Knowledge (XXG) talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption

248:– This whole section is implying that editors frequently ignore others contributions, "fail to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss" and "reject off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. If editors stop following they usually leave. New editors joining will usually read the whole discussion before contributing. This does not mean every editor replies to every point: editors only have a finite amount of time to contribute so will only contribute where they feel they have something to write. If all they have to write is covered by policy they may use a shortcut to that instead, to save themselves and other editors time. They will also often not write something if it just repeats what another editor has written. 2372:) 18:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC) As things stand now, Diego and Equazcion support the idea of this proposal for explaining actions in detail and avoiding actions that can be interpreted as cavalier or inhospitable. They have suggested changes that have been implemented. Blackburne and Johnuniq oppose the proposal, and have indicated very clearly that they feel it promotes coddling of contributors and wastes the time of editors who presently reject and revert with little explanation, suggesting that contributors who are perplexed by these curt appraisals go read the relevant WP guidelines and policies. These concerns have led to changes in the proposal, but these editors have not engaged in suggestions themselves. No further discussion has occurred. 262:– It's unclear what this is saying as it seems to be rehashing the first section, so again has the process for dealing with original research the wrong way round. There's usually no need to say in detail which bits need sourcing, as they will be the bits without refs (ideally inline) to reliable secondary sources, so it is normally obvious. Editors can reasonably disagree over whether sources are reliable or secondary, but often this is so obvious, or sources are simply missing, that no discussion is needed. 1593:, as if this page were an expansion of it. I would begin instead with a description of the common occurrence where one editor, or a minority of editors, want to change an article that has an established consensus. I'd make it clear that this is not necessarily a bad thing, if done correctly, and go on to summarize (and then detail in the sections) the do's and dont's of both attempting such a change and dealing with those making the attempt. 721:-- I think this happens more often than you might think. Though everyone who cares about the article will follow the discussion, veteran editors of an article can be pretty resistant to change and yes, summarily dismiss ideas that seem 'too different' from the status quo they've gotten used to defending. It wouldn't hurt to put some guidance out there reminding editors to remain open-minded about changing articles they've come to care for. 1096:'Some elaboration' would make it even more prescriptive, so even worse. It should be up to editors how detailed their reply is, based on their own common sense. As for the language it reads as a description of editors' attitudes and approach. After all if no editors were "blinkered", "incendiary", "cavalier" why would this proposal be needed? It's also not "disruptive" or "pejorative" to apply policies in good faith. The policies 992:

cannot explain a judgment about its applicability. The urgency of "writing the encyclopedia" is no excuse for hasty judgment or refusal to explain. And it is unsatisfactory to rely on possible encounters with a good Samaritan to patch up the effects of hasty rejection made by others "too busy" to bother. Clearly, John, you like things the way they are. Your tie has been chosen, and the rest of the outfit better fit.

1901:

another to AN/I without explanation or warning because they challenged such an edit. I really believe this simply does not happen as described. This has been something I've raised already: I don't think there's a problem here that needs to be solved, at least not like the one described in this paragraph, and so (as this is the summary) the essay as a whole. It would be useful to have some concrete examples of it.--

33: 92: 64: 156: 78: 1289:

every article could be written by editors based only on discussions on the talk page. But to save everyone time some decisions that have broad support over many articles have been codified into policies and guidelines, which every editor should be familiar with. The alternative, of asking editors to explain decisions in detail even when the decision is covered by policy, would

219:. Even as a non-American I know what that means: it implies not only the act (of not self-incriminating) but that it is a constitutional right. I would not for a moment compare the policies of Knowledge (XXG) to the US Constitution but the effect of the shortcut is the same, to let the reader know what's meant and to let them know or remind them that it's an official policy. 1311:

deals with, and also an identification of just what part of the text constitutes that example. Your view of the situation is like that of a traffic cop catching a motorist: the cop just points out the speed limit sign and says "you were speeding". The situation is more like being accosted for vagrancy when in fact you were window shopping (or so you thought).

920:

for very good reason. Post an explanation (no matter how detailed) and the editor posting OR may think it's a difference of opinion and try to debate the point. Point instead to the guideline and it's clear that it's a policy, one supported by the consensus of editors. And if the policy expresses it clearly why repeat it in a detailed explanation?--

333:

content it's more usual to explain the policies to them briefly than refer to the policy. But if an experienced editor posts unsourced content linking to the relevant policy saves everyone time, and keeps the discussion calm as editors base their discussion on the neutrally worded policies, not their own personal interpretation of them.--

916:(say). When it's removed as unsourced OR they rework it and post it on the talk page, perhaps with a link to their blog where they've also written it up. But again it's simply unsourced OR. An editor could write a long, detailed explanation but it's far better to point to the policy which explains it clearly and saves everyone time. 2113: 937:

out that the user's blog is not a recognized source. These things are not really a problem, are they? You might say that the contributor should recognize these requirements themselves if they knew the policy, and maybe that is so. But the explanation in simple cases is not prolonged and in complex cases should be a requirement.

695:

raised in this proposal but I don't think the solutions are the right ones. I'm not convinced there are better solutions than we have now, or at least ones that don't cause more problems than they solve, such as requiring editors to spend far more time explaining uncontroversial changes because every editor deserves a "

1692:) if they cannot see the relevance. Disruption occurs when someone with new ideas won't accept what they are told, and won't try to understand how they might go about learning what the problem with their contribution is. The proposed lead seems to strike the wrong balance. Where is it established that " 2647:

it's not clear what the purpose of this second RfC is: as an essay it simply exists like other essays. Give it time to see if other editors take an interest, by working on it, responding to it e.g. with their own essay, or linking to it in discussions. Over time it will become clear how it is seen by

2242:

rather than content guideline. It makes sense therefore to ask exactly what behaviour this is meant to address. Not in the abstract but real examples, of users who have been affected by this problem. If none exist, or if they turn out to be editors whose own disruptive behaviour was the real cause of

2104:

This proposal is totally without merit, whether is be called an essay, a guideline, an edict from the true deity, or anything else. It is nothing but a continuation of the posturing of an editor banned for tendentious and disruptive behavior, an editor who has never shown the slightest regard for the

1288:

If their contribution cannot be used because of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and they are unfamiliar with the policies then they need to read the policies, where the reasons for not including it are explained. That's why we have policies. Decisions on Knowledge (XXG) are made by consensus, so in theory

1238:

The second of those is fine, though there's no need to go through someone's contribution statement by statement and work out how they've got to it by comparing it with sources. But again, this should be up to an editor. If they think the policy page offers the best explanation they can post a link to

1174:

disallows even obvious deductions if they are unsourced. The problem is obviousness is entirely subjective: what's obvious to one editor will be non-obvious to another. Asserting that something is non-obvious may cause another editor to dispute it as obvious to them. This comes up fairly regularly in

1104:. It's not an accident that they're easy to remember and quick to type. If an editor posting is clearly ignorant of the policies then the best thing is to advise them to them, with a link so they can immediately read the policy for themselves, where they will also find the best explanation possible.-- 1043:

John: Perhaps some elaboration of what constitutes a "detailed" explanation would help? My conception of this is (i) identification of the applied policy with its link; (ii) identification of the portion of proposed text to which the policy is applied (supposing the supplied text isn't just a word or

936:

John: You have shown in your first paragraph how to handle these two iterations of the "novel proof" of Fermat's last theorem: (i) point out that like the article already present on Fermat's theorem (or some other theorem, if the article doesn't yet exist), it needs a source, and iteration (ii) point

894:

You seem to hope that the refusing editor can patch things up after the rejection. Sometimes that will work. But an adrenaline rush doesn't start things off on a good footing. Its better to begin with the responsibility of working toward a common goal, and to avoid the two parties digging in. Digging

2394:

off the list of those opposing, and I don't see clear statements of support from the other two editors. My comments at the top of the page still mostly apply, and perhaps more significantly my subsequent requests for concrete examples of the problems this is meant to address have not been satisfied.

2296:

It makes sense therefore to ask exactly what behaviour this is meant to address. Not in the abstract but real examples, of users who have been affected by this problem. If none exist, or if they turn out to be editors whose own disruptive behaviour was the real cause of their problems, then there is

2163:

Yes, I've been trying to address the issues in this directly but that has been the back of my mind. It's why I've been asking for examples of problems this is meant to solve, not as I think think they exist (they don't) but as I think they are the flawed recollections of an editor blocked repeatedly

1675:

The proposal is not suitable as a guideline as its main effect would be to encourage wikilawyering by those defending unsuitable text. The page may be ok if recast as an essay asserting that collaboration and civility are essential, and encouraging those who remove new contributions to explain their

1412:

The cop was not my example, but in a way the policies are the law. Editors don't get handed driving bans but they can be blocked and banned from editing. Some actions result in immediate bans, some cumulatively lead to bans, very like driving laws. The biggest difference perhaps is our processes are

806:

John, I am unclear why you feel this proposed guideline would force you into new behavior. First, it is directed at Talk-page discussion, and hardly would impact your common one-line edit summaries. The main provision that simple links to policies and guidelines should be supplemented by chapter and

541:

Yes, I agree with all of that, and cover much of it in my comments: I agree it should be up to the person challenging an edit what form the reply takes, considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account in particular the experience of the person they are writing for. Which is what I think the

332:

is self-explanitory, or at least that's its intention. Of course there may be times when an editor does not understand it, or questions particular aspects of it, but those can be addressed as necessary. There may be other times when it's better to explain the issue: when a new editor posts unsourced

313:

it is assailed as OR. What is obvious and simple to one man is another man's OR. One man's impeccable sourcing is another man's misinterpretation. Of course, sometimes OR is pretty clear, and an explanation may be very simple. But sometimes WP:OR is applied like a bumper sticker to avoid explanation

211:

it has many benefits. It saves both the person writing it and reading it time: the writer no longer has to write out a detailed explanation of the policy, while anyone seeing that shortcut knows what it refers to and understands what they mean (they can of course follow the link if they need to). So

2337:

If editors are being affected by the problems this describes then they should be happy to have them used to help fix the problems. More generally as it says at the bottom of the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here".

2259:

Asking for examples is fine. I was commenting more on the remarkable lack of judgment that led to the comment that began this section. Note though that it's also perfectly valid to write an essay (or even propose a guideline) on a perceived general issue even if the creator himself can't or doesn't

1325:

I would like to be there when a traffic cop stops a car, says "you were speeding" and tickets the motorist, then the motorist refuses to let the officer go until the officer gives him a detailed explanation of the law and why it has been applied to him. The rules are rules and apply to all editors.

919:

The polices have many uses but one use is they are required reading for all editors who at some point need to familiarise themselves with core content rules in particular on sourcing. It's very tempting to add your own research and discoveries to articles but the policies almost always prevent this

467:

I don't really like any of this, to be honest. You're advising established editors to reduce the amount of explanation they should feel required to provide, and I don't think that's a good thing. Merely stating policy is not really an argument in many cases (if not most), and it should therefore be

2626:

There is no harm in having an essay with a few suggestions along these lines. Although it is true that editors know what to do better than any editor, there is some value in a reminder that keeping an open mind takes a certain amount of intellectual energy. However, the essay has too many unstated

2144:

Thanks, I think someone needed to mention the elephant in the room. I said above that the "proposal is not suitable as a guideline as its main effect would be to encourage wikilawyering by those defending unsuitable text", but that was insufficiently clear. I think the page should be moved to user

1900:

It would be enlightening to have some examples of this behaviour, i.e. to point out where this has happened. Editors' initial replies can terse, especially when contained in an edit summary, and sometimes they do not follow up with a more detailed reply. But I've never come across an editor taking

1429:

The turn of this discussion toward banning and blocking is alarming. The predilection toward a belligerent refusal to explain the reasons for action, claiming policies are self-explanatory and nothing more than a link to policy is necessary, followed by an attempted enforcement action through AN/I

955:

So it should be up to the replying editor whether they give a detailed explanation, based on the complexity of the issue. Which is what it is now. It's also worth noting that if an editor's reply seems short for whatever reason (most likely they do not have time as they would rather be writing the

868:

Again the replying editor should use their judgement whether they need to give a detailed explanation, a short one, or simply a link to one or more policy pages where a very full and detailed explanation can be found. There is no point giving a detailed explanation if it simply repeats what's on a

694:

It's unclear what you disagree with in my comments: I noted earlier that I agree with your summary of the issue. My comments were grounded in my understanding of the current policy, so I was primarily trying to highlight how this proposal was at odds with those guidelines. I recognise the concerns

2338:

Apart from deleted content all contributions on Knowledge (XXG) are public, free for anyone to use in any way. It is normal and expected in behavioural discussions to provide diffs of editors' contributions, or other pointers to them, precisely so everyone is clear what the issues are. As you did

1408:

goes further in asking that not only should the replying editor give a detailed explanation of their reasoning on the whole contribution, they should "Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material". Presumably they

1262:

John, explain why "there's no need to go through someone's contribution" to point out what is at fault. Can you not imagine that the contributor thinks the contribution is fine, and is just bewildered that the rejecting editor finds fault? Why would the contributor's reading the policy over again

991:

John, this simple example is no problem, and doesn't address the purpose of this proposed guideline at all. Its purpose is to require rejections be supported by more than links to policy, and not allow them to hide behind a victim's supposed ignorance of policy. Even great familiarity with policy

585:

DE is one of the many places where a defender of the status quo of an article might look to deal with a dissenter, but I think it's already specific enough in detailing what is actually disruption so as to avoid misuse. Taking its section titles alone, they do seem harsh and easily misinterpreted

1310:

John, you want to direct matters to familiarity with the policies and devote much space to them. But you spend no time considering the issue: a policy must be judged to apply, and that judgment has to be explained, both as to how the offending text can be seen to be an example of what the policy

1955:

Still it would be good to have some examples of what behaviour this is meant to address: in my experience it simply doesn't happen as described. On the other hand disruptive editors that repeatedly ignore policies or consensus do exist: we already have many processes and guidelines to deal with

1468:

I understand the purpose of the proposal -- You do describe things that tend to happen when WP/article newcomers clash with veterans, and again I think there is a bit of a vacuum in Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of those situations. It wouldn't necessarily be good, though, to try to pinpoint "the"

1377:

Even if there are situations when a detailed explanation is not needed (a discussion amongst only veterans could work on a "link to policy, provide detailed explanations as requested" basis), providing it on a regular basis at talk pages should be considered a good practice to be encouraged and

674:

I don't have any specific changes in mind but once it were in mainspace I'd be interested in editing it. For now I think it should be renamed, tagged an essay, and moved into WP space to see how it evolves. Many (most?) guidelines start out that way, and then someone nominates it for promotion.

664:

255:

their contributions and need to justify them from sources if challenged. And again, "careful presentations of the reasons for rejection" are not needed if there are straightforward policy reasons for it. Policies might be explained to new editors but experienced ones can be expected to know the

2606:

In my opinion, these objections are themselves illustrations of the need for this essay. Although knowledge of policies is necessary, the application of a policy to a particular contribution can very well require a judgment or evaluation that is not obvious from unguided perusal of a policy or

2515:

edit which removed all the content without explanation. Although there are many issues with this essay it serves no purpose to remove it. The proper way to have this deleted would be via Miscellany for Deletion. Alternately it could be userfied, i.e. moved back into user space (provided no-one

1889:

A refusal to explain reasons for rejection, claiming policies are self-explanatory and that a link to policy is all that is necessary, and following attempted defense by going to AN/I with the claim that a contributor is "challenging the rules" by a refusal to learn policy, is a poor approach.

1676:

reasoning, but collaboration is a two-way street: while those who remove unsuitable text should do so in a collaborative fashion, it is even more important for the long-term health of the encyclopedia and its community that passionate purveyors of new ideas are also collaborative—if they see a

406:

If someone is easily upset by their ideas, interests or writing style being challenged by other editors they should not be on Knowledge (XXG), where such challenges are part of building consensus. They may get valuable feedback with a challenge or they may not. They may just get pointed to the

1780:

Johnuniq: You haven't answered my basic uncertainty about your viewpoint: How would following this guideline result in the "owning" of WP by those that won't try to understand? The guideline merely requests an initial explanation of the judgment call made by the refusing editor. There is no

1374:; a more apt metaphor would be a warning by a "neighbourhood watch" member who carries no official authority. I tend to side with Brews in this; "creating a policy" and "applying a policy to a discussion" are separate steps of consensus building so they both require their own justifications. 2007:

My appraisal is that getting involved in specific cases with diffs is a digression that will prove very distracting as a rehash of the case may result, whether this-or-that means thus-or-so. It suffices to present the matter in the abstract using possible scenarios. The objective is not to

784:

It should be as it is now, at the editor's discretion how much explanation they give. If they think the reason is clear and uncontroversial then just give the policy and/or a few words. If the editor then queries this they can offer a further explanation. I find I do this most often on

2260:

wish to find examples; perhaps someone else might even bring them. Either way, let's reserve judging this based on the guy that started it. Anyone who feels this has no chance and is a waste of time is not required to waste their time on it beyond simply leaving their oppose comment.

1022:

is the very pejorative language it uses. Replying editors are "blinkered", give "knee-jerk" replies, have "such a mindset" to reject proposals, "frequently fail" to listen then "summarily dismiss" contributions, citing tl;dr, give "off-the-cuff" rejections, etc. It is always best to

468:

considered on a case-by-case basis. Established editors who can see a problem as clear as day should be encouraged to spell it out regardless, especially to newcomers. A good argument should include a policy as well as an explanation of how that policy applies "here" specifically.

2008:

demonstrate occurrence of particular issues, but to avoid entire classes of issues as far as possible. One issue raised, of course, is the use of unsupported links to guidelines and refusal to elaborate beyond "read the policy". That is a recipe guaranteed to produce friction.

890:

an explanation about how an editor thinks that policy or guideline applies to a particular text. The refusing editor and the contributor will not always agree about these matters, or necessarily understand what each other are talking about. Reference to a policy page is just a

1758:" is closer. The real point is that while some people have infinite time, patience and enthusiasm, others don't. The encyclopedia should not be owned by the former group—there has to be a limit on back-and-forth, and if someone won't/can't get it, they should be referred to 963:

is correct and so keep asking for the other editors to disprove it with detailed mathematical arguments. But to the other editors it's simply original research and the sooner the person proposing it understands that that the better. The best explanation for that is at

2164:

for his disruptive editing and still unable to recognise that those blocks were entirely due to his behaviour. So instead he's trying to 'fix' Knowledge (XXG), by creating a guideline which would disrupt the perfectly good processes that got him blocked and banned.--

1469:

offending policy and patch it up so as to avoid problems in the future. I don't think that fact that these things happen is any indicator of a problem in the policies. We may be able to help smooth them by providing guidance on dealing with those situations, though.

2318:. My assessment of its merits expressed there is that discussion of such instances will prove a distraction as every editor will have their own opinion as to whether a real-life instance is an example of this or an example of that. In contrast, an abstract example, 665:

940:

The real issue is digging in behind knee-jerk refusals with further refusals to explain why the cited policies apply and, instead of a failure in the justification of its use, suggesting as you do here that the fault is with the victim's unfamiliarity with policy.

1501:

and so forth; to refocus upon their use as aids to better content and aids to better behavior, rather than having them turn up mainly as support for litigation. It may be that this and some similar guidelines could reduce the incidence of AN/I and ArbCom actions.

1522:

specifically (or any other policy) is appropriate. This is written from the perspective that existing policies need elaboration, and I don't think they do. Policies will be misused no matter how elaborate they are, and sometimes making them more elaborate

2417:

That category has continually been removed by multiple users, but restored by the author. The guideline category is for guidelines, not proposed guidelines, so this category should indeed not be here unless the page is actually promoted at some point.

2192:

I usually try to stick to commenting on content rather than editors, unless they give me some reason to do otherwise. This is just an essay with a 'proposed' tag on it, and if it truly has no merit, there's nothing to worry about: live and let die.

1413:

more lightweight and less formal, and can be overridden by consensus (though maybe you could liken that to the jury system). But our rules are clear and repeated violation including disruptively challenging the rules will get you blocked or banned.--

622:

is OK as is, although Blackburne has underlined an attitude that he feels is consonant with this guideline but seems worrisome to me. Could you take the trouble to suggest what changes would make this proposal more acceptable as a guideline?

1711:

Johnuniq: As an attempt to restate your view in my own words: you are saying that this proposed guideline increases the likelihood that a Talk-page exchange about a reversion will devolve into useless bickering? Is that it in a nutshell?

895:

in is more likely when the rejecting editor feels under no obligation to elaborate, that it is at their discretion, or takes the view that the policy page suffices, and the rejected party only has to read the policy for the light to dawn.

1840:

Diego: Thanks for the suggestions. I have reformatted to identify bullet points, using your suggestions. Te text is not shorter, but it does emphasize the recommendations. If you have further suggestions, I'd like to know about them.

2588:

Some previous commentary upon earlier versions of this essay made while it was under consideration as a WP guideline can be found above. Some supported the ideas here, and some objected. The main objections voiced so far appear to

719:"fail to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss" and "reject off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. 1809:. It should be reformatted so that each section provides a few "calls to action" in the form of a few bullet-point list. For example "Critiquing with guidelines and policies" could be summarized to these suggestions or similar: 789:

as editors after I've reverted their change query it. I've no problem doing this when needed, but to do it by default on the assumption that all editors need or deserve a detailed explanation would be a massive waste of my

2188:

Well, it may also be worth pointing out that Tim Shuba was rather involved in that dispute; so as much as Brews' history could be said to be coloring his motives here, so could Tim's in his making that characterization.

1175:

maths as editors post new proofs and identities, asserting it's good content as all the steps used to derive it are 'obvious', and challenging other editors to disprove their mathematics. But WP doesn't work like that.--

1517:

I'm attempting to support this proposal in a way, but you're inflating my comments beyond that. Yes, I think the motivation behind this proposal is sound; but I note specifically that I don't think your targeting of

1527:. If this proposal were re-written as a standalone guide to dealing with and being a conscientious dissenter with a previous consensus, I think it would be very beneficial. In its current state I'm not so sure. 487:

Okay it looks like I totally misunderstood what's going on here. I thought the proposal was John's comment above. I'll have to go read Brews' actual proposal and come back. My comment above is directed at John.

1990:

No, a real example, as in a real editor who has acted this way, with links. If it happens often enough to need a guideline covering it then it should be easy to find examples of the problem this guideline will

699:

explanation". The side effect of such a rule would be far more disruption as editors who now deal with it would have far less time to do so because they would spend far more time writing such explanations.--

1819:

Take extreme care with links to WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:RS, WP:POV fork, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue, since these policies can be seen as a pejorative judgement and a personal opinion by the editor raising the concern.

2597:

No specific examples employing diffs are provided by the essay to indicate that there is a significant problem with Talk page conduct introduced by reversions with too little explanation, or too little

212:

there no need to supply a detailed explanation if the policy is being used properly. Shortcuts are especially useful in edit summaries and straw polls but can be used in any discussion between editors.

2390:

the RfC, so the assumption by me and perhaps others was that you had withdrawn the proposal and were happy for it to stay as an essay, or resigned to it not gaining consensus for promotion. You missed

1922:

of AN/I action, just the idea that a supposedly repeated failure to become informed of policy was an actionable form of "challenging the rules". This paragraph was an outgrowth of your description in

314:

in pursuit of hasty dismissal, ignoring the perplexity and heated environment that this causes. Avoiding that insensitive behavior and keeping Talk pages open and calm is what this proposal is about.

578:

eventually be elevated to guideline, with some work. The proposal seems to advise on dealing with article newcomers and those who may dissent with a previous consensus, as well as advising on how to

431:, and concern corrections that clearly don't require much elaboration. That is not the context here. Maybe such cases require elaboration? Some discussion of when an in-line summary is appropriate? 2322:, is stated to be what it is, and one cannot quarrel about that. An abstract example also avoids dragging the personalities involved in a concrete example into a limelight they may not appreciate. 1726:

Assuming the above fits your remarks, perhaps you might elaborate upon why a Talk page discussion of a rejection guided by this proposal is more likely to be counterproductive than one without it?

598:). DE seems to focus on recognizing disruption based on a user's editing, rather than on their discussion, which is appropriate -- though maybe it needs to spell out that distinction more clearly. 169: 407:

relevant policy. Most editors are here to make an encyclopaedia and may have no time to write lengthy replies, especially when the reasons are given in more than enough detail on policy pages.--

956:

encyclopaedia) another editor can and often will provide a more full reply. The relative verboseness of different editors replies is not a problem needing to be solved, it's just human nature.

403:, which I linked to above, says "if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them." 2674: 756:

John, uncontroversial changes, by definition, do not require "detailed explanation", and would not be impacted. Your personal definition of "non-controversial" may need a narrower focus.

136: 1929:"Of course all editors start not knowing the rules, and we should do our best to help newcomers until they are familiar with our practices. But there is a guideline on precisely that, 1756:

Disruption occurs when someone with new ideas won't accept what they are told, and won't try to understand how they might go about learning what the problem with their contribution is

1326:

Of course all editors start not knowing the rules, and we should do our best to help newcomers until they are familiar with our practices. But there is a guideline on precisely that,

273:

on anything a secondary source is needed. This especially covers issues of undue weight and how to cover fringe topics which must be determined from reliable secondary sources.--

1823:

This way readers can get the point quickly, and read the elaborate rationale for the proposed actions only when they disagree or don't understand one of the recommendations.

2043:

There are similarly a number of steps a new contributor can take in order to facilitate the serious consideration of their ideas among the community of established editors.

1933:, and it applies only to new editors. We do not need to treat experienced editors the same way, as if they don't know the rules and need treating with 'sensitivity'." 1330:, and it applies only to new editors. We do not need to treat experienced editors the same way, as if they don't know the rules and need treating with 'sensitivity'. 373:

personal appraisals, and the contributor deserves (and expects) an explanation of these claims. Failure to live up to this expectation leads to hostile encounters.

1766:. This is an encyclopedia, not a feel-good group: common sense and experience tells us that not everyone will be satisfied—there is nothing we can do about that. 1146:

The first may appear unmotivated by the contributor and raise their blood pressure. The second indicates what is thought to be a problem, and what to do about it.

2684: 242:

can also be used to challenge changes that place to much emphasis on one aspect or viewpoint, asking the person proposing the change to justify it from sources.

2484:

Note that the "Guidance essay" template auto-adds the guideline essays category, so there's no need to explicitly add an essay category to the end of the page.

1267:

contribution? Won't the rejector try harder to exhibit some empathy if they follow this proposed guideline? Won't peace be more likely to prevail? I think so.

959:

If no editor gives a detailed explanation the editor proposing new content should reconsider their contributions. They may think their complex new proof of

770:

In particular, the one-line edit summary should suffice for a non-controversial change. If that doesn't work, maybe the change is controversial after all?

99: 1351:. The rule on edit summaries is not one you should ignore, and certainly not one you can advise other editors on if you pay no attention to it yourself.-- 2594:

Present practice is quite adequate: namely, to rebut contributor complaints about rejection by suggesting more diligent study of policies and guidelines.

251:

While we should not scare off newcomers and should treat all editors with respect there is no need for "sensitivity" towards the efforts of editors, who

2561: 2319: 2217: 146: 2196:

It might be wise not to stir up year-old conflicts by following each other around Knowledge (XXG) just because there is now the opportunity to do so.

1027:

and so not pre-judge the motives or the mindset of editors doing their best to improve the encyclopaedia with only a finite amount of time to do so.--

1813:

Don't just link to a policy; policies are complex and contain many details and cases. Mention what part of the policy is relevant to the discussion.

1239:

it, usually with a few words to make it a sentence. There's no need for a policy to tell them what to write, it has to be down to their judgement.--

1074:

The language that offends you is not stated to apply as matter of course to rejections, but to describe hazards that may be fallen into. It is not

651:

I do disagree with a lot of John's (Blackburne's) points, but I don't think his statements are necessarily rooted in, or imply any problem with,

2601:

The proposed mode of operation coddles contributors at the expense of wasting the time of knowledgeable editors in explaining their rejections.

1293:, just lead to more wikilawyering and disruption from inexperienced editors demanding editors justify straightforward policy-based decisions.-- 2679: 2655: 2523: 2471: 2449: 2402: 2349: 2304: 2250: 2171: 1998: 1963: 1908: 1420: 1358: 1337:

mainspace edits should be accompanied with a summary of the edit and the reasons for it. It is a rule you continue to ignore despite being

1300: 1246: 1182: 1111: 1034: 975: 927: 876: 797: 706: 553: 414: 340: 280: 1149:

The first is rather likely to escalate; the second, less so. The first violates the proposed guideline; the second follows the guideline.

108: 1806: 2145:

space as it never will be more than an attempt to rewrite rules to encourage behavior that has been clearly rejected by the community.

2464:, which is one in user space, as it was before it was moved here. I don't know if anyone wants to move it back: I'm neutral on this.-- 819:; if you differ, please go to Talk page". The idea is to avoid irritation so far as possible. You seem to see more in this than I do? 1626:

The intro is a little complicated. I'd not start with the explicit description, "this is intended to..." but go with "Oftentimes, ."

400: 715:

Well, for one thing, I do think established editors should be encouraged to supply more explanation than merely linking to a policy.

519:

to accomplish: "A good argument should include a policy as well as an explanation of how that policy applies "here" specifically."

1740:

I changed the wording "conciliatory environment for contributors" to a quote from the fourth pillar of WP: "respectful and civil".

1816:

Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material.

1011:

says "rejection based upon guidelines and policies such as WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:VS, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and so forth should include

571: 69: 44: 1044:

two) (iii) a statement of how the selected text fails to satisfy the policy requirements. Would that addition help matters?

1805:

I agree to a large extent with the overall premise and goals of the essay, but haven't read it in detail; it suffers from

1170:

I don't see how the second is detailed or an explanation, and it's inappropriate as 'non-obvious' is not a good criteria.

77: 1936:"our rules are clear and repeated violation including disruptively challenging the rules will get you blocked or banned." 349:

It is a valid point that policies are neutral, while interpretations are personal. However, the statement of a policy is

1367:

My two cents - I find your cop metaphor rather ironic by itself, given that Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines are

2438:

Yes, and thanks for removing it properly: I'm used to turning them into links as I come across them on user pages, per

112: 2224:

by Shuba, Blackburne, and Johnuniq suggests for these three, however, content may not be their primary preoccupation.

265:

It also mischaracterises the policy on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to establish simple

2442:, but there's no need for any such link here. Once it's done as a proposal it can be re-categorised as appropriate.-- 1430:

claiming a contributor is "challenging the rules" by a refusal to learn policy, is not a great approach. However, it

226:

it is the person proposing or supporting an addition that needs to supply sources if challenged. The same applies to

1941:

The guideline will help avoid such extreme action without a summary pointing out its role in supporting moderation.

2364:

I have converted this page to an essay, as there seems to be no further interest in the community for discussion.

165: 1015:

explanation". So which is it? Always a detailed explanation ? Or only if the editor replying thinks it's needed ?

786: 516: 2461: 297:

are worrisome. You describe exactly the cavalier attitude that takes WP:OR as self-explanatory. Of course the

50: 2560:

intended to reduce controversy on Talk pages over new contributions to existing articles. The essay is found

542:

current approach is. Hence my objection to this guideline's insistence that all such replies "should include

238:

is intended): the weight that is given to something in an article depends on it's appearance in sources, so

1918:

I removed this paragraph as it seemed to too narrowly focus the proposal. There was no discussion there of

1763: 1519: 1490: 619: 960: 913: 2439: 2659: 2636: 2632: 2619: 2615: 2577: 2573: 2542: 2538: 2527: 2475: 2453: 2406: 2381: 2377: 2369: 2353: 2331: 2327: 2308: 2254: 2233: 2229: 2175: 2154: 2138: 2094: 2090: 2076: 2072: 2058: 2054: 2017: 2013: 2002: 1985: 1981: 1967: 1950: 1946: 1912: 1864: 1850: 1846: 1832: 1790: 1786: 1775: 1749: 1745: 1735: 1731: 1721: 1717: 1705: 1654: 1650: 1621: 1617: 1577: 1573: 1563: 1559: 1511: 1507: 1443: 1439: 1424: 1391: 1362: 1320: 1316: 1304: 1276: 1272: 1250: 1228: 1224: 1186: 1158: 1154: 1115: 1091: 1087: 1067: 1063: 1053: 1049: 1038: 1001: 997: 979: 950: 946: 931: 907: 903: 880: 850: 846: 828: 824: 801: 779: 775: 765: 761: 710: 646: 642: 632: 628: 557: 528: 524: 454: 450: 440: 436: 418: 382: 378: 344: 323: 319: 284: 207:- this seems to fundamentally misunderstand the use of policy in a discussion. When an editor uses e.g. 1689: 1404:

which has just summaries. But asking editors even to write as much as on that page would be excessive.

637:

I added a nutshell at the outset that I feel confident is completely opposed to Blackburne's position.

807:

verse applies on Talk pages. If you can get away with a one-line edit summary that consists of simply

1860: 1828: 1387: 1263:

help to identify what is in the rejector's mind, and how the rejector reached their conclusion about

1554:

of these policies with direct illustrations from contributed text that show the need for attention.

1210:

The statement "so-and-so" appears to go beyond the statement "thus-and-thus" provided by the source

2650: 2518: 2494: 2466: 2444: 2428: 2397: 2344: 2299: 2270: 2245: 2206: 2166: 2134: 1993: 1958: 1903: 1636: 1603: 1537: 1479: 1415: 1353: 1295: 1241: 1177: 1106: 1029: 970: 922: 871: 792: 731: 701: 685: 608: 592:

as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

582:

a conscientious dissenter -- these are indeed areas where Knowledge (XXG) could use more guidance.

548: 498: 478: 409: 335: 275: 1973: 1696:"? Knowledge (XXG) is not a feel-good exercise—it's an encyclopedia built using certain policies. 1379: 812: 104: 2150: 1771: 1701: 1584: 2122: 1524: 239: 1894:

a methodology employed by some. This guideline is intended to promote real discussion instead.

1333:

I would also note that the section on using edit summaries is rather ironic: the rule is that

586:("failure to get the point" etc), but the prose do seem to clarify the intent adequately, ie. 428: 1930: 1489:

Equazcion, as you note, this proposed guideline is intended to smooth out the application of

1327: 17: 2628: 2611: 2569: 2534: 2373: 2365: 2323: 2225: 2086: 2068: 2050: 2009: 1977: 1942: 1842: 1782: 1741: 1727: 1713: 1646: 1613: 1569: 1555: 1503: 1435: 1312: 1268: 1220: 1150: 1136:

The statement "so-and-so" appears to be non-obvious: please provide a source as required by

1083: 1059: 1045: 993: 942: 899: 842: 820: 771: 757: 638: 624: 520: 446: 432: 374: 315: 305:. But it can be misapplied. An explanation of policy does not help a contributor understand 216: 2220:

indicates the adoption of changes in content in response to comment about its subject. The

1759: 1498: 1368: 1215: 1198: 1024: 252: 227: 1856: 1824: 1383: 107:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 1590: 1550:

suggestions are made for changing any policies, the suggestions are about supporting the

1494: 1401: 1397: 1171: 1137: 1124: 965: 834: 816: 808: 652: 329: 302: 294: 235: 223: 208: 2395:

Without any evidence that this is needed there is no case for it becoming a guideline.--

2486: 2420: 2391: 2262: 2198: 2130: 1628: 1595: 1529: 1471: 723: 677: 600: 490: 470: 1677: 231: 2668: 2146: 1781:

suggestion for unending back and forth. Maybe you can help me formulate this better?

1767: 1697: 1409:

should do this for every policy it violates, and for every section that has problems.

1434:

a methodology employed by some. This guideline is intended to promote better sense.

2049:

That raises this question: Should more be said in this proposal about this point?

290:

John, your comment on primary sources requires some revision; I'll look into that.

1755: 1693: 2105:

opinions or consensus of others and insists on presenting himself as a victim.

1400:

is a detailed explanation, which is why people link to it, rather than to e.g.

155: 91: 63: 898:

This guideline makes clear the duties of both parties for clear explanation.

588:"Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to 1976:

in the article. Maybe you would like to see others? Please explain further.

1378:

normally followed. The "detail" doesn't need to be really extended - simply

2238:

This is not a content issue though, as the proposed document is a proposed

1546:

Can you make some specific suggestions for changes? You might notice that

2314:

The issue of concrete examples involving diffs was brought up before in

886:

John, as you know, a policy or guideline description on its own page is

570:

After having read the correct proposal, I don't think it belongs within

1694:

A goal of WP is to provide a conciliatory environment for contributors.

1612:

OK,I've changed the intro along those lines. How do things look now?

912:

A concrete example: suppose someone posts a 'new' one-page proof for

2216:

Thank you for that note of civility, Equazcion. The edit history of

1194:

John, you are imagining a WP:SYN situation. Here's another example:

1568:

I have modified the intro in the hope of addressing your concerns.

968:

so the replies consist mostly of suggestions to read that policy.--

2565: 2627:

assumptions that in sum are contrary to policy and practice. --

655:-- he just doesn't like your proposal (as is my understanding). 103:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 2516:

objects), after which the owner can do as they wish with it.--

2107: 230:

and in different ways to the other policies (though I suspect

26: 1380:

explaining in the wikilink how the linked policy is relevant

154: 2243:

their problems, then there is no need for this guideline.--

2037:: These changes are helpful. You introduced the sentence: 815:, the suggestion is that instead you say: "Thought to be 515:

Yes, Equazcion, your above comment states what I intend

256:

policies, or where to find them if they need reminding.

2512: 2387: 2339: 2082: 2064: 2034: 1880: 1754:

That "nutshell" interpretation is not really my view; "

1405: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1120:

John, contrast these two rejections of a contribution:

1019: 1008: 424: 198: 1214:: please provide additional sourcing as required by 574:, though it might make a good standalone essay that 2675:

Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages

1396:That to me is neither detailed or an explanation. 2533:Sorry; this blanking of the page was accidental. 369:are not policy matters, but judgment calls, they 833:Maybe you object to explaining the use of (say) 309:exactly is assailed as OR, nor does it explain 43:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2218:Knowledge (XXG):Avoiding talk-page disruption 1589:I would remove the opening that ties this to 8: 1058:I've rewritten this portion to be clearer. 197:There are a number of issues with the core 172:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 2556:Comments are invited concerning the essay 361:aspect of a contribution is questionable. 58: 2081:I followed this up with several edits to 2685:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 1645:I've made a second attempt. How's that? 215:Compare e.g. when someone says they are 127:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 60: 2121:Don't act like the two banned editors 841:rejection of a proposed contribution? 1807:Knowledge (XXG):Too long; didn't read 401:Knowledge (XXG):Ownership of articles 7: 2607:guideline, and deserves explanation. 1493:and the use of unsupported links to 32: 30: 2610:Comments of all kinds are invited. 49:It is of interest to the following 2564:, and comments are invited on its 618:Equazcion: You seem to think that 399:No editor 'deserves' anything. As 121:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays 111:. For a listing of essays see the 100:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 25: 2460:And on a related note it's not a 97:This page is within the scope of 2111: 445:I added a bit about this topic. 90: 76: 62: 31: 2680:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 2644: 1855:Yes, it works better this way. 2315: 2221: 1923: 1290: 1: 2558:Avoiding talk-page disruption 2551:Avoiding talk-page disruption 2297:no need for this guideline.-- 1018:Another serious problem with 18:User talk:Brews ohare/sandbox 293:Your comments on the use of 141:This page has been rated as 2085:advice to the two parties. 1879:The recently added summary 357:it is applicable, nor just 260:Avoiding consensus building 124:Template:WikiProject Essays 2701: 2543:04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC) 2528:03:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC) 2476:18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2454:21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 2407:19:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2382:14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2354:17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2342:in a related discussion.-- 2332:17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2309:16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2290:Excerpt from above comment 2255:16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2234:15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2176:02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2155:02:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 2139:23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 2095:15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 2077:14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 2059:13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 2018:14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 2003:14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 1986:13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 1968:13:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 1951:12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 1913:03:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 1865:07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 1851:14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1833:10:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1791:04:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1776:00:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1750:16:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1736:14:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1722:12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1706:00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1655:15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1622:14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1578:14:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1564:14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1512:13:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1463:Excerpt from above comment 1444:16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1425:15:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1392:10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1363:20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1321:20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1305:19:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1277:19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1251:18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1229:17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1187:17:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1159:16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1116:16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1092:13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1068:13:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1054:13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1039:01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 1002:23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 980:22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 951:21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 932:18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 908:01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 881:22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 851:21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 829:21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 802:20:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 780:20:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 766:19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 711:19:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 647:15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 633:15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 558:19:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 529:18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 455:17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 441:16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 419:16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 383:16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 345:15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 324:14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 285:03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 205:Interfering with consensus 2660:18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 2637:13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 2620:16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 2578:16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 162: 140: 85: 57: 2499:21:00, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC) 2433:21:03, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC) 2275:16:33, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC) 2211:04:47, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC) 2119:This page in a nutshell: 1641:14:56, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC) 1608:14:29, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC) 1542:13:58, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC) 1484:18:00, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC) 736:19:33, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC) 690:18:00, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC) 613:12:56, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC) 503:18:47, 15 Mar 2012 (UTC) 483:18:41, 15 Mar 2012 (UTC) 246:Failure to get the point 222:Further, in the case of 1341:about it, even in your 1098:are there to be applied 1009:the proposed guideline 166:automatically assessed 159: 147:project's impact scale 105:Knowledge (XXG) essays 961:Fermat's Last Theorem 914:Fermat's Last Theorem 572:WP:Disruptive editing 164:The above rating was 158: 2035:Changes by Equazcion 1102:are there to be used 1680:link, they need to 2413:Guideline category 353:an explanation of 301:is spelled out at 160: 45:content assessment 2653: 2521: 2511:I've just undone 2498: 2469: 2447: 2432: 2400: 2347: 2302: 2274: 2248: 2210: 2169: 2128: 2127: 2083:formally separate 1996: 1961: 1906: 1640: 1607: 1588: 1541: 1483: 1418: 1382:would be enough. 1356: 1339:previously warned 1298: 1244: 1206:contrasted with, 1180: 1109: 1032: 1025:assume good faith 973: 925: 874: 795: 735: 704: 689: 612: 551: 502: 482: 429:one-line comments 427:are supported by 412: 338: 278: 224:original research 185: 184: 181: 180: 177: 176: 173: 16:(Redirected from 2692: 2649: 2549:RfC upon essay: 2517: 2500: 2493: 2491: 2465: 2443: 2434: 2427: 2425: 2396: 2343: 2298: 2276: 2269: 2267: 2244: 2212: 2205: 2203: 2165: 2115: 2114: 2108: 1992: 1957: 1902: 1757: 1695: 1642: 1635: 1633: 1609: 1602: 1600: 1582: 1543: 1536: 1534: 1485: 1478: 1476: 1414: 1352: 1294: 1240: 1176: 1105: 1100:. The shortcuts 1028: 969: 921: 870: 791: 787:my own talk page 737: 730: 728: 700: 691: 684: 682: 614: 607: 605: 547: 504: 497: 495: 484: 477: 475: 408: 334: 274: 269:, but to make a 217:taking the Fifth 163: 129: 128: 125: 122: 119: 94: 87: 86: 81: 80: 79: 74: 66: 59: 36: 35: 34: 27: 21: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2665: 2664: 2658: 2585: 2554: 2526: 2509: 2507:Content removal 2487: 2485: 2474: 2452: 2421: 2419: 2415: 2405: 2362: 2352: 2307: 2287: 2263: 2261: 2253: 2199: 2197: 2186: 2174: 2112: 2102: 2032: 2001: 1966: 1920:failure to warn 1911: 1877: 1803: 1684:the V text and 1673: 1629: 1627: 1596: 1594: 1530: 1528: 1472: 1470: 1460: 1423: 1361: 1303: 1249: 1185: 1114: 1037: 978: 930: 879: 800: 724: 722: 709: 678: 676: 601: 599: 568: 556: 546:explanation".-- 491: 489: 471: 469: 417: 343: 283: 199:points it makes 195: 190: 126: 123: 120: 117: 116: 113:essay directory 75: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2698: 2696: 2688: 2687: 2682: 2677: 2667: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2654: 2651:JohnBlackburne 2645:above comments 2643:Further to my 2640: 2639: 2623: 2622: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2581: 2553: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2522: 2519:JohnBlackburne 2508: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2479: 2478: 2470: 2467:JohnBlackburne 2457: 2456: 2448: 2445:JohnBlackburne 2414: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2401: 2398:JohnBlackburne 2361: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2348: 2345:JohnBlackburne 2312: 2311: 2303: 2300:JohnBlackburne 2286: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2249: 2246:JohnBlackburne 2185: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2170: 2167:JohnBlackburne 2158: 2157: 2126: 2125: 2116: 2101: 2098: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 1997: 1994:JohnBlackburne 1970: 1962: 1959:JohnBlackburne 1939: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1907: 1904:JohnBlackburne 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1738: 1724: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1566: 1487: 1486: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1419: 1416:JohnBlackburne 1410: 1375: 1357: 1354:JohnBlackburne 1331: 1299: 1296:JohnBlackburne 1291:as noted below 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1245: 1242:JohnBlackburne 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1181: 1178:JohnBlackburne 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1147: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1110: 1107:JohnBlackburne 1072: 1071: 1070: 1033: 1030:JohnBlackburne 1016: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 974: 971:JohnBlackburne 957: 938: 926: 923:JohnBlackburne 917: 896: 892: 875: 872:JohnBlackburne 869:policy page.-- 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 831: 796: 793:JohnBlackburne 768: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 716: 705: 702:JohnBlackburne 669: 668: 667: 666: 659: 658: 657: 656: 635: 596:emphasis added 567: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 552: 549:JohnBlackburne 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 508: 507: 506: 505: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 443: 423:John, many of 413: 410:JohnBlackburne 404: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 339: 336:JohnBlackburne 291: 279: 276:JohnBlackburne 194: 191: 189: 186: 183: 182: 179: 178: 175: 174: 161: 151: 150: 139: 133: 132: 130: 95: 83: 82: 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2697: 2686: 2683: 2681: 2678: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2670: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2514: 2506: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2490: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2455: 2451: 2446: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2424: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2399: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2341: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320:like this one 2317: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2291: 2284: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2266: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2202: 2194: 2190: 2183: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2124: 2120: 2117: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2099: 2097: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2036: 2029: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1882: 1874: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1818: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1800: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764:WP:NOTTHERAPY 1761: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1670: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1632: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1592: 1586: 1585:edit conflict 1581: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1533: 1526: 1521: 1520:WP:Disruption 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491:WP:Disruption 1482: 1481: 1477: 1475: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1457: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1297: 1292: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265:this specific 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1217: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1173: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1031: 1026: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 999: 995: 981: 977: 972: 967: 962: 958: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 939: 935: 934: 933: 929: 924: 918: 915: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 891:non-response. 889: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 873: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 805: 804: 803: 799: 794: 788: 783: 782: 781: 777: 773: 769: 767: 763: 759: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 734: 733: 729: 727: 720: 717: 714: 713: 712: 708: 703: 698: 693: 692: 688: 687: 683: 681: 673: 672: 671: 670: 663: 662: 661: 660: 654: 650: 649: 648: 644: 640: 636: 634: 630: 626: 621: 620:WP:Disruptive 617: 616: 615: 611: 610: 606: 604: 597: 593: 591: 583: 581: 577: 573: 565: 559: 555: 550: 545: 540: 539: 538: 537: 530: 526: 522: 518: 517:this proposal 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 501: 500: 496: 494: 486: 485: 481: 480: 476: 474: 466: 456: 452: 448: 444: 442: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 421: 420: 416: 411: 405: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 346: 342: 337: 331: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 289: 288: 287: 286: 282: 277: 272: 268: 263: 261: 257: 254: 249: 247: 243: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 220: 218: 213: 210: 206: 202: 201:. In detail. 200: 192: 187: 171: 167: 157: 153: 152: 148: 144: 138: 135: 134: 131: 114: 110: 106: 102: 101: 96: 93: 89: 88: 84: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 42: 38: 29: 28: 19: 2557: 2555: 2550: 2510: 2495: 2488: 2440:WP:USERNOCAT 2429: 2422: 2416: 2363: 2313: 2289: 2288: 2271: 2264: 2239: 2222:rallying cry 2207: 2200: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2129: 2118: 2103: 2080: 2062: 2048: 2033: 1919: 1899: 1891: 1890:However, it 1878: 1822: 1804: 1688:(perhaps at 1685: 1681: 1674: 1637: 1630: 1604: 1597: 1551: 1547: 1538: 1531: 1488: 1480: 1473: 1462: 1461: 1431: 1406:The proposal 1370: 1334: 1287: 1264: 1237: 1213: 1209: 1197: 1169: 1135: 1123: 1101: 1097: 1079: 1075: 1020:the proposal 1012: 990: 887: 867: 838: 732: 725: 718: 696: 686: 679: 609: 602: 595: 589: 587: 584: 579: 575: 569: 543: 499: 492: 479: 472: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 310: 306: 298: 270: 266: 264: 259: 258: 250: 245: 244: 221: 214: 204: 203: 196: 142: 98: 51:WikiProjects 41:project page 40: 2629:Ring Cinema 2612:Brews ohare 2570:Brews ohare 2535:Brews ohare 2388:You removed 2374:Brews ohare 2366:Brews ohare 2324:Brews ohare 2226:Brews ohare 2087:Brews ohare 2069:Brews ohare 2051:Brews ohare 2010:Brews ohare 1978:Brews ohare 1943:Brews ohare 1843:Brews ohare 1783:Brews ohare 1742:Brews ohare 1728:Brews ohare 1714:Brews ohare 1690:WP:HELPDESK 1647:Brews ohare 1614:Brews ohare 1570:Brews ohare 1556:Brews ohare 1504:Brews ohare 1436:Brews ohare 1313:Brews ohare 1269:Brews ohare 1221:Brews ohare 1151:Brews ohare 1084:Brews ohare 1076:descriptive 1060:Brews ohare 1046:Brews ohare 994:Brews ohare 943:Brews ohare 900:Brews ohare 843:Brews ohare 821:Brews ohare 772:Brews ohare 758:Brews ohare 639:Brews ohare 625:Brews ohare 521:Brews ohare 447:Brews ohare 433:Brews ohare 375:Brews ohare 316:Brews ohare 2669:Categories 2462:user essay 2360:Comment 10 1991:address.-- 1974:an example 1080:cautionary 425:your edits 253:do not own 143:Low-impact 109:discussion 73:Low‑impact 2648:others.-- 2598:courtesy. 2566:Talk page 2489:Equazcion 2423:Equazcion 2392:Tim Shuba 2316:Comment 6 2285:Comment 9 2265:Equazcion 2240:behaviour 2201:Equazcion 2131:Tim Shuba 2100:Comment 8 2030:Comment 7 1972:There is 1924:Comment 2 1881:currently 1875:Comment 6 1801:Comment 5 1671:Comment 4 1631:Equazcion 1598:Equazcion 1532:Equazcion 1474:Equazcion 1458:Comment 3 1343:mainspace 839:Talk-page 813:WP:Fringe 726:Equazcion 680:Equazcion 603:Equazcion 566:Comment 2 493:Equazcion 473:Equazcion 193:Comment 1 2583:Comments 2147:Johnuniq 2063:I added 1768:Johnuniq 1698:Johnuniq 1013:detailed 697:detailed 544:detailed 240:WP:UNDUE 188:Comments 1956:them.-- 1931:WP:BITE 1371:the law 1328:WP:BITE 790:time.-- 145:on the 2184:remark 1883:reads 1760:WP:CIR 1525:is bad 1499:WP:Syn 1216:WP:SYN 1199:WP:SYN 299:policy 228:WP:SYN 168:using 118:Essays 70:Essays 47:scale. 2656:deeds 2524:deeds 2472:deeds 2450:deeds 2403:deeds 2350:deeds 2305:deeds 2251:deeds 2172:deeds 2123:here. 1999:deeds 1964:deeds 1909:deeds 1857:Diego 1825:Diego 1682:study 1591:WP:DE 1495:WP:OR 1421:deeds 1402:WP:5P 1398:WP:OR 1384:Diego 1359:deeds 1349:today 1346:edits 1301:deeds 1247:deeds 1183:deeds 1172:WP:OR 1138:WP:OR 1125:WP:OR 1112:deeds 1035:deeds 976:deeds 966:WP:OR 928:deeds 877:deeds 837:in a 835:WP:OR 817:WP:OR 809:WP:OR 798:deeds 707:deeds 653:WP:DE 576:could 554:deeds 415:deeds 341:deeds 330:WP:OR 303:WP:OR 295:WP:OR 281:deeds 271:point 267:facts 236:WP:VS 209:WP:OR 39:This 2633:talk 2616:talk 2574:talk 2562:here 2539:talk 2513:this 2378:talk 2370:talk 2340:here 2328:talk 2230:talk 2151:talk 2135:talk 2091:talk 2073:talk 2065:this 2055:talk 2014:talk 1982:talk 1947:talk 1861:talk 1847:talk 1829:talk 1787:talk 1772:talk 1746:talk 1732:talk 1718:talk 1702:talk 1678:WP:V 1651:talk 1618:talk 1574:talk 1560:talk 1508:talk 1440:talk 1388:talk 1369:not 1317:talk 1273:talk 1225:talk 1155:talk 1132:or, 1088:talk 1078:but 1064:talk 1050:talk 1007:But 998:talk 947:talk 904:talk 847:talk 825:talk 776:talk 762:talk 643:talk 629:talk 525:talk 451:talk 437:talk 379:talk 367:what 365:and 359:what 328:But 320:talk 307:what 234:not 232:WP:V 170:data 2589:be: 1762:or 1686:ask 1552:use 1335:all 888:not 811:or 590:act 371:are 363:Why 355:why 351:not 311:why 137:Low 2671:: 2635:) 2618:) 2576:) 2568:. 2541:) 2380:) 2330:) 2292:: 2232:) 2153:) 2137:) 2093:) 2075:) 2067:. 2057:) 2016:) 1984:) 1949:) 1926:: 1892:is 1863:) 1849:) 1831:) 1789:) 1774:) 1748:) 1734:) 1720:) 1704:) 1653:) 1620:) 1576:) 1562:) 1548:no 1510:) 1497:, 1442:) 1432:is 1390:) 1319:) 1275:) 1227:) 1157:) 1090:) 1082:. 1066:) 1052:) 1000:) 949:) 906:) 849:) 827:) 778:) 764:) 645:) 631:) 580:be 527:) 453:) 439:) 381:) 322:) 2631:( 2614:( 2572:( 2537:( 2376:( 2368:( 2326:( 2228:( 2149:( 2133:( 2089:( 2071:( 2053:( 2012:( 1980:( 1945:( 1859:( 1845:( 1827:( 1785:( 1770:( 1744:( 1730:( 1716:( 1700:( 1649:( 1616:( 1587:) 1583:( 1572:( 1558:( 1506:( 1438:( 1386:( 1315:( 1271:( 1223:( 1218:. 1212:x 1153:( 1140:. 1086:( 1062:( 1048:( 996:( 945:( 902:( 845:( 823:( 774:( 760:( 641:( 627:( 594:( 523:( 449:( 435:( 377:( 318:( 149:. 115:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption - Knowledge (XXG)

Index