1682:. For the most part, policies are non-negotiable, while guidelines are more suggestions or rules of thumb with considerable weight behind them. While guidelines are more open to interpretation, they represent the consensus of years of work by thousands of editors. You can never go wrong obeying policy and rarely go wrong obeying guidelines. Until you find the information in this essay is missing important nuances, you're better off treating them as interchangeable. There's also essays, like this one, which are the distilled wisdom of single editors to be savoured like beautiful pearls of, um, wisdom. But while they do represent the valuable experience of single editors, they are not policy, should not be cited and can not be used to justify edits, page deletions or any other contested changes. They do provide nuance to wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a sense of the different
1078:. Type in the qualifier, then find the red "Create this page" text. Alternatively, if you are sure you will be adding the link to another page, create the wikilink there, and edit the redlink. Click, and start editing. If a box shows up to say you are re-creating a deleted page, perhaps notify the deleting admin and leave a note on the talk page that you are aware of the re-creation, but now it passes because of your abysmally low-quality (but still reliable!) source. Be sure to include your reference. Sometimes the page is protected against re-creation due to repeated deletions (referred to as 'salting the earth'). Check out your favourite low-notability pornstar, chances are it's happened at least once. You'll have to get an admin to unprotect it - show them the reference, or draft the article on a
158:
enforcing those guidelines without abusing them. So while it's not a big deal to be an admin, adminship is a form of recognition from the community that the editor in question is trusted, respected and knowledgeable. In other words, though they're not always right, they usually are just because they know what they're doing. If you're going to disagree with one, I recommend a) being polite b) asking questions rather than demanding answers and c) brushing up on the relevant policies. You'll probably learn something you didn't know. I usually do.
1017:
advice on talk pages, create standard boxes containing links to articles and various other things. Most can be modified to a certain extent, generally through the use of the pipe. Templates are always enclosed in two curly brackets like so: {{}}, and can be searched for using
Template:Templatename in the search box. To link to a template without placing the template on the page itself, use the characters tl| within the template brackets. {{tl|Transformers}} produces
653:, you should go away. Seriously. For all that wikipedia is a public, open encyclopedia, it is also a serious one. If Brittanica wouldn't be interested in your theory about the helical nature of time, the link between pyramids and alien landing pads, and the REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW the X link is being suppressed, chances are we would only want an article on it to either make fun of it, or use it as an example on how not to do something.
1164:- a third opinion. Used when you and only one other editor both think that "your" version is better or better represents the issue. Only used when it is a deadlock of two contributors, and is a quasi-official way to settle. As it says on WP:3O (with an "o", not a zero), this requires civility and good faith on both sides. Read the instructions very carefully, as not following them could result in the request being deleted without being answered.
1730:. There are no substantive changes to what is said, but it may be presented significantly differently. Adjusting content is an extremely valuable part of wikipedia, as it makes the information more credible and harmonizes pages so they are easier for readers to navigate. Adding content is also very valuable, but takes a bit more experience and care to do well. Uncontroversial content can be added without
350:. How much could you trust the source? Knowledge (XXG)'s rules and policies exist in an effort to bring articles up to, and keep them at, a specific standard. It's generally not an onerous standard, it still allows for lots of sources to be cited and pages to be created, and it means you're slightly more likely to find the information accurate and trustworthy.
458:
2009:
that is cobbled together by many, many people, with a wide variety of reasons for contributing to the project. Including greed, self-importance, grinding axes, some sort of bizarre power fetishism and occasionally, the pursuit of the noble ideal of truth (but I already mentioned self-importance, didn't I?) So don't be surprised if you get
936:
pluralize with a pipe versus an out-of-bracket 's'. There's a difference, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a liar. His Grace, Emperor of Free
Knowledge and Iron-Fisted Dictator of Knowledge (XXG) (may he reign forever) Jimbo Wales Himself has spoken to me on this matter, and assured me I am right. Unfortunately it was at a
1635:
flaw in a page it's polite to try to correct it, but if you lack the time, knowledge or inclination, you aren't obligated to. This is another reason to be polite - if for some reason you are not allowed to edit a page, people will be more inclined to help you out if you're considerate, honest, open and do what you can to assist others.
31:
413:. This means all of your contributions are tracked and registered to only one account. That means that you can find out how many edits you've made, people can always find you, you can check your watchlist, and eventually your name and reputation will be recognized and appreciated by other regular contributors. Attempts to
512:), most people will understand what you've done but the edit summary makes life a bit easier. The edit summary also shows up when users check their watchlist and can be useful when they're deciding whether to look into the changes or not. One more caveat - start with easy pages that aren't controversial or
1194:(except for the very last step, below) have been exhausted. Won't even talk to you unless you've been through a RFC and RFM and both have failed to achieve resolution. The (second) highest levels of policy are determined here. Permablocks, reprimands, branding, beating, flaying and being labelled a
1686:
perspectives on what wikipedia is all about. Oh, and true wikipedians are deletionists. Everyone else is wrong. And no, I'm not going to conveniently link the term for you, suffer in your ignorance! Jimbo is a deletionist. He told me, in a private conversation. Click on the little up arrow next
1634:
One final point - no-one is anyone else's bitch. You are not obligated to edit because someone else wants you to. We're all volunteers, and over the long-term we either do it for fun, or profit. The former remain and become dedicated contributors. The latter often get blocked. If you point out a
1539:
is to find some sources that justify passing WP:N. A single link to a newspaper story on the entity may be sufficient (particularly if it is long, in-depth, in a major national or international newspaper, and ideally there are at least two of them) and spares much time wasting. Could even result in
1198:
can all result. Quite time consuming, requires evidence, not opinions, and can result in the permanent loss of editing privileges. Don't fuck with arbitration unless you are serious. If you've reached an arbitration hearing, you shouldn't be reading this 'cause you're in far deeper than this essay
716:
Welcome new users. If a person contributes to a page and their talk page wikilink is red, edit the page to add the following text {{subst:WelcomeMenu}} (note that this template is case-sensitive). It produces a standard message pointing important general policies and useful links, and automatically
2008:
Knowledge (XXG) can be great. But it can also be ugly, frustrating, elitist, populist, and a host of other nasty things. Unconsciously, I've tried to make this about what wikipedia (and myself as an editor) should aspire to be. The reality is wikipedia is 3 million+ pages of pretty raw information
971:
Try to refer to policy often on talk pages and edit summaries, using wikilinks. Learn the WP: short-forms, but make sure it's the right one. It'll force you to become familiar with policy, shows you are dedicated to the spirit of the project, and helps newer users find the relevant policies. Even
952:
is a program designed to help newbies get up to speed. There's a list of dedicated contributors, both administrators and plain old editors, who like helping new people so much, they've decided to make it official. Personally, I do it out of an inflated sense of self-importance. Though you can ask
751:
Always add your comment to the bottom of the discussion, it makes the page easier to read. Always space your comments using colons to indent - each colon is worth about five spaces, and helps separate your comment from other people's. When the indent gets pretty far to the right, start at the left
532:
as examples) usually get lots of traffic, lots of vandalism and lots of attention from dedicated, long-term contributors. It's challenging to edit these pages well, so perhaps choose an easier one to start with. Featured articles are assumed to be of such a high standard that inexperienced editors
353:
Policies let you know what you can say, who you can trust, what you can include, and what to do if you disagree with information you find. Citing sources isn't particularly hard, often a simple google search will be very helpful. Even better, there are a variety of tools that assist you in editing
182:
Exactly! With enough experience, anyone can be a good wikipedia editor, but it does take time. Two weeks is a bit of a stretch, but who knows? You might be the first. I know a user who went from editor to admin in less than three months. I bet you can do better! Initially, attitude counts more
443:
Build a good reputation. It's an intangible quality, but it's your most valuable currency here. When the rubber hits the road and things get uncomfortable, a good reputation will get you help, sympathy and probation when you goof up, while a poor reputation can get you booted in the blink of an eye
536:
Read!! This one gets two exclamation points, 'cause it's arguably more important than editing. First, re-read what you just edited. Did you make any mistakes in spelling, grammar or punctuation? Did you make a horrific mistake that nuked the page, erased an image or messed up the formatting?
173:
your changes and generally make your life difficult. They're unlikely to do these things because they're pissed off at you personally, but you never know. And having an admin charitably disposed to your questions or ideas is always helpful. And chances are they're pissed at you because you did
1016:
and they do a variety of things. Mostly they're a quick way of adding large amounts of standardized texts to pages. It's a form of mechanization, but fortunately is not driving us all out of business. Templates are used to point out basic errors or flaws in pages, leave comments, warnings and
157:
Now an important qualification - though admins are indeed still subject to all the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, just like everyone else, they got to be admins by being very good at following, interpreting and knowing those policies and guidelines. They stay admins by being very good at
70:
Hi there! You're new to wikipedia I assume, or why are you reading this? Welcome to wikipedia! Knowledge (XXG) is a very large, very interesting, sometimes fun and sometimes confusing place. We're all working together to try to improve pages, fight vandals, add information and generally make
1381:
is the sum of all the edits a person has made to wikipedia. It's a somewhat useful rule-of-thumb for another editor's experience. If it's in the thousands, they probably know what they're doing. If it's in the tens of thousands, I'd be very surprised if they didn't. There's a quasi-official
1335:
page and report in the appropriate place. After my last warning, I usually copy the username to the clipboard, go to AIV, past the name at the bottom, copy the template above it, put the name and other relevant info into the template, copy it to a clipboard, then paste the whole shebang to the
935:
Congratulations! What should you do next? I'd say the first is, decide if you find wikipedia tedious, or addictive! If you like adding content, but not that much, perhaps just edit anonymously or add bits of content and leave the thankless grunt work to poor suckers like me who know when to
484:, "redlinked users" (whose user names and talk pages are red, rather than blue; this means the pages are empty and have no content) and blue users edit the pages. Depending on the page, you may very quickly get an idea of who the regular contributors are, and what kind of changes to watch for.
1754:
as you add content, rather than putting a general reference at the bottom of the page. As the page gets longer, it's harder to tell what information is justified and what is not, so always having a footnote attached to a sentence is a big help. Click on the little up arrow to go back to the
1264:
Long talk pages are difficult to navigate and not particularly helpful, but the discussion is often very useful. It's saved anyway, in the history (nothing on wikipedia is ever erased, not even deleted pages). But it's nice not to have to troll through revisions. Instead of erasing, we
1478:
is the longest and most formal process, in which there is a formal discussion of the article and endorsements for different actions - Keep (leave alone), Delete (duh), Merge (move content to other article). Everyone gets one endorsement in the form of a bullet, bold word and rationale:
465:
Although even the most experienced admins and sysops here have made mistakes as newbies, what really counts is that they have learned from them, taken the advice of others, and have a track record showing improvement and trustworthiness. Actions repeated make character. Develop a good
1394:, it's a very rough measure, and in no way indicates the quality of the quantity. Some people spam a lot, some just engage on talk pages, some just do redirect corrections, none of which takes any appreciable understanding of wikipedia overall. But still, it's there and it's used.
1003:(standardized messages) on the main or talk page, they may point out issues of the page itself. Try to address them. If you are successful, on the relevant talk page, question if the issue has been adequately addressed and if other editors agree the tag is no longer needed.
1572:
During deletion discussions, people may use the term !vote. Apparently the ! is a modifier in math or formal logic or some such, and it's used here to indicate that while the discussion is not a simple vote, sometimes you have nothing to say. !vote means, informally,
940:
meeting, and well, we are not permitted to discuss the contents of said meetings with you 'normals' (as we call you). Ask me about how we keep the electric car down! Actually, it's better if you don't. The
Servers Have Ears. Soylent Green is definitely NOT people.
1489:
Don't play with the formatting, and don't just vote - provide a reasoning related to policy, read the reasoning of others. Theoretically it's not a vote, in my experience it's somewhere between a vote and a discussion with more weight going to experienced contributors
1764:
Again, policies and guidelines are treated as indistinguishable in this essay. You should do the same, until you can defeat me in a bitterly-contested deletion discussion without resorting to name-calling. Oh, and click on the little up-arrow to go back to the main
1295:
Check through the page history - reverting the last instance of vandalism is good, but isn't as useful if the vandal added "cock" to the page in ten different edits. Unless it's an article about chickens. Or penises. In which case, maybe it's not vandalism. See
1540:
a speedy close if unequivocally convincing of notability, in which case you should ask yourself why you didn't put it in the article in the first place. If you nominated the page for deletion or previously argued for deletion, feel free to change your opinion by
1256:
So you've just spend days discussing a page, and now you're exhausted. You've got a version you're happy with, but oh no! The talk page is a 260K monster! You may think, I'll just erase it, to make things simpler. Go ahead, see what happens. Say "hi" to
1276:. Your talk page is your "warts and all" record of you as an editor. Be proud of your blocks, they're evidence of your learning. Unless you keep accumulating them. In which case, you're an idiot. I'm an idiot, I've got three. Do as I say, not as I do.
334:), but they don't limit us too much. Think of it this way - the policies limit what you can add to the page, but they also limit what people you disagree with can add also. Imagine a wikipedia where a specific point of view was assumed and enforced, by
1501:- clearly failing notability is usually an uncontroversial reason to delete (for regular contributors; for the person who created the page, you might see some kicking and screaming). Also note the numerous sub-pages for notability of specific entities;
444:
for lesser infractions. Your reputation consists of: knowledge of policies, experience, ability to provide
Solomonic solutions to tough problems, collaborative spirit, civility and friendliness, helping those who hold opposing opinions, staying out of
960:
Ask an admin or other user you trust. If adoption is not your thing, throw your questions to people whose name you recognize. Admins combine experience with community recognition for knowing what they're doing, so they are often ideal sources of
695:. It's easy to take offence when reading replies rather than listening to them. Pick your words with care, and apologize if your comments are misinterpreted and try to phrase them better. Don't criticize spelling or grammar errors (it's rude).
1120:
that support either side. If possible, present both sides of the argument. Agreeing to disagree is great, particularly if this is represented through an even-handed discussion of both sides of the issue. An escalating array of options for
1600:- conspiracy theories, nutter archeology, the face on mars and the moon landing. Topics which are ostensibly bizarre can still be discussed, but can not generally be proven. So instead, we document the controversy. Short form - WP:FRINGE
397:
Here's my recommendation for how to edit wikipedia. It's just my version, so there's no guarantee it's foolproof or representative. Still, I think there's merit in it, and you might learn something. And I might be funny along the way.
1544:
your previous entry using the <s></s> tags if a good reference crops up or if you are convinced by another contributor's argument. Also feel free to point out that you were not convinced that another contributor's arguments
803:
to a single point at a specific indent level - I'm not one of them, and hey - it's my essay) but no-one will freak out if you mess up. Though if we're editing the same page, I will almost certainly correct the indent level to what
689:. People make mistakes, and everyone was new at one point. Unless it's replacing a page with FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK, if someone edits the page in a way that you see as erroneous, assume they have a (good) reason.
630:. Nutjobs love wikipedia because it's a high-traffic site and most nutter topics have little written about them by real doctors, lawyers, engineers and scholars. This could make it hard for a dedicated editor who understands the
183:
than knowledge - be willing to listen, admit that you're wrong, ask for help and fix your mistakes. If you're willing to listen to those who disagree with you, you've got 90% of what's required to be a good, long-term editor.
380:
Yup. It seems overwhelming, but there's a basic progression you might find useful. By starting with dabbling, you can soon be diving, and won't get hammered with multiple warnings on your user page, blocks for violating the
878:- most pages have external links (links to the internet off of wikipedia); here are the guidelines on inserting and removing them. The EL sections get a lot of spam, here's how to deal with it (commonly abbreviated as WP:EL)
1924:
wikipedians the world over. And Jimbo. I hear he is but moments away from blocking all who subscribe to other, namby-pamby philosophies that would even entertain a lower standard of notability), I'd wipe it out in a
1205:. High Potentate, The Grand Raj, Illustrious 37th-and-a-halfth-degree-Grand Marshall, Seer of Things Unseen, Holder of Things Unheld, Ravager of Worlds, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu,
469:
Collaboration is essential. If you can't collaborate civilly with editors who hold opposing POV, you won't last long here, and frankly it would be better if you left now. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need disruption.
507:
features. Preview helps avoid serious errors in formatting and makes reading a little easier. Edit summaries make it easy for other contributors to tell at a glance what you've done, but keep it short (i.e.
701:
Refer to policy. If it's a noob, they may not know about it. If it's an experienced editor, they may be able to point to a more refined version that you didn't know about. Irrespective, unless you are
1885:
Yes, "hummer" is unlinked. This is deliberate. It's whatever you want it to be. Could be a
Christmas present from a loving wife, could be then thanks you get while a political lobbyist for a job well
713:
and ask them there. Talk pages are to improve the article, not discuss unrelated issues. Plus, its polite, you're more likely to get a reply, it's slightly more private, and people love getting mail.
1343:
If you know an admin is on-line, you can post them a message on their talk page regards the vandal, but AIV means you can't be accused of, or even be involved in a conspiracy. If you're going to use
1176:- request for mediation, the involvement of a neutral third party who will attempt to find a solution acceptable to both parties. Usually used when the dispute gets hot and editors start reacting to
1920:. Two such references, independent of each other, in separate magazines, would probably be enough. It's a gray area, there's no rule of thumb. As a deletionist (which is again, the philosophy of
571:. Basically every dispute on wikipedia should be settled with reliable sources. There is nothing more important than finding reliable sources, summarizing them and adding them to the page. Except
127:, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's only through his sufferance that we're allowed to sully his pristine creation with our unworthy efforts. Praise to Jimbo and his fantastic beard.
1405:
Merges, moves and splits take chunks of text and move them to a new article. If you think an article is redundant, consider merging it to the more appropriate one. There are tags to be placed (
724:, an etiquette manual for Knowledge (XXG). They're pretty simple - don't edit other's comments for grammar or spelling (it's rude), and NEVER for content (it misrepresents them, and can get you
1241:, stop. Voice your issues on the talk page. Leave messages on the other editor's talk page. Generally go through all the steps to dispute resolution and drink a big glass of patience.
495:). If you're shy about editing the mainspace (all the articles that aren't talk pages, policies or guidelines; generally what the lay public thinks of when they say "wikipedia"), try the
321:. In an era of publicists and public relations, blogs and personal web pages as sources leaves Knowledge (XXG) in a position of being the mouthpiece of the famed without strict standards.
1455:
Deletions are one of the more interesting, challenging and fun areas of wikipedia, in my opinion. Acrimony, dissent, bitterness and head-splitting policy discussions can be found here.
1158:
of the correct action, and is not a way to resolve a dispute, just a way to clarify it. It's generally polite to mention to the other disputant that you are doing so, and provide a link.
923:) about why you shouldn't use them. I'm not saying I agree with it (because experienced wikipedians usually link their short forms, you recognize the common ones pretty quickly, and the
1363:
My fingers are exhausted, my wrists are cramping. By the time you've gotten to this point in the essay, you should be pretty much fine. The next couple sections are short, and if you
904:
1272:
For your user talk page, you are permitted to simply delete content. Key word is "permitted". It's not generally looked well upon. If you're a lazy, lazy editor, there's always
256:
are very touchy subjects, both for ___ and for their lawyer. Jimbo (and again, remember that wikipedia exists at his sufferance) has unilaterally declared that the standard for
1170:- a formal request for comment. More binding than a 3O and for use when there are more than two editors involved. As with 3O, be careful to format the request per instructions.
856:
is here, so you know where to look later (commonly abbreviated as WP:MOS, WP:STYLE, and can be used as its own short form for specific topics - MOS:CAPS, MOS:DATE, and so forth)
1318:, pick an appropriate one, and remember that you don't have to go through all four levels - if it's blatant, ongoing and recurrent, a single warning can suffice. That's why
249:, and a reliable source is much more credible (both to readers and other editors) than an unsourced sentence when Knowledge (XXG) is famed and notorious for being vandalized.
1491:
1383:
1474:
are for deletions that aren't quite speedy, but don't really merit a full deletion discussion. If a prod tag stays on a page for five days without contest, it's deleted.
698:
Ask questions. If it's an experienced editor, they will probably be very willing to point out where you've gone wrong, and what you could do to improve your contributions.
214:
They happen to know X person with a wikipedia page (or worse, they have their own wikipedia page), and notice some of the information is wrong/missing/X would disagree.
1027:. How'd I get the tl| to show up? The <nowiki></nowiki> tags, accessed by typing them out, or the red-circled 'W' on the tool bar above the edit window.
436:
will stop following you around. It shows respect for other editors, dedication to the project, and is one of the signs of a serious contributor. Plus, it'll up your
62:
A to-do list or broad overview for newbies. This is my penance for biting noobs. Want a nutshell? Invest time in becoming familiar with policies, all else follows.
1494:) and apparently there is such a thing as inherent notability (much to my surprise). It's an ugly truth, but wikipedia is somewhat elitist. Key policies include:
218:
But, for every one of these well-intentioned edits, policy says no. Other (experienced) editors will revert (or modify, source or tag) your contribution, and may
1184:
they say. Also for use when the other side is obviously wrong, and just refuses to see it. Just remember that you are equally wrong, and also refuse to see it.
1100:
It's so cute the way they grow up right in front of you! You've had your first argument with another user! Excellent. Here is an opportunity to practice your
968:. Be careful - tools are quite powerful, but they do make editing much easier. Also, they often incorporate a one-click revert feature in case you do screw up.
908:
664:
Incidentally, there is nothing more fun than your opponent in a POV-dispute shutting up because you've crammed a fact down their throat 'til it blocks their
134:. Even administrators, who some people see as somehow more worthy or better than mere plebeian editors, are not really that different. Being an admin is
1210:
661:
Easily the greatest service anyone can do for wikipedia is simply finding a reliable source and putting it between <ref>these tags</ref>.
71:
wikipedia a useful place to look for information on just about anything. We're always happy to have a new contributor, and we hope you stick around.
1213:. Frankly, if you end up here, there better be something serious going on. The buck stops here. There. With him. Jimbo collects all stray bucks.
1154:(WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:EL all have their own noticeboards, which are a great way to solicit opinion from "experts"). This is best when all parties are
2017:
and belittled. If you can pull a Jesus and turn the other cheek, kudos to you sir/madam, you are better than many here. Certainly better than I.
1467:
1437:, the most frequent reason why I move stuff), and split when there's enough text in one section for its own article. Become thee familiar with the
541:. It's a simplified ruleset of the key policies of wikipedia. Did you break any of them? If so, can you modify your edit, or revert your changes.
817:
So you've seen some basic policies. Great! Now here's some more. Intersperse your editing with reading of core and useful policies. Though the
79:
As a newbie, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to experienced editors, for a variety of reasons. This essay is an attempt to explain that:
488:
1612:- the policy to end all policies. If anything gets in the way of improving wikipedia, this policy disposes of it handily. Short form - WP:IAR
317:
for X (and arguably X's friend). Anyone can claim to have spoken to X, and the only way to verify what was said is to find it documented in a
476:). Now every time someone changes a page you are watching, you'll get a message on your watchlist. Look at how the pages change - watch how
821:
are indeed critical, there are many other policies which are also vital (and a bunch of short forms you should probably get used to seeing).
1908:
This point is a bit of a caricature, and represents the very bottom of notability. Were this page created, it would definitely avoid being
920:
1585:- per WLU", sometimes you have nothing to add but it's valuable to say that the discussion has been reviewed and it's good enough for you.
999:
link and see if you can improve the page somehow. Check the sources to make sure they justify the statement they accompany. If there are
866:
wikipedia should cover. We can't have a page on everything, so this page determines what should have a page (commonly abbreviated as WP:N)
825:
682:
Knowledge (XXG)'s a collaborative process, so at some point you're going to have to talk to others. There's a few things to keep in mind:
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1136:
and work there, rather than working directly on the main page. Remember, it can always be changed back, and it's never the final version.
831:
47:
1146:
Seek advice. Ask an admin or more experienced editor what they think, if you are unsure of the interpretation of policy (but be wary of
728:). Minor changes to formatting (adding square brackets to long external links, spacing comments) are OK if it makes it easier to read.
1066:
First, find out what the options are for names. Potatoheads (band)? Fingers in the
Blender (rock group)? The Sad Clowns? Review the
895:, on talk pages and during discussion to refer to policies, guidelines and pages that are frequently accessed. Because let's face it,
1308:, though that's not an excuse to pop up porn stills on every page. You get the point, sometimes vandalism is more than the last edit.
1722:
Editing can take two basic forms - adding content, and adjusting content. The second involves tasks like correcting spelling (see
1035:
Your favourite band just released an article in a third tier regional magazine, but they have no wikipedia page. Sure, it's not a
1569:- everyone makes mistakes and there is a difference between a gentle correction and beating someone about the head with a policy.
451:
Demonstrate a positive learning curve. Individual mistakes aren't what damns you. It's the failure to learn (quickly!) that will.
887:
So you saw the "WP:" a lot in that last section. You may be asking, what's up with that? Knowledge (XXG) (and wikipedians) use
1132:
Discussion - your first step. Bring it up on the talk page or the other user's talk page. Perhaps set up a draft version on a
1116:
polite. Assume misunderstanding rather than malice. The absolute best way to settle any dispute is through an analysis of the
481:
927:
of wikipedia who do not edit will almost never see them unless visiting the talk pages as well) but it makes a valid point.
909:
Knowledge (XXG):You should not spread your fetish across
Knowledge (XXG) like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich
330:
Indeed, you could see it that way. It does take time to become familiar and handy with wikipedia's core policies (known as
1593:
There are some policies which require a degree of familiarity with conventional policy before they can be truly grokked.
1190:- request for arbitration. They say it's the last step, but they're wrong (below). A RFAR will only be looked into when
432:) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)). Others reading the talk page can use the signature to tell who said what, when. Also,
499:- it's exactly like the regular pages, but it gets erased every 12 hours. Great practice! Make sure you play with the
472:
Build a watchlist. Find a couple pages you are interested in. Click the "watch" tab at the top of the page (more help
276:
1646:", you may be ideal for this place. If you actually corrected the wikilink or edited to a better wording, put in your
837:
602:
have a wonderful way of shortening arguments, shutting down disputes and saving people time. Knowledge (XXG) is about
1273:
875:
211:
They were talking about something on their blog and it's such a great entry, it should really be linked to wikipedia.
208:
They see something that is just plain wrong, and common sense or a bit of knowledge demonstrates this quite readily.
1851:...and I refuse to endorse this publically, I'm just saying something someone else said to me some time, somewhere.
1666:
1462:
Basically it's like this - if you think that a page doesn't belong on wikipedia, you can try to have it deleted.
1314:
Leave a warning on their talk page. If they are going to get blocked, they must have had fair warning. Read the
756:
Hey, this is neat. :Yes it is ::No it's not :::How does this help the article get better? {{outdent}}It does not.
414:
1234:
and shows your dedication to The Right
Version. It also shows up as a permanent record of you being an idiot.
1139:
Find sources. Any source is worth pages of discussion. Unless you are discussing the source itself. That can
949:
1322:
1557:- unsourced, the page creator will pop up a blog entry "sourcing" something. The correct response to this is
1151:
94:
There are common errors that newbies make, and they often generate a similar reaction from experienced editors
1631:
That's been my experience with wikipedia in a nutshell. The linked policies and essays contain the details.
1340:
message, as quickly as you can re-paste the message into the top box and hit save ASAP. Edit conflicts suck.
1092:
tag, try to find other articles to link it to. Which may be difficult if they aren't particularly notable.
1459:
It's not limited to admins. But you will get a better reception if you adhere to, and refer to, policy.
911:. You get used to them pretty quickly, and you will be assimilated. A comprehensive list can be found at
869:
859:
1834:
1726:
for why you should always leave the 'u' alone), formatting, headings, grammar, tone, adding templates and
1311:
Check user contributions. If they've vandalised one page, perhaps they've done so on other pages as well.
792:
631:
1969:
1288:
1109:
1013:
151:
51:
1070:
to pick an appropriate name. Type it into the search box. Already taken? Add a qualifier and look up
1021:
491:. If you can't see a way to help, pick another page and try again. Edits can be easily undone (called
1430:
1071:
1060:
1000:
900:
2037:
1993:
1129:
Leave it alone. Cool your itchy trigger finger, don't revert immediately if it's questionably legit.
872:- wikilinks are important. This tells you how and when to use them (commonly abbreviated as WP:PIPE)
448:, keeping a clean block log, being seen as allied with other editors who have good reputations, etc..
195:
newbies far more than I should. Wanna know why? Most newbies make the same mistakes. Here's some:
1739:
1266:
1147:
611:
500:
473:
1747:
1723:
1679:
1597:
849:
796:
650:
639:
627:
492:
362:
39:
1838:
1419:
1337:
1055:, and a whole article means extensive coverage! Way to go, your favourite band just sailed past
2014:
1615:
1603:
1344:
1231:
1101:
1056:
975:
Pick a topic you're familiar with but is a bit short or light on content. Use google searches,
937:
725:
692:
615:
162:
143:
124:
120:
83:
1951:
for paleontology and evolutionary biology. However, he's not notable for knowing a lot about
840:- a huge set of pages that answers all your questions about what wikipedia should look like -
410:
2010:
1913:
1895:
Except it's not blue. It's just black. Want the fancy blue writing? It's somewhere in the
1751:
1731:
1638:
Final, final point. For real this time. If you read this essay and at some point thought, "
1566:
1502:
1471:
1426:
1351:
1315:
1284:
1245:
1187:
1067:
984:
965:
912:
888:
729:
646:
572:
552:
496:
421:
355:
299:
271:
should be easy to find. I'm not allowed to point out that the use of humans as batteries in
235:
219:
192:
170:
135:
1409:
1223:
1209:
and basically the last gasp if you've got a gripe with wikipedia. Also looks good in red.
1956:
1917:
1896:
1735:
1727:
1706:
1647:
1609:
1528:
1516:
1512:
1506:
1475:
1332:
1305:
1227:
1173:
1167:
1105:
1075:
980:
976:
916:
896:
852:, basically everything that's not information. There's a lot here, so just get a sense of
721:
686:
477:
403:
386:
382:
368:
314:
295:
287:
280:
253:
166:
139:
1860:...and if I had, I certainly wouldn't have gotten as much pleasure from it as two hits of
1618:- bane of my existence, tables are useful but suck to draft. Short form, WP:TABLE, though
1086:
487:
Edit! Pick a topic you are familiar with, pick a page at random, or try looking into the
1909:
1743:
1562:
1522:
1463:
1391:
1378:
1371:
1238:
1161:
1133:
1122:
1117:
1079:
1052:
992:
892:
818:
710:
703:
580:
568:
545:
538:
513:
504:
445:
437:
331:
318:
310:
303:
291:
268:
264:
257:
246:
147:
1952:
996:
529:
525:
1948:
1606:- what to do with sources which are reliable, yet the minority. Short form - WP:UNDUE
1498:
1269:, leaving a nice box at the top telling people where to go for previous discussion.
576:
242:
231:
227:
2031:
2022:
1989:
1943:
Unless it's
Richard Dawkins' blog about the latest egregious error to show up in the
1869:
1441:
429:
335:
1565:. Pointing out the errors in other's deletion discussion arguments is allowed, but
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1347:
to silence dissent, you're going to have to learn to do so without leaving a trail.
1258:
953:
questions of just about any other user, and most are willing to help you, adoptees
591:
433:
365:
turns a wide variety of relatively tedious tasks into simple, one-click operations.
343:
205:
Everyone knows that ___ person is gay, so this should be on that person's wikipage.
154:. The only advantages that admins have are a) experience and b) some extra tools.
88:
944:
If editing wikipedia is fun, here's some of the next things you might want to do:
612:
If you can't find a source to substantiate a point, it probably shouldn't be here
595:
1944:
1709:
usually applies more to how pages and contributions are managed than the actual
1350:
If it's different (new) users leaving the same vandalism, you've got yourself a
1202:
635:
517:
138:. They can do some extra stuff, but they are still bound by policy, subject to
1082:, it'll probably be a good editorial review anyway. Now, to avoid the dreaded
199:
They think something is cool, notice there's not a page for it, and create one.
1619:
665:
424:
with four tildes (~~~~), which will produce a name and timestamp (like this -
272:
93:
709:
If you have a question unrelated to the page itself, go to the contributor's
583:- essentially what makes wikipedia different from a blog or personal webpage.
573:
summarizing them fairly and in proportion to their use by mainstream scholars
1831:
Satanic ritual abuse-mindcontrolling Jewish scientists working for the Nazis
1328:
exists. But don't be trigger happy. Include a pipe to link to the article.
799:. It's a little more complicated than that (some people prefer to keep all
551:
Repeat!!! Learn by doing. Edit, read, read policy, and repeat. Check out
521:
1429:
to be being-ed. Merge when there's two articles for the same thing (use a
98:
604:
summarizing what is believed by mainstream experts on the topics discussed
114:
2018:
1955:
policy repercussions. So his blog couldn't be used there. Simple, eh?
1873:
1738:, but if challenged, the onus is on the person adding the information to
1434:
1433:), move when there's one article but it's got the wrong name (review the
1304:
example of the proper use of profanity on a wikipage. But remember that
845:
425:
347:
119:
Indeed, I'm sure you are very clever, and indeed, every editor (even the
17:
1425:), discussions to be had, and consensus to be reached, but there's also
202:
They think something is common knowledge, and should be added to a page.
1865:
834:- how language is chosen on wikipedia (commonly abbreviated as WP:TONE)
1354:, huzzah! Sock puppets are complicated, so research that on your own.
599:
371:
make it easy to cite many sources, just by filling in a couple fields.
234:. Further, proclaiming that something is cool violates our policy on
567:'Kay, one thing I left off for the longest time and shouldn't have -
260:
for articles about living people are higher than most other articles.
516:(the best content wikipedia has to offer). Controversial articles (
402:
Sign up. If you don't already have one, get an account. There are
339:
99:
There are a bunch of tools, policies and pages that can help you out
1226:
remain up for even a minute, consider edit warring. Violating the
132:
you have just as much right and ability to edit as any other editor
1916:, but would probably be a long, exhausting and bitterly contested
115:
But I'm very clever, surely I'm just as good as everyone else here
1287:. Make sure it's vandalism before you do vandal-fighting stuff.
510:
corrected spelling, deleted vandalism, Tom Cruise is not an alien
1899:. I don't know where. Tsk, kids these days, they're so lazy...
1861:
1746:. Also, if you want to do yourself and other editors a favour (
1364:
1297:
957:
like it. You're not bothering them, you're doing them a favour!
283:. It's all Jimbo's fault, a pox upon his finely-tailored suits.
107:
1575:
I've ready X, Y and Z's discussions and I find them convincing.
748:
by placing text inside the following tags: <u></u>
1468:
I, Jimbo Wales, Created This Page, So You Better Not Delete It
841:
828:- everything wikipedia is not (commonly abbreviated as WP:NOT)
25:
1678:
Note that in this essay, I do not really distinguish between
1059:, you can now reference the interview the fill the page with
717:
signs for you. Plus, it makes wikipedia a bit more friendly.
740:, if you do feel the need to emphasize key words, consider
905:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
587:
313:
for information about X, and adding said information is a
178:
Well, give me two weeks and I'll be the KING of wikipedia!
808:
think is appropriate. I'm a zealot, unapologetically so.
575:. Reliable sources are important because we use them to
267:. As in 2, if it's common sense and common knowledge, a
104:
In my experience there was a process that I moved through
1981:
If at some point while reading this essay you thought, "
1868:
that I snorted while pushing the limit of my Delorean's
1535:
If an article you create is nominated for deletion, the
1261:
for me. Have some lotion, it'll take away the sting.
1222:
So you're a stubborn bastard like me, and REFUSE to let
1211:
Quiver in terror as he judges you with death in His eyes
988:
645:
Note, however, that if you are a nutter and are here to
1531:- where to go to start the process (short form WP:AFD)
1525:, bedrock for deletion on wikipedia (short form WP:DP)
563:
326:
But that makes editing wikipedia harder, and less fun!
309:
Person X and person X's friend are (oddly enough) not
1396:
It's 'cause we're all secret elitists. Sad but true.
995:
to add information to the page. Try clicking on the
389:- basically avoid all the painful mistakes I made.
187:
Sometimes other editors are just bitchy, aren't they?
1992:
so I can arrange to have your IP blocked. And read
165:you, your IP address and your friend's IP address,
103:
930:
752:margin with a comment to indicate you're doing so:
649:that has already been investigated and proclaimed
392:
1650:now. At its heart, wikipedia is about meddling.
294:(that one comes up a lot) unless it belongs to a
1207:Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Jimbo R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
614:. Medical articles are even better because the
1466:is for pages that obviously don't belong (like
1825:New World Order-Alien lizard forebearer hybrid
1513:Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions
1291:. Here's my advice on vandalism and vandals:
560:THIS ONE GETS ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT
1230:is the absolute best way to take an enforced
393:OK, you've convinced me. Where do I sign up?
286:Adding information to your own web page is a
8:
1736:assume you are doing so with good intentions
1333:administrator intervention against vandalism
1150:). Bring the discussion up on the relevant
832:Knowledge (XXG):Writing better articles#Tone
732:. Don't shout through the use of CAPITALS,
706:, you can't go wrong by referring to policy.
241:If it's common knowledge, then it should be
1983:wouldn't it be funny to change the page to
1947:literature, because Dawkins is a figure of
1934:Actually, there's some guidelines here too.
1470:) and use short codes for classification.
1285:There are many things that vandalism is not
931:So you've got about 100 or so contributions
826:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
344:basing contributions on how funny they were
279:, you aren't allowed to use common sense.
1515:- what not to do; a personal favourite is
1457:Anyone can engage in deletion discussions.
1336:appropriate section. And when you get an
1244:Now, none of this applies if it's blatant
774:How does this help the article get better?
358:for more information). Examples include:
177:
123:) is on equal footing per policy. Except
1435:manual of style guide for capital letters
1367:until this point, the rest shall follow.
1331:After the last warning, head over to the
671:So I hear. I've never done this myself.
420:Sign posts. Always finish your posts on
226:Something may be cool, but it may not be
106:; I am trying to explain it, to help you
1031:Lo, from nothing I bring forth the world
263:Common sense is wikipedia codespeak for
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1774:Substitute any of the following for X:
1659:
1589:FRINGE, IAR and other esoteric policies
1358:
921:Knowledge (XXG):WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
302:, and most blogs are not allowed to be
1687:to the 1. to go back to the main text.
1377:Where else am I going to put it? An
656:
84:Yes, you really are at a disadvantage
7:
1049:Accordian Enthusiasts' Yearly Review
744:or (on talk pages alone) the use of
622:Nutjobs, nutters and nutter theories
455:
919:(with a very amusing full title of
608:finding and citing reliable sources
415:avoid the scrutiny of other editors
972:if you're wrong, you'll learn why.
882:
579:and ensure we are not engaging in
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
1096:Aw, your first editorial dispute!
548:. Read it from beginning to end.
2025:) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1390:557, huzzah! As pointed out in
456:
29:
1798:Lord of the Rings-homosexuality
1289:Vandalism can be a subtle beast
838:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
819:five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
795:, and there's some guidance at
657:But don't let that distract you
565:AND I FORGOT ABOUT IT UNTIL NOW
489:articles that need copy editing
375:
252:___ may or may not be gay, but
1985:FUCKFUCKFUCKPOOPIHAVEAHUGECOCK
1553:. Sometimes in response to a
1401:Mergers, page moves, splitting
876:Knowledge (XXG):External links
454:(Psst! No one's perfect here!
1:
1669:: Welcome to Knowledge (XXG).
1644:That's not the right wikilink
1640:I can say it better than that
1359:Let's take a break, shall we?
222:. Permit me to demonstrate:
1068:policy on naming conventions
785:
782:
765:
760:
277:second law of thermodynamics
254:biographies of living people
130:Let me reiterate my point -
1968:Or, be kind enough to be a
1807:Acupuncture-cure for cancer
1734:, and other editors should
1561:- blogs are not considered
862:- the general guideline on
2054:
1813:Homeopathy-cure for cancer
1804:9/11-controlled demolition
1667:User:Drew R. Smith/Welcome
915:, and there's an essay at
870:Knowledge (XXG):Piped link
860:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
376:Man that's a lot to learn!
348:letting anyone do anything
191:Yup. I'm one of them. I
1972:. For different reasons.
1696:The iron-fisted dictator.
1537:absolute best thing to do
1306:wikipedia is not censored
1051:, but it scrapes by as a
1012:Knowledge (XXG) has many
883:What's with the WhiPping?
544:Read!!! Pick one of the
75:Why should you read this?
1988:", drop me a line on my
1567:don't be a dick about it
1492:here's what admins think
1392:the essay on edit counts
1876:while getting a Hummer.
1801:Harry Potter-witchcraft
1705:It's worth noting that
1577:" Similar to !voting "
1188:Request for arbitration
1180:is talking rather than
903:are a lot shorter than
850:use of bold and italics
791:This is referred to as
759:Is rendered like this:
533:will have little to do.
417:are forbidden. Be open.
336:blocking non-Christians
236:a neutral point of view
220:rap you on the knuckles
1280:Suffer not the Vandals
964:Consider installing a
793:conversation threading
632:laws of thermodynamics
537:Revert! Second, read
1819:Climate change-pirate
1816:Herbs-cure for cancer
1783:Creationism-evolution
1680:policy and guidelines
1626:
1529:Articles for deletion
1519:; (short form WP:ATA)
1476:Articles for Deletion
1386:. I'm on it, number
1196:very naughty boy/girl
1174:Request for mediation
948:Look into adoption.
626:Of course, there are
186:
50:, as it has not been
1872:to the limit on the
1870:wankel rotary engine
1810:Poop-cure for cancer
1143:pages of discussion.
1057:notability for music
1039:interview, it's not
736:or (Buddha forfend)
722:talk page guidelines
638:, if it weren't for
590:, and in particular
315:conflict of interest
288:conflict of interest
89:It's not a bad thing
1786:Israeli-Palestinian
1551:REFERRING TO POLICY
1523:The deletion policy
1203:Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales
1168:Request for comment
1076:page disambiguation
762:Hey, this is neat.
606:. This is done by
340:ignoring scientists
1792:Atheism-immorality
1780:Vaccination-autism
1622:is also very handy
1472:Proposed deletions
1123:resolving disputes
1108:. Try to reach a
977:citation templates
586:Quick searches on
369:Citation templates
169:pages you create,
1864:and an 8-ball of
1750:) you should add
1484:Delete/Keep/Merge
1397:
1228:three revert rule
1224:The Wrong Version
1192:all other avenues
1112:. As always, be
1106:assume good faith
1072:guide to hatnotes
966:script-based tool
687:Assume good faith
678:Talking to others
581:original research
514:featured articles
464:
409:Sign in. Always
383:three revert rule
356:the page on tools
265:original research
174:something wrong.
161:Plus, admins can
152:work by consensus
60:
59:
2045:
1997:
1979:
1973:
1966:
1960:
1941:
1935:
1932:
1926:
1906:
1900:
1893:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1858:
1852:
1849:
1843:
1839:disproven theory
1828:Moonlanding-hoax
1772:
1766:
1762:
1756:
1752:inline citations
1740:prove it is true
1720:
1714:
1703:
1697:
1694:
1688:
1676:
1670:
1664:
1610:Ignore all rules
1563:reliable sources
1542:striking through
1446:
1440:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1408:
1395:
1327:
1321:
1267:archive the page
1199:was meant to go.
1118:reliable sources
1091:
1085:
1026:
1020:
993:reliable sources
846:section headings
787:
783:
781:
763:
647:promote a theory
634:to argue with a
569:reliable sources
461:
460:
459:
452:
332:the five pillars
311:reliable sources
292:reliable sources
290:, blogs are not
281:Most of the time
258:reliable sources
142:and expected to
33:
32:
26:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2028:
2027:
2006:
2001:
2000:
1980:
1976:
1967:
1963:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1918:deletion debate
1907:
1903:
1897:manual of style
1894:
1890:
1884:
1880:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1846:
1773:
1769:
1763:
1759:
1748:leave it alone!
1744:reliable source
1721:
1717:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1691:
1677:
1673:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1629:
1598:Fringe theories
1591:
1581:- per nom" or "
1464:Speedy deletion
1453:
1444:
1438:
1422:
1416:
1412:
1406:
1403:
1375:
1361:
1325:
1323:uw-vandalism4im
1319:
1282:
1254:
1220:
1125:are presented:
1098:
1089:
1083:
1053:reliable source
1033:
1024:
1018:
1010:
933:
885:
842:capital letters
815:
761:
757:
730:Sign your posts
680:
659:
624:
584:
566:
562:
555:if you need to.
482:anonymous users
457:
395:
378:
328:
319:reliable source
269:reliable source
247:reliable source
189:
180:
117:
77:
68:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2051:
2049:
2041:
2040:
2030:
2029:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1974:
1961:
1936:
1927:
1910:speedy deleted
1901:
1888:
1878:
1853:
1844:
1842:
1841:
1832:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1796:
1795:Holocaust-hoax
1793:
1790:
1789:Obama-birthing
1787:
1784:
1781:
1778:
1777:Mercury-autism
1767:
1757:
1715:
1698:
1689:
1671:
1658:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1628:
1627:And we're done
1625:
1624:
1623:
1613:
1607:
1601:
1590:
1587:
1533:
1532:
1526:
1520:
1510:
1487:
1486:
1452:
1449:
1402:
1399:
1374:
1369:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1348:
1341:
1329:
1312:
1309:
1281:
1278:
1253:
1250:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1200:
1185:
1171:
1165:
1159:
1144:
1137:
1130:
1097:
1094:
1032:
1029:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
997:random article
973:
969:
962:
958:
932:
929:
884:
881:
880:
879:
873:
867:
857:
835:
829:
814:
813:Read some more
811:
810:
809:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
755:
754:
753:
749:
718:
714:
707:
699:
696:
690:
679:
676:
658:
655:
623:
620:
592:google scholar
564:
561:
558:
557:
556:
549:
542:
534:
530:Parapsychology
526:George W. Bush
485:
470:
467:
449:
441:
418:
407:
394:
391:
377:
374:
373:
372:
366:
327:
324:
323:
322:
307:
304:external links
284:
261:
250:
239:
216:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
188:
185:
179:
176:
136:not a big deal
116:
113:
112:
111:
101:
96:
91:
86:
76:
73:
67:
64:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2050:
2039:
2036:
2035:
2033:
2026:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2003:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1978:
1975:
1971:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1940:
1937:
1931:
1928:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1892:
1889:
1882:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1857:
1854:
1848:
1845:
1840:
1836:
1833:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1818:
1815:
1812:
1809:
1806:
1803:
1800:
1797:
1794:
1791:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1761:
1758:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1702:
1699:
1693:
1690:
1685:
1681:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1660:
1653:
1651:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1621:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1588:
1586:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1570:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1493:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1458:
1450:
1448:
1443:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1421:
1411:
1400:
1398:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1384:bragging list
1380:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1366:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1338:edit conflict
1334:
1330:
1324:
1317:
1316:user warnings
1313:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1286:
1279:
1277:
1275:
1270:
1268:
1262:
1260:
1251:
1249:
1247:
1242:
1240:
1235:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1162:Third opinion
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1095:
1093:
1088:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1030:
1028:
1023:
1015:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
967:
963:
959:
956:
951:
947:
946:
945:
942:
939:
928:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
861:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
823:
822:
820:
812:
807:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
773:
772:
770:
769:
767:
766:
764:
750:
747:
743:
739:
738:BOLD CAPITALS
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
708:
705:
704:wikilawyering
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
684:
683:
677:
675:
672:
669:
667:
662:
654:
652:
648:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
621:
619:
617:
616:bar is higher
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
582:
578:
574:
570:
559:
554:
553:the help page
550:
547:
543:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
463:
450:
447:
442:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:many benefits
401:
400:
399:
390:
388:
385:or end up in
384:
370:
367:
364:
361:
360:
359:
357:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
325:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
278:
275:violates the
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
255:
251:
248:
244:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
221:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
197:
196:
194:
184:
175:
172:
168:
164:
159:
155:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
128:
126:
122:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
74:
72:
65:
63:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2007:
1984:
1982:
1977:
1964:
1939:
1930:
1921:
1904:
1891:
1881:
1856:
1847:
1822:AIDS-poverty
1770:
1760:
1718:
1713:of articles.
1710:
1701:
1692:
1683:
1674:
1662:
1643:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1604:Undue weight
1592:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1534:
1503:corporations
1488:
1483:
1461:
1456:
1454:
1445:}}
1439:{{
1423:}}
1417:{{
1413:}}
1407:{{
1404:
1387:
1376:
1362:
1326:}}
1320:{{
1301:
1283:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1243:
1239:edit warring
1236:
1221:
1218:Edit warring
1206:
1195:
1191:
1181:
1177:
1155:
1140:
1113:
1099:
1090:}}
1084:{{
1065:
1063:. But how?
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1034:
1025:}}
1022:Transformers
1019:{{
1011:
961:information.
954:
950:Adopt-a-user
943:
934:
924:
891:, basically
886:
863:
853:
816:
805:
800:
786:It does not.
784:
771:No it's not
758:
745:
741:
737:
734:bold letters
733:
681:
673:
670:
663:
660:
644:
625:
607:
603:
596:google books
585:
546:five pillars
509:
505:edit summary
453:
396:
379:
352:
329:
217:
190:
181:
160:
156:
131:
129:
118:
78:
69:
61:
37:
2038:User essays
1953:Pan-African
1945:Creationism
1372:Edit counts
1237:If you are
1152:noticeboard
901:WP:SANDWICH
746:underlining
651:discredited
636:Creationist
577:verify text
518:Creationism
387:arbitration
140:arbitration
38:This is an
1970:giant dick
1949:notability
1728:categories
1620:Help:Table
1509:and so on.
1499:Notability
1447:template.
1379:edit count
1352:sockpuppet
1302:phenomenal
1148:canvassing
991:and other
768:Yes it is
666:oesophagus
628:exceptions
438:edit count
422:talk pages
300:scientists
298:person or
273:The Matrix
243:verifiable
232:verifiable
110:wikipedia.
2004:The truth
1990:talk page
1835:any crazy
1732:citations
1724:WP:ENGVAR
1420:mergefrom
1345:the cabal
1252:Archiving
1246:vandalism
1232:wikibreak
1110:consensus
1014:templates
1008:Templates
1001:templates
985:footnotes
893:redirects
889:shortcuts
801:responses
797:WP:THREAD
711:talk page
640:WP:PARITY
522:Evolution
493:reverting
446:edit wars
148:play fair
2032:Category
1874:Autobahn
1742:using a
1684:factions
1451:Deletion
1431:redirect
1427:boldness
1274:MiszaBot
1141:generate
1134:sub page
1102:civility
1080:sub-page
1061:fancruft
1047:or even
981:sections
720:Use the
693:Be civil
171:rollback
66:Welcome!
18:User:WLU
2015:blocked
1925:second.
1914:prodded
1862:ecstasy
1711:content
1559:Comment
1547:and why
1410:mergeto
1259:ClueBot
1045:Blender
925:readers
913:WP:CUTS
742:italics
726:blocked
501:preview
497:sandbox
434:SineBot
296:notable
228:notable
144:be nice
1996:essay.
1957:WP:UCS
1707:WP:UCS
1648:WP:RFA
1642:" or "
1616:Tables
1579:Delete
1555:Delete
1517:WP:WAX
1507:people
1300:for a
1156:unsure
1087:orphan
989:pubmed
955:really
917:WP:WTF
897:WP:ATA
674:Ahem.
600:pubmed
588:google
411:log in
363:Popups
167:delete
121:admins
1886:done.
1765:text.
1654:Notes
938:cabal
354:(see
346:, or
245:in a
163:block
125:Jimbo
40:essay
16:<
2023:talk
1994:this
1922:real
1866:blow
1755:top.
1583:Keep
1442:main
1415:and
1365:grok
1298:shit
1182:what
1114:very
1104:and
1074:and
1041:Time
1037:good
907:and
899:and
864:what
854:what
598:and
539:this
503:and
478:bots
474:here
466:one.
430:talk
193:bite
150:and
108:grok
2019:WLU
2011:bit
1912:or
1388:943
1178:who
668:.
610:.
426:WLU
230:or
2034::
2013:,
1549:,
1505:,
1248:.
1043:,
987:,
983:,
979:,
848:,
844:,
642:.
618:.
594:,
528:,
524:,
520:,
480:,
342:,
338:,
146:,
2021:(
1959:!
1837:-
1573:"
1490:(
806:I
462:)
440:.
428:(
406:.
306:.
238:.
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.