP:AGF
1398:๐๐๐ฝ
1220:should
1190:should
1172:๐๐๐ฝ
1147:rose64
1093:๐๐๐ฝ
997:WP:RBI
828:๐๐๐ฝ
727:๐๐๐ฝ
719:should
643:should
637:; see
631:should
548:rose64
512:H:FIES
38:scale.
1851:WP:3O
1747:could
1546:trout
992:could
759:bunch
224:Index
213:index
179:with
103:. Or
30:This
1892:talk
1878:talk
1864:talk
1840:talk
1826:talk
1801:talk
1780:talk
1755:talk
1735:talk
1721:talk
1705:talk
1657:talk
1621:talk
1603:talk
1588:talk
1569:talk
1533:talk
1497:talk
1489:have
1453:your
1439:talk
1423:this
1402:talk
1374:talk
1341:talk
1322:talk
1304:talk
1290:talk
1268:talk
1243:talk
1228:talk
1210:Per
1202:talk
1176:talk
1151:talk
1149:๐น (
1142:. --
1128:talk
1111:talk
1097:talk
1079:talk
1029:talk
1012:talk
969:talk
896:talk
875:talk
864:and
832:talk
767:talk
749:talk
731:talk
723:must
695:talk
665:talk
651:talk
635:must
627:must
573:talk
552:talk
550:๐น (
543:. --
524:talk
501:talk
388:talk
342:talk
325:talk
303:talk
283:talk
133:High
1853:or
1551:yes
1458:you
1419:why
1413:JMF
1394:why
1186:how
1145:Red
1061:why
1041:as
956:not
886:JMF
546:Red
436:Jay
362:or
99:or
1917::
1894:)
1880:)
1866:)
1842:)
1828:)
1803:)
1795:.
1782:)
1771:}}
1765:{{
1757:)
1737:)
1723:)
1707:)
1659:)
1623:)
1605:)
1590:)
1571:)
1554:no
1535:)
1499:)
1473:}}
1467:{{
1441:)
1404:)
1390:}}
1384:{{
1376:)
1365:}}
1359:{{
1343:)
1324:)
1306:)
1292:)
1270:)
1245:)
1230:)
1204:)
1178:)
1168:}}
1162:{{
1153:)
1130:)
1113:)
1099:)
1081:)
1073:.
1031:)
1014:)
1007:.
971:)
898:)
877:)
834:)
769:)
751:)
733:)
697:)
667:)
653:)
575:)
554:)
526:)
503:)
483:,
441:๐ฌ
390:)
344:)
327:)
305:)
285:)
229:,
1890:(
1876:(
1862:(
1838:(
1824:(
1799:(
1778:(
1753:(
1733:(
1719:(
1703:(
1655:(
1619:(
1601:(
1586:(
1567:(
1531:(
1519:)
1512:)
1495:(
1437:(
1415::
1411:@
1400:(
1372:(
1339:(
1320:(
1302:(
1288:(
1266:(
1241:(
1226:(
1200:(
1174:(
1126:(
1109:(
1095:(
1077:(
1027:(
967:(
944:.
894:(
888::
884:@
873:(
830:(
765:(
747:(
729:(
693:(
663:(
649:(
598:.
581:@
571:(
537::
533:@
522:(
499:(
397:"
386:(
372:x
368:x
340:(
323:(
301:(
281:(
231:2
227:1
215:)
211:(
145:.
44::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
