Knowledge (XXG):If you could re-write the rules

1032:

what would be done for historical figures from several millennia ago? Semi-legendary figures that may or may not have even been alive? Completely mythical figures that may nevertheless have been based upon real ones? Fictional people that are 'properties' of corporations? Articles about aspects of people rather than the people themselves? Articles about groups of people? Articles that aren't about a person at all but nonetheless mention facts about people? Articles about organizations that are made up of people? Articles about corporations, which are run by people? Articles about places, which are inhabited by people? See the problem yet? --

957:, perhaps for those 16 and upwards. (Wow, that's really hypocritical.) I have nothing against the odd Anonymous Dissident coming along to RfA once in a blue moon, but users that can't even spell administrator really shouldn't have extra tools than those who can. I am absolutely against ageism (as are most people my age, lol.) but you must discern that many of the world's 12-year-olds aren't really fit to administrate the eighth-biggest website in the world. Also the legal shite that most people complain about. But yeah, young generally equals immature, and immature generally equals no adminship. Or it should. 47:, as we have pejoratively labeled them because Lord Almighty forbid people enjoy using a website to socialize. No, this is Knowledge (XXG). This is serious motherfucking business, and don't you forget it, or I will condemn you to live in New Jersey. (Greatly sorry, New Jersey.) End this prosecution of victimless crime, because for all you know they might be interested in doing some actual work once they've been acculturated to Knowledge (XXG). This is relevant because I know of a website where they allow all sorts of fun and socializing, and it has only encouraged me to participate on the real work). 331:. Go through the MOS from top to bottom. Remove anything contradictory (if we say different things in different places, that implies there isn't a consensus on the matter). Remove anything that doesn't absolutely need to be there – do we really need a policy on when to use the unicode ½ character and when to use the {{frac|1|1|2}} template? Merge all the subpages into a single page. If this page comes in at over 100kb in length, pare it down some more. Once we're down to a few key guidelines that everyone agrees are necessary, give that the force of policy. Create a deliberately difficult RFA-style 2909:

readability unlike Denis Diderot and many later encyclopedists, who even when severely hamstrung by a dearth of space, still tried to make the illustrations and descriptions such as could be directly implemented by an ingenious person. If we only would take our superordinate goal of comprehensiveness seriously our article should enable somebody in possession of nothing but that article to construct a working wind-mill driven well. Historically what brought this on was an unconscionable fetishisazion of Neutral Point of View. The original *purpose* of NPOV as conceived, was to be an

3488:

imposes a non zero cost to sock, although it's still spoofable, no system is perfect. You can use a "handle" but your user page must, at all times, disclose your real name (and includes a link to some WMF developed thingie that shows all and sundry that the name matches the donation payment, this link cannot be removed, it's a feature of the page, not an editable thing...) playing games with the name is a bannable offense, liftable by a payment of 10x the last payment, so 50 USD for the first offense, 500 USD for the next, and so forth.

108:. Believe me, now you've got his attention I dare say you'll be hearing a lot more than you ever wanted to hear about the Evil Conspiracy against him in which everyone involved behaves Just Like The Nazis in their attempts to stifle his advocacy of the Pre Hammurabic System. (Or maybe he's against the PHC and Knowledge (XXG) and the Nazis are for it – I don't think anyone's ever read one of his posts all the way through to find out.) If you're really lucky, he'll share some of his song lyrics with you. – 345:, allowing users to delete pages less than 24h old with fewer than 10 revisions; block accounts with fewer than 50 edits; semi (but not full) protect pages for a period of up to 24 hours. Give this right automatically to any account over six months old with 2000 edits and a clean block log, and via an informal rollback-style process for anyone not meeting the above criteria. Six months after gaining Limitedsysop (e.g., after a year's activity in most cases), accounts are 673:

themselves, and so we have come to blaming the process when it doesn't actually have an "autofail" setting. If I wrote a program to find the first 100 prime numbers and all I got was one, I wouldn't blame the programming language for screwing it up. I would check to see what I inputted. Our criteria for RFA is trust and judgment, because as our superrule is IAR, we must prime and judge our admin potentials to have the trust and judgment to fully do it.

3720:

you go for a job interview nowadays its a reasonable bet that the person interviewing you has googled you, this could lead to awkward situations along the lines of "I see you are quite active on Knowledge (XXG), our marketing chap would like an hour of your time." Also what about those of us who specialise in some of the more eyebrow raising areas of Knowledge (XXG)? If I was editing in my own name I would probably take

2279:(formerly, "More restrictions on anon editing.) Here's an idea, let's put a big notice on top of the editing box for IPs and new users saying something like "Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! Here are some pages to help you get started." Also move the link to the sandbox to above the edit box for new users and IPs. This would discourage test edits and help new users get started, and encourage IP editors to register an account. 2914:

additionally wildly unevenly enforced. I won't say what parts of our content it is not enforced rigorously, or not at all, because getting rid of it there is the last thing I want, but I do posit there are strong and useful areas of Knowledge (XXG) where whole articles contain little else but the eminently useful description of how something is made/operated/used, the "recipe" of the thing. This would be

4857:, it could just be a case of a lot of visible people making the same mistake, and, most importantly, it's not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to reinvent English. We should use the English we have, not the one we wish we had. (Also, Knowledge (XXG)'s changeable nature means that if, twenty or thirty years from now, the British style were to supplant the American standard, we could always change the MoS then.) 2567:

making a new one for every task. So assuming everyone pays up, that gives you $ 7470.65. That reduces the required donation amount from $ 6,000,000.00 to $ 5,992,529.35. And it wouldn't even do that, because most people wouldn't operate a bot at all if they had to pay for it. Is that really worth it in exchange for all the extra stuff that would have to be done by hand? --

2848:-- one thing that really bugs me is the attitude I often see that topic X is or is not more important than topic Y. A lot of people seem to want to separate out any associations between things when the associations are there (I'm especially thinking of one specific topic where a few editors didn't want a hat note because it was insulting or something). 694:. One of the things that really bug me is people badgering others over an incorrect use of "patent nonsense," especially on venues like RFA. My solution is just to remove the "patent." If it's a hoax, delete it. If it makes no sense, or is just out of place in an encyclopedia in any form, delete it. Nonsense of any kind has no place here. 4401:#2 and #4, then? Because I feel that the latter would be much more of a change than "rebooting" existing policy. Or have you not noticed the direct contradiction between #2 and page protection (my repeated attempts to insert "most" before "articles" have been reverted), and between #4 and the non-free content policy? -- 554:

and only allow Commons images and soundfiles); or, spend some of that $ 6 million on hiring someone with a professional knowledge of copyright law to assess the validity of DMCA takedown notices as they come, and quit relying on volunteers and dubiously-scripted bots to preemptively patrol anything that might be

2056:

enable the flagging of +sysop on the wiki, it would be quick and simple without the need for an RfA - only questions "proving" some kind of familiarity with process here will be asked to the user, no supports/opposes that sort of thing - but don't listen to me if you don't want to, this is just a wacky idea.

825:. In an earlier age, many rules were introduced to facilitate the building of our encyclopedia. However, I have seen far too often their use as idols the equivalent of, or even greater than, our central mission of building an encyclopedia. We must strip them of all religious mystique, those rules such as 4374:

forth, none of which are mentioned there. The things on the "foundation issues" page, on the other hand, are with the exception of #1 not codified in policy, which is just as well, as #2 and #4 are completely false (and #2, if this page is anything to go by, will become much more false in the future) --

3805:

barrier to entry. Doesn't have to be a credit card per se. A debit card, a bank draft, a mobi payment... as long as there was an ID verification in there somewhere, that's good enough. As for the Kid in Africa, maybe get a charity sponsor. As for real names, well, agree to disagree. I think if you're

3778:

who can't pay subscription fees. This negates both. The rest of the world isn't like America, and most people don't have credit cards – even in Western Europe I think the take-up rate is only about 30%. These proposals would simultaneously restrict the ability to edit Knowledge (XXG) to Americans and

3493:

I can hear all the counterarguments already.... that's why this is tagged "idealistic and unlikely to be implemented", but this page is tagged "if". This rule would solve a lot of problems. Much less socking, much less hidden POV pushing, much less disputation about credentials, and since there would

3487:

payment mechanism, for example via mobile phone in countries where such is used for payments) with a name that matches the account, verified before the account goes live. This makes the probability that there is a real person behind the account much higher than if WMF just takes your word for it, and

3262:

I'm no lawyer but I don't see a moral difference between using a spray can to graffiti someone else's wall without permission and to put the same Graffiti on a Knowledge (XXG) article. As for whether this requires bureaucracy, well maybe it does, otherwise we could have an inconsistent standard as to

1675:

came up when I was nominated for administratorship. When, much later, people here experienced problems with stalkers that resulted in their having to delete their user pages, I resisted the temptation to say "I told you so.". Don't force people into a bad move simply because you want the colour red

1526:

Allow articles to be rated by the most important people on this website - its readers. Abolish FAs and GAs, and all other kinds of class of article, which are essentially badge-gaining exercises. What's wrong with improving articles for no reward at the end? Allow the readers to rate the article, and

950:

for deleting new pages, blocking obviously vandalism-only accounts and semi pages for limited periods of time. Yes, this is precisely what Iridescent said. I would also use the same revokable/RfA caveats that she did. I did say I wasn't original. I have however been pondering this for a while and

865:

As much as it hurts me to say it, users can't focus on the cold, hard editing side of this encyclopedia forever. Would you read a Stephen King book from cover to cover without so much as a wink of sleep? Ok, bad example, but you see what I mean. Of course, no editing altogether and using Knowledge

368:

as a policy. A conflict-of-interest policy is fundamentally incompatible with a system that relies on anonymous editing. All it does is penalise users with a possible COI who try to be helpful by admitting who they are. Our editors (and readers) are intelligent enough to work out for themselves if an

317:

In essence, don't do something purely because 'the rules say so'. If you can see that doing it would benefit some(thing|one), do it! Nearly everything can be undone, and while it's best to make the right decision in the first place, making the wrong one and undoing it is preferable to sitting through

4652:

1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist. 4. The image is a

3220:

Perhaps not in some jurisdictions, but I'm not talking about the 99% of vandalism that deletes stuff, adds poop or warns us that giant beavers are about to take over the world. The sort of serous vandalism that I think we should report to the Police involves death threats and other truly sick stuff.

3046:

you write. We should enforce that anyone may remove sourceless information, and that it may not go back without proper sourcing, up to and including deletion of articles that cite no sources whatsoever. People only put importance on something that's enforced. We should enforce and absolutely require

2937:

should govern our limits of inclusion. Sources, citations, references are golden, but simple discursive defensibility is silver, and as such plenty good specie. What we keep on Knowledge (XXG) should be defensible on the articles talk page, and within the context appropriate to the field the article

1515:

Editors who are continuously miserable put a downer on the atmosphere - until they can learn to work with others positively, they should either remove themselves from the project, or be banned if they cannot co-operate. If someone is not enjoying editing Knowledge (XXG), they should stop editing it.

256:

It isn't a way to get articles cleaned up according to some arbitrary timetable imposed by editors who (in an ironic similarity to the above) are unwilling to actually edit the articles themselves, or do cleanup themselves, or do research themselves, and who nominate articles effectively as a demand

136:

I just learned, now, that other users "forbid" grammatical corrections. Is this true? If this is so, then this seems to contradict this notion that Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be a quasi-reliable information source. If people are going to be "territorial" over their (ungrammatical) edits, then it

4860:

I'm not saying that we should ban BP/LP; it's fine. I just think that we do a disservice to our readers when we use or promote incorrect usage and, in an American English article, putting periods and commas outside the quotation marks is as incorrect as spelling "harbour" or "labour" without the U

4369:

would not be here today if it went the green paper way), and reforms to existing rules difficult. Having a clean slate and the benefit of retrospect would offer the community a chance to create streamlined rules, making the internal processes on Knowledge (XXG) a lot more efficient. We will also be

3728:

off my watchlist. Of course all this adds another discrimination between wikipedians; If you have a common name like John Smith there would be nothing to connect you to the various John Smiths who would be Knowledge (XXG) editors. But the last time I googled myself there were only two other people

3387:

Some time has passed and I'm not sure I fully agree with what I said in 2009. Nowadays it would be more like "nothing on the wp:Peren list should be raised more than once every 6 months, and the person raising the item needs to review and respond to the reasons why this proposal has been repeatedly

3094:

Editing to remove superfluous content is done by good editors the world over, and is indeed a major part of any editor's job. Cutting is every bit as valid and important as adding is, and every bit as necessary. No bias against trimming or attacks on people for doing it are tolerable. Nor is taking

3090:

A project of this scale and scope requires administration and meta-discussion. Those who help with that are just as much a help to the project as those who write articles, and telling them to "just go write an article" is highly uncivil and unappreciative. "Wherearetheeditscountitis" is just as bad

3082:

using the site to socialize, but it's normal and healthy for people who work together to get to know one another, including on volunteer projects. It can also really help in getting newcomers acclimated to the project, and in getting people to collaborate with one another. It's harder to be uncivil

2529:

Every editor wishing to use any form of bot on Knowledge (XXG) would be required to pay a usage fee to assist with the fact that when they go wrong, sometimes a lot of work is involved in cleaning up the fact that they went wrong, and the botmaster is not always in a position to clean up the issues

854:

Now, because I am the most unoriginal person on the planet (or not far off, anyway) most of these will be virtually identical to those above. I agree with most of the ones up at present but not all of them; some strike me as a bit savage and some aren't savage enough. Trust me, most fall into the

358:

after 12 months and resysopped 3 months after that. This would break up cabals (or the perception of cabals) and force the "policy wonk" admins who (rightly or wrongly) are accused of losing touch with the content creators to periodically see things from the other side. I'd enforce this all the way

351:

The former would mean that commentators at RFA would have concrete examples of a user's behaviour (or misbehaviour) with admin tools to judge in the RFA instead of relying on "seems trustworthy/untrustworthy", whilst avoiding the blanked granting of undelete powers the Foundation has ruled against;

4834:

What does that mean for those of you who aren't punctuation nuts? Basically, it's about whether periods and commas go inside the quotation marks, "like this," or outside the quotation marks "like this". American English puts them inside almost all the time, making exceptions only for things like

4210:

No, though if Knowledge (XXG)'s policies are an explanation of anything they're doing a bad job of it. As WereSpielChequers explains below, "hatefulness" is a rather widely interpreted concept. If I was indeed to strive not only to not do anything that is hateful to me, but also not to do anything

3719:

I'd not be happy with losing our younger editors, though I'm not sure that would be the result. My suspicion is that we would get more shared accounts if we charged by account, and arguments as to who authorised particular transactions. But there are two other reasons I can see for anonymity. If

3063:

when it's only mentioned in passing elsewhere. The subguidelines, on the other hand, are subjective. Awards a band's won, how many pornos someone's been in, what academic articles a person wrote and where, are not sources about the subject, and don't necessarily mean we should have a full article.

2671:

When I do recent changes patrol I usually just look at edits by IPs with red talk pages, not because they are mostly vandalism as the vast majority are good edits, but because the Hugglers usually beat me to other vandals. I don't think we should reject all the good work done by IPs, and if we did

1694:

need any personal information on them. A blank page, a redirect - or even, just not mentioning any personal information on it would work. I simply dislike the broken link, the fact when it is clicked it causes the user page to go to edit mode, and it is a nowhere near as nice colour as blue is :-)

1031:

These two raise an issue that I haven't seen satisfactorily dealt with yet: How do you rigidly define what is and is not a biography of a person? A vague definition isn't really enough because an article would either have to be semi-protected under the policy, or not, it can't be half and half. So

805:

Because it's a change to the configuration of the wiki software itself that will result in significant changes to the way that we maintain articles, that requires thoughtful discussion rather than just charging ahead like bulls, and that (like all such changes) requires evidence that the community

701:

hoaxes (unless they are blatantly obvious vandalism) without the review of many pairs of eyes from around the world. It's unsafe to leave such a determination to one person. No editor knows the sum total of human knowledge. That has been explained in many ways, in many places, again and again.

553:

I might not have been entirely clear; what I mean is that the foundation should either shit or get off the pot when it comes to non-free content. Either issue a once-and-for-all "free use only, no exceptions" ruling and delete every fair-use file (or abolish Knowledge (XXG) file hosting altogether

4669:

hoop everybody who's ever uploaded a fair-use image will have to jump through... I've already, over the years, had to go through several rounds of having my talk page cluttered with warnings that images I uploaded long ago are about to be deleted if I don't comply with some new rule requiring the

3773:

Agree (weakly) on compulsory account creation. Totally disagree on real-name editing – it's not like we don't have a problem with stalkers (in the real sense, not Knowledge (XXG)'s "person who disagrees with you a lot" sense), and this would green-light them. Totally and utterly disagree with the

3034:

BLP is a good idea when it is used to remove negative unsourced or poorly sourced information, or hatchet jobs. It should not go beyond that. It should certainly never be invoked to remove information in the name of "privacy" when the information is publicly available in reliable sources. That is

1590:

The problem with encouraging that is that it makes people associate 'userpage' = 'experienced user'. RC patrollers are particularly prone to this. And the situation there is bad enough as it is; several persistent vandals have learnt to create user and talk pages for their socks before using them

672:

RFA cannot do anything in itself. What type of interview doesn't ask questions of a potential employee? The problem is that people oppose just because, not because there is anything that would actually put doubt on one's ability as an admin. People want to look for a scapegoat without implicating

230:

Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia created as a collaborative effort by normal people. It was never intended to emerge into the world as a perfect, complete thing; it is part of the whole Knowledge (XXG) philosophy that an imperfect article is to be fixed if possible, rather than destroyed or not

4373:

Is there a particular reason you linked to that page for exceptions? If something like this ever happened, the list of exceptions would unavoidably include things that have been forced upon us from above, such as the non-free content policy, "office actions", biographies of living persons and so

4009:

Fixing things is for sissies, easy to get 1000 edits in a day by reverting stuff. Granted, half of them will be warnings. So you actually need two days. Then I guess you spend the remaining 363 days doing actually useful stuff. Or making another 181 potential administrator accounts, if you're so

3869:

second. The wiki is a means to an end and NOT an end in itself. Sometimes not everyone should be allowed to edit, and this fact should not be a Big Deal. Is our aim to write the best possible encyclopedia (content, grammar, style etc.) out there or is it just to aim for an averagely good one? In

3102:

The only valid argument to keep an article is to present where you have found the substantial, reliable, independent sources on the subject. There is no other valid reason to have an article. "Keep and clean up" and "Keep and source" arguments should be accepted once and only once, if a credible

3086:

Assume good faith, but not to the point of idiocy. Some people make it very clear very quickly that they are not here to work in line with the ideals of the project. If someone is here to push an agenda rather than write an encyclopedia, warn them once and then get rid of them if they don't stop

2566:

lists 187 active bots. That page is rather inaccurate but I'll take that as an approximation; any increase in that number as a result of it being out of date is more than countered by the fact that if there was such a policy in place everyone who had a bot account would only have one rather than

2318:

True, but it seems odd to impose restrictions only on constructive contributors. Also, while anonymous users are the main source of vandalism, that doesn't mean it would go away if further restrictions were imposed. You could ban all anonymous editing, but that would just make new users the main

769:

I fixed it to be specific to vandalism. As for it being in vogue, it was a very slow change, but I noticed it right around the middle of 2007. Before, a vandal removing warnings would have all their warnings restored with an additional one. Then, right around when I became an admin, I started to

3323:

When it comes to death threats, "credible" is the pertinent word. In the very few cases of "true" stalking on Knowledge (XXG), the police already do get involved, including at least one user imprisoned. As regards vandalism in general, the offense of criminal damage only exists if the damage is

2908:

should be king. The great apostasy of Knowledge (XXG) from the grand tradition of nearly all encyclopaedias before it, was from this principle. An article on a wind-mill driven well should endeavour to be as detailed as possible; since space is not a consideration for us for anything other than

2447:

Any user with at least 2 years worth of service (editing, article creation, participation in main and/or wikispace) to Knowledge (XXG) will automatically be offered the Administrator flag. They do not have to accept it, of course, but potentially, this solves the issue of RfA currently being an

2055:

That's right for the meta administrators, however, for commons' they would have to be familiar with Knowledge (XXG)-specific policies as they are already familiar with so-called "etiquette" policies or what have you on commons. This would only be done upon request though and only stewards would

593:

In which case, get a statement to that effect. Disable all the tag-bots and warn the taggers that it's down to them to prove a copyright violation before they tag something, with none of this "possibly unfree image" weasel-wording. Either something is a copyright or it isn't. Even if it is, the

4415:

Yes. By "Rebooting" policy though it doesn't mean we must rewrite it under exactly the same title, just that we have to keep the very concept of need in mind and having a solution to it. It is a form of change. For example, the community would rethink of how they should go about choosing their

4060:

Juvenile vandalism = 31 hour block with a nicely-phrased message on the talk page explaining why. Fuck level 1-4 warning templates. If I vandalise on an internet forum or throw insults around on IRC I KNOW a sysop will come around to block/kick me sooner or later. Why should Knowledge (XXG) be

2913:

of coöperation, not an end to itself; and the setting of it as "non-negociable" was meant to underline its vital necessity in that enabling role, and not as an excuse to raise it to a mindlessly worshipped idol or fetish. The "banning" of "how it is made/done" knowledge from Knowledge (XXG) is

479:

notable, speedy deleted because you don't yet understand Knowledge (XXG)'s policies on sourcing. I stayed around, learned the policies and resubmitted the article in a viable form, but how many thousands of others have written an article, seen it deleted, thought "screw this site" and moved on

124:

If you're using windows and a QWERTY keyboard, it only takes ALT + 150 for EN Dash and ALT + 151 for EM Dash. Depending on whether you're following British or North American convention, you'll be using either the former or the latter symbols. Furthermore, one should keep in mind the difference

3877:

Neither. The project's goal is to write "a 💕 that anyone can edit". It doesn't say anything about quality. That does not, of course, mean that it can't be of high quality, though it does mean that intentionally reducing openness in an attempt to increase quality is going somewhat against the

2874:-- The nested thing is pretty good, but I'd much have a completely neutral set of links to projects, which includes anything relevant. People shouldn't be able to claim an article exclusively if it falls under something else more generally (even though often they have mostly the same editors). 2854:(or some limit of that nature) -- I'm sick of seeing my watchlist fill up with 20 tiny edits in a half hour that could have easily been caught with the preview function. Yes, I myself make errors, but I'm talking about the ones seem to do it every single time they edit or post to a talk page. 231:

written in the first place. But that is no excuse for lazy, slipshod work! The whole world can see what we contribute and judges us more favourably on ten good articles than a hundred terrible ones. Strive to be as careful, thorough and professional as you can. Take some pride in your work.

469:

tagging for either the tagger or the deleting admin. New users don't understand the minutiae of Knowledge (XXG) and don't know about userspace sandboxes; plenty of perfectly viable articles start life as one-line stubs with no assertion of notability. (There's quite a good current example

3806:

not willing to stand behind what you say, don't say it. This is my idealistic rule set, after all. Note the lack of any other rules. The rest of it all goes away once you make people put their name on their words. As for Citizendium, its failure isn't due to real names, at least IMHO. ++

3050:

Notability is our main quality control mechanism for keeping out cruft. Multiple independent reliable sources mainly about the subject should be required for every article, every time. Those don't exist? Doesn't belong in its own article, maybe in a parent or list if an appropriate one

310:

Before doing anything, think critically and assess whether doing it would be a net benefit to WP. Imagine if someone else did it, and you were asked to comment, what would you say - and be objective! This may only take a few seconds, but it may save quite a bit of time in clearing up

4513:

might fall from the heavens and zott you! (Encyclopedic content, maybe, but its own article, no!) Or even worse, some no hit no wonder music group might lampoon you in song, or some never heard of by any one local sports team single appearance member might through a ball at you.

3411:

Allow for topics where "Notability is not yet determined". This would include for example sportspeople who have signed up for a team which if they play for the first team they will be deemed notable. If they leave the squad without making the first team then they can be deleted.

3898:

I do believe the reason FAs aren't protected is exactly because it DOES tend to get good edits on the day it's featured. Featured doesn't mean perfect, after all. Also, it's contrary to the goals of 'anyone can edit' if you can't edit the most prominent article at the moment.

89:- All this hardcore discussion before we change any part of our policies or procedures is pretty hypocritical. If we had such a discussion when founding Knowledge (XXG), it would have never been made. Since most things are reversible, it is a better idea to try something and 578:

doing; I don't think the problem is as much Wikimedia, who employ a lawyer and, one presumes, already take action in the event of DMCA takedown requests or legal threats of any substance, but rather Defenders of the Wiki who decide to take the matter into their own hands --

3574:

two accounts? (for the purposes I'm driving at here, not technically) No. It's not. Any bot edit that's screwed up... well, today we go after the bot owner and ask them (require them if it's egregious) to sort it out, on pain of the bot losing privs. Same same under this.

629:

drove home to me just how arbitrary "edits from a similar IP" is as a reason to block. Our numbers of regular contributors and new account creations are declining; we can't afford to drive users away for "hasn't done anything but might be a sockpuppet" reasons like

35:- they give Knowledge (XXG) a bad reputation, and they really shun the culture of letting people participate. Really, how would you like to blocked because you violated some social custom you didn't know about? I'd feel like the guy who whistled at the wrong woman. 2836:-- one thing I never understood is why people get up in arms about telling others about a some talk this or that they may be interested in; even to the point that people's opinions shouldn't 'count' because they happened to find out from someone with an 'agenda'. 2651:

to make an account. IP editors cause much confusion on here, are responsible for a considerable proportion of vandalism, are difficult to block in some situations (such as dynamic IP addresses), and they would become a thing of the past. No Account? No Edit!

3482:

Real names only. No pseudonyms, no editing by IPs, and setting up an account requires a donation equivalent to the cost of a cheap meal in your home country (this would be 5 bucks in the US, likely a lot less in many countries), paid by credit card (or other

3058:

is objective. Have sources that are reliable and have no interest in doing so written extensively about the subject, or not? That's a good way to determine whether we should have an article on the subject, or whether our doing so would be giving the subject

3018:

educational content, and right now we're failing miserably at that by splattering nonfree content everywhere you can imagine. Exceptions, if we allow any at all, should be limited and only with overwhelming and demonstrable need for a nonfree image, as at

2656:

Logged-in users on dynamic IP addresses can simply register a new account with their next IP address each time they're blocked, eventually forcing a block of the whole range. They are thus no easier to block than anonymous users on dynamic IP addresses --

2593:

I would implement WP:IAR as sitewide policy rather than a guideline. If a rule stops you doing something which makes the encyclopedia better, forget it. There is no point in having a 💕 and then sticking hurdles in the way which people can't get over.

4657:

You can guess the image is of a piece of artwork of some sort, but God knows what the article is, what the image is illustrating, what significance the image has to the article or why it is actually needed. This completely defeats the point of fair use

4884:

Excellence is a worthy goal. Perfection is almost impossible. As perfection is approached, it takes more and more time and effort to achieve less and less improvement. Be satisfied with excellence and move on to improve another aspect of Knowledge

4253:

and enough other dwamas for an entire series of Jerry Springer; and we do so in a mix of different English dialects and using BC, BP and BCE dating. It isn't enough to just respect your own values, we also need to "cherish others for their otherness"

1275:

Nice one. That does tend to be true about 90% of the time. But, I still have a problem with minors posting images of themselves. We have a lot of people who like to out people and it would be horrible for them to out a minor that was editing here.

3031:. The vast majority of subjects either have free images available or possible, or can be described just fine with text alone. We don't need logos, album covers, screenshots, etc., splattered everywhere, in the majority of cases they are unneeded. 3555:

So you'd need to pay an extra $ 5 to operate a bot? Is this on top of the $ 39.95 yearly fee proposed further up this page? :) Something tells me the average regular here has a little more money than me. Or just really hates bot operators :( --

474:

of an article speedy-tagged after two minutes which is currently growing into a perfectly viable article.) Having been on the receiving end of this myself when I first started, I know how dispiriting it is to have an article on a topic you know

4835:

web addresses (I'll type in ".com". No, type in ".co".) where the presence or absence of a single character could cause confusion. British English places them inside or outside depending on whether or not they belong to the quoted material.

4195:

Not doing a negative is not a command to do a positive. If I ask visitors to my home not to sit on a chair because it is broken, it does not give them permission to set fire to it. Besides, it looks like you missed the last eight words of the

3009:

Actually, the rules we have are generally good. The main problem comes in spotty enforcement of them in some cases and overenforcement in others. So, rather than adding new rules, I'd mainly like to see the ones we already have used properly.

4294:. That's all. It's not about trying to anticipate what other people might find "hateful", so no need to worry about being rooted to the spot. And it's not a Rule to void all others, but one that directs you to go find and learn the others. -- 1116:

Scrap 3RR, it tends to catch newbies off guard (newbies just don't read policy) and is applied differently in different circumstances. A more general "edit war" policy needs introducing. Continually removing unsourced information is not edit

4506:. No sources, one event, minor fictional character, whatever. Delete now, ask questions later. There's too much rubbish. Remember that it's often easier to delete an article and let someone write another one than work on the one we have. 594:

number of photographers who'll complain about their work being used legitimately on the Eighth Most Powerful Website In The World™ is minimal; most of them will be more than happy with the free publicity and just want a picture credit. –

4845:

People have argued that the American style isn't really American and the British style isn't really British ...but each is used by the overwhelming majority of the professional and lay writers that write in those respective varieties.

4653:

low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

2953:

There are some rules posted by other users, which I can fully agree with, to the last jot. I have collected those below (and will consider on how to summarise the ones that I agree with in spirit, or only partially with, at a later

261:

do all of the work for them, whilst they do no work at all themselves, not even a simple search for sources. AFD is not a hammer for hitting editors with. It is not a way for editors to whip other editors into writing for them.

3324:

malicious and not easily reversed, which isn't the case in a wiki model. Theoretically the reverter has a civil tort against the vandal for the value of the time taken to reverse the vandalism, but it's about as clear a case of

3098:

Bringing up concerns in a frank and clear manner, even about a specific person, is not a personal attack, provided it is not done in an unnecessarily rude way. Don't be rude without cause, but don't dance around real issues

2427:

Many are saying that more admin functions should be opened to non-admins. One I would like to see is a userright allowing editors with the right to block vandalism-only IPs with less than +/- 50 or so edits for 24 hours or

4838:

People have argued that the British way is more logical and intuitive ...and yet it's more logical to spell "center" t-e-r than t-r-e and we still don't push "center" in BrE articles; we use the correct British spelling.

2717:

My proposal was nowhere near this, I am simply calling for more restrictions and more education to new users to prevent (at least some of) the bad editing and keep the good coming. Also see what I am about to post in my

4117:

Notability elevated to a core policy. We cannot possibly write about everything in the world and should limit ourselves to the most important information that our "workforce" is reasonably capable of maintaining (a la

449:. Speedy deletion is fine for vandalism, attack pages and copyright violations; for anything else, there's no need for it. It does the project no harm to include a non-notable biography/band/company for five days, and 21:

This probably won't cover every nook and cranny, but should I overlook anything, I would hope that these rules would inspire the rest. This also delves a bit into community practices, which are not necessarily rules.

1870:

For example its common for me just to refer the temperature as 22 but that's not common in America because they use a different system, or i use the letter M for meters where as some locations don't and write it out

1046:

Ow, sorry Gurch, I didn't realize people were allowed to comment on other peoples "rules". It's a bit late for me now, but I'll happily respond to this in the next 24 hours. You should have poked my talk page. :-) —

4849:

People have argued that the American style is unsightly, but that is purely an eye-of-the-beholder matter. What I personally have seen is that people prefer the look of the style with which they are most familiar.

4830:

Right now, Knowledge (XXG) requires British-style punctuation (also, rather misleadingly called "logical punctuation") on all articles regardless of what they're about or what variety of English they're written in.

3362:

OK there may be some proposals stuck at Peren that shouldn't take place, and perhaps this rule needs a sub clause for proposals where we have an essay summarising why a proposal can't or shouldn't be implemented.

3605:

I mean that the name actually is their real name. This idea increases the transaction costs of faking your name. It's not impossible, but it's no longer as easy. My bad for being imprecise. Because you're right,

721:. I have no idea when this idea came in vogue either, but it lengthens the lifespan of the crafty vandal. Unless the user clears it with the person who left the warning, their history needs to be fully visible. 2029:

Meta is fairly interchangeable with the English Knowledge (XXG), whereas Commons admins have preference to working with images – most of the time, so I wouldn't see a reason why they would wish to change that.

1959:– implement a bot to automatically block all usernames which are deemed unacceptable after a 48-hour period (the time would begin after the leaving of a note regarding that on the respective user's talk page). 1519:

Abolish RFA and split the tools up. Grant via a rollback like process, and give admins ability to remove. Remove admins' rights after they are inactive for three months, or after a community vote if there is

3083:

with people you've shared a good laugh with. Given that most of us can't just get together for a beer after a long day's editing, as tends to happen with real-world organizations, that's the next best thing.

4136:

at AfD. Insist on good sourcing from the start, not the promise that sources "will be found" and that articles "can be cleaned up later". The burden of proof lies with the editor adding new information and

1923:

But there is a free version, we should use that instead. Free isn't always better, If theres a Fair Use image that identifies that image subject better than a Public Domain/GFDL one, i'm all up for using

3894:

Semi-protect all BLP articles and/or implement flagged revisions. Full protect Featured Articles, they only need to be updated when information changes anyway, as FAs are already supposed to be stable.

3774:"membership fee" thing; Knowledge (XXG)'s twin strengths are that it can be corrected by passers-by who look something up and happen to spot an error, and that it's the only major source that caters to 746:

Never ever? Would you at least allow archiving? Also what about warnings from those who are subsequently blocked for disruption, how would one get them to agree that their incorrect warning should go?

2335:

Just IPs in general, I mean. I also think that a lot of vandalism is from people who want a quick spot on a popular website, and vandalism would go down if some well-placed restrictions were imposed.

1953:– the task is ridiculously simple and shouldn't be limited to just 'crats. Most clerks are well-experienced administrators and are aware of the relevant 'unwritten guidelines' which could be violated. 4024:

I think that everyone complains about RFA for no good reason. People learn at different rates and contribute to Knowledge (XXG) ad different levels. Think about RFA as an interview and the 'crats as

1572:

Rightly or wrongly, a red userpage makes the person look like a brand new user. A redirect or blank page would be fine, just better than the red. I don't like seeing red. Especially in default sigs.

4416:

administrators, if there are term limits, segregation of powers, etc. If they choose to rewrite under the same title or/and implementation of the rule because it works perfectly, then let it be. -

2749:

I sometimes can't believe how seriously the site tries to take itself with vandalism like that of Willy on Wheels / subtle vandalism like that of Lir / what have you. Lighten up, and don't create

2887:

Article writing can say good things about a user, yes, but it is not the only way to verify both a user's intentions, their literacy, and their prowess at working through the system, if you like.

167:

Yes we all should have it but do we all use it? Not only that but should we use more common sense with wiki related tasks? An example that I got told was "penis article dosn't need 200+ images".

4064:

Perhaps because we'd need about three times as many administrators in order to be able to dish out blocks that fast, and would probably end up with three times as many bad blocks as a result --

2359: 1798:

I actually think the problem is that b'crats don't really have many rights. I would support giving 'crats the globalblock-whitelist right and removal of 'crat and admin groups right to start.--

4229:

Lovely start, but the problem as I see it is that what is hateful to some may not be hateful to others, and vice versa. We are a global operation where people get into daily discussions about

2303:

Scratch that, I just generally think that IP editors are hard to distinguish between, not password protected, are the main source of vandalism, and therefore should have more restrictions.--

1154:

on Meta. "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true."

2267:

I would allow blocked users a guaranteed second chance to be a good editor with an unblock, but if the bad faith editing or vandalism returned, the block would be back with no more chances.

41:- Personally I would be in favor of getting rid of template messages entirely, but that would be annoying. Let's compromise by making them look like actual messages someone would post. 2991:

Accept that IRC exists, is used, and is abused on occasion, but it isn't evil, and it is going to part of the project for a long, long time. There's nothing that can be done about it.

2403:

Responding to Uncle G, my proposition was not based on the preconception you mentioned, I did not say that IPs are mainly the source of vandalism, I said that IPs are the main source

1770:

Accept that IRC exists, is used, and is abused on occasion, but it isn't evil, and it is going to part of the project for a long, long time. There's nothing that can be done about it.

1224:

Racism, sexism, genderism (too lazy to find out the real name), homophobia and in general hate will result in immediate block. We don't need you spreading your message of hate.

97:

I can't think of anything else right now. Please, I want other people's input. If I was the only one writing rules, you would absolutely despise my incumbency as a legislator.

2975:

Take everything in stride. We're in it together to create a new-age encyclopedia of knowledge. Let's treat each other with mutual respect and kindness on that long road there.

2820:

Take everything in stride. We're in it together to create a new-age encyclopedia of knowledge. Let's treat each other with mutual respect and kindness on that long road there.

1889: 528:

probably causes more grief than any other policy. Either we allow fair use, or we don't. Once we have a policy (as opposed to a "guideline"), enforce it with no exceptions.

29:- Only when everyone with a functioning brain would come to the same conclusion. Otherwise, let's have Knowledge (XXG) continue to be a passive relay of existing knowledge. 3939:

a thousand minor edits to your own user page? Or create an account leave it dormant for fifty weeks then welcome a thousand "newbies" who've been dormant for three months.

3263:

at what stage we go to the Police. Also I suspect the Police would take the matter more seriously if the complaint was made on behalf of Knowledge (XXG) not an individual.

3523:

What would your response be to the suggestion that such a change is best accomplished by setting up a new project with the content of Knowledge (XXG) as a starting point?

1113:

be able to remove talk page warnings. It's amazing how much longer a long term vandal lasts by removing warnings. If a warning is a mistake, the issuer can strike it out.

1002:

ARGH. The amount of loopholes people can find in the guidelines here is amazing. Use your frigging brains, people. Even those of you with no common sense, like me. :D

349:

submitted to RFA unless they choose to opt out. Should the powers be misused, any "full" admin can withdraw the right at any time, as is currently the case with rollback.

3286:

I don't see a moral difference either, but morality and law are not the same; "being a pain in the ass", which is what childish vandalism amounts to, is not illegal --

237:- In AfD discussions, the phrase "Keep and clean up" shall henceforth be taken to mean "Keep, and I volunteer to clean it up" rather than the current meaning of "Keep. 2041:

So you'd give just Meta administrators adminship on this project? Or give Commons administrators adminship but only allow them to do image work? Or something else? --

2842:-- Knowledge (XXG) is completely an optional effort. If you don't want to work on something, DON'T. Don't berate others for "giving you a bigger workload", and so on. 2696: 2407:

vandalism. I thoroughly believe that with enough thought and discussion, we can find a way to discourage vandalism while not discouraging constructive contributors.--

1516:

People are here out of choice, and it seems nonsensical to come here if they're just going to go round in a grumpy mood all day, spoiling other people's leisure time.

373: 4365:, and are usually band-aid solutions as the result of some unfortunate incident. Inertia has resulted in proposals getting rejected (without chance to prove itself; 2168:. That's a very different thing. Careless conflation of the two has caused many problems for novices in understanding our policies and guidelines over the years. 352:

the latter would avoid the twin problems of "Support, I like the nominator" and "Oppose, self-nom"; it would also end the "how can I find suitable candidates" issue.

4615:. People ignoring NFC is significant. I certainly do not propose we remove all NFC, and I don't think rules need to be any stricter- they just need to be enforced. 3548:

Bots are fine. As long as they're clearly disclosed. Ditto multiple accounts (although the reasons for them diminish)... yes, this means throwing away the part of

3526:

What do you mean by the phrase "probability that there is a real person behind the account"? Excluding bots, I would have thought that probability is close to 1.

3454:

Editwarrers are entitled to the same process of warnings prior to blocks as vandals get (yes this rule would first require software to monitor for editwarring).

2509:

ArbCom would be increased from one team to two, to allow them to carry out their work more efficiently and to save them becoming bogged down in their decisions.

1392:

Slow down on the video game articles and start working on the mathematics articles we have 109 video game featured articles and 17 mathematics featured articles.

3610:

account has (one or more) real people behind it. Including bots, technically. Unless we have aliens among us. But that's out of scope for this discussion. :) ++

3570:

Well... maybe a loose end there, hm? A bot account, seems to me, is closely associated with a particular person. As long as the association isn't hidden, is it

1920:"The penis article doesn't need like 200+ images/examples" Sure it might benefit for a image or two and maybe a diagram but it doesn't need much more than that. 279:(There's a more generalized aspect to it, not addressed in that essay. Maybe I'll get around to writing a page on it one of these days. For more on this, see 3520:

We already have trouble getting people to give up their time to work on an encyclopedia. What sort of effect on this would you foresee such a change producing?

1878:

Reduce locations of noticeboards for different matters (For example it can be hard for some less advanced users to find the correct one and they default to AN)

960:

Or how about we forget about the age limit and instead only give the pass to mature people, so that we can have mature children and not have immature adults. —

4811:

When quoting data strings or keyboard entries, place periods and commas outside the quotation marks. This is considered correct in all varieties of English.

1261:

Perhaps because not everyone here is obsessed with "protecting" (read, ordering around) people who are often more mature than those doing the "protecting" --

4891:

Everyone blunders once in a while. Don't go away to hide in shame. In time, you'll chuckle when remembering past errors. Move on, striving for excellence.

2885:

The inclusion of DYKs, GAs, FAs, ITNs, or generally any de facto requirement for RfA that requires a demonstration of article writing prowess is plain wrong.

1767:

Change the standard skin to Modern - it's neater than monobook imo. Userpages that have a banner on the top made in monobook look just dreadful in Modern :-(

3300:

The childish vandalism may or may not be illegal, but the serious stuff includes hate crimes and death threats and I suspect is illegal in some countries.

3248:

illegal, then there's nothing to stop you reporting it yourself, if you think it would do any good. We don't need another layer of bureaucracy to do it --

3193:

Flag IP revisions in a similar way to New Page patrol - at present I bet some good IP edits get eyeballed multiple times whilst some aren't checked at all.

2548:$ 39.95 (or local equivalent) - This would apply to all Wikipedias, not just en. That would reduce the amount of donation required in the donation drive. 4738:

When using quotation marks for partial or indirect quotations, words-as-words, short-form works, or expressions, American and British punctuation styles

3599:

A massive decrease in edits by people not committed enough to the project to invest 5 USD or equivalent. That's a feature, not a bug. Color me elitist.

770:

notice that they were starting to be allowed to remove warnings from their talk page as part of their "talk page rights." I think that's fairly silly.

3075:

If we want coverage on several things in a series, but only some of those things are notable enough for separate articles, we have lists for a reason.

2699:) that is simply based upon an erroneous preconception about who contributes most of the content to Knowledge (XXG), and who does the vandalism. See 1895: 666:

That doesn't mean we totally ignore it. But I think fun and socializing to a limit is actually useful as a tool for bringing in and keeping new users.

404:

template at the top, but since Jimbo's actions in the MyWikiBiz saga set a de facto precedent, it's usually treated as a policy. Otherwise, why do we

3941:

Yes I agree that the current RFA process seriously sucks, but we do need some filter before entrusting people with tools such as view deleted pages.

3506: 1795:

Every admin should be a bureaucrat. Bureaucratship is not a big deal, and it would be even less so if they could reverse themselves with promotions.

2938:

belongs to. No cookie cutter rules applied to religion and maths in the same fashion for instance. This would be item two on my counter-reformation.

2082:– encourage users to set up a dedicated email account for Knowledge (XXG)-related activities; it cuts out all that about "How do you know my name?". 4320: 4266: 3998: 3953: 3934:

Admin rights automatically granted after 12 months and 1000 mainspace edits with a clean record (no blocks or warnings), to those who request it.

3741: 3376: 3312: 3275: 3233: 2684: 2362:, where all of the editors without accounts were constructive contributors, quietly improving the encyclopaedia, all being reverted by the editor 758: 245:

in your pipe and smoke it you evil deletionist!" Those who violate this rule shall be whacked with a wet trout and the article summarily deleted.

4361:. Yes, every single rule, every single decision. Rewrite them from scratch and write only what we actually need. Several of the rules are overly 3801:

The fee isn't for the priv, per se. It buys you no privs. It's to keep you honest. Heck, give it back after a year for all I care. It's merely a

2810:

Do a little research into what images you're tagging for speedy deletion or what articles you're tagging for speedy deletion before tagging them

2358:. There have been studies in the past concluding that editors without accounts are in fact the majority source of all of our content. See also 845:. I don't call for any of them to be completely overthrown, but they have just turned into fetishes held as a way to promote one's own interests. 268:

So if you want a better rule, I suggest a more neutral rule, that doesn't involve namecalling (even namecalling in supposedly reported speech):

3103:

explanation of where sources might be found and why more time is needed to get them, and with a time limit. If not done by that time, it goes.

4842:

People have argued that the American style is confusing ...and yet it's worked largely without incident for over a hundred and fifty years.

3129: 2725: 2494: 2414: 2394: 2342: 2310: 1935:. Don't be afraid to move them into different sections, place them different sides of the page or even thumbnail them so they appear smaller. 660:. The MOS has reached the proportions of a legal document, and accordingly requires someone with the skills of a lawyer to actually remember. 3433:

Anyone who is blocked as a child is entitled to make a "cleanstart" return as an adult, providing they've been away for at least two years.

2519:

Flagged Revisions would never, ever, get implemented here. Too long winded, too off putting and exceptionally discouraging to new editors.

273: 4449:

Corollary: autoblock any user whose edit count in other user's User space pages exceeds their own Main/Template/Category space edit count.

4114:

No customising of signatures (even though I've done it before). Signatures point to your talk page and to your Contributions and that's it.

1206:

Maybe that's why we behave like we are getting paid for it. If we acted like we weren't, people would quickly lose interest in this place.

1025:

Certain BLP rules would also apply to biographies of dead people. We want classy articles on people, not a criminal record or tabloid smut.

783: 4870: 2220:

wikipedia to make a point", not "do not make a point". The number of times I've seen people interpret it the altter way is unbelievable.--

4125:

Notability requirement introduced for "informational" lists (as opposed to navigational lists which don't need a notability requirement).

1833:

Have a common place for style guidelines (for example some WikiProjects store their own in their place and some contradict MoS standards)

866:(XXG) as a weird sort of Facebook or something is really quite stupid in numerous ways but we needn't look at it through a sniper scope. 71: 4446:. Leave the bloody userspace alone. Stop arguing about who insulted who and who is being WP:CIVIL and who is being WP:NOTFUCKINGCIVIL. 266:

is the way to get other editors to fix things that one wants to be fixed. "Put your money where your cleanup templates are!", perhaps.

248:

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that anyone opining an ordinary editoral action in an AFD discussion should do so only if xe is prepared

3177: 2860:-- Some projects seem to like to apply rules to all articles covered under their banner. This shouldn't happen, as it leads to horrid 2192: 2136: 1783:

just an encyclopedia, and meta discussion is, in fact allowed. No more "Go and write an encyclopedia!" comments in discussions please.

1672: 886:

now. Biased edits are gone in fractions of seconds. Sure, we get false positives, but these are easily fixed nine times out of ten.

3662: 3071:

Stubs that can be improved are acceptable. Permastubs, those articles which cannot reasonably be improved past stub level, are not.

1497: 1430: 1374: 1289: 1181: 4181:

Alas, if only. (I don't care what people say about me, does that mean we can abandon the biographies of living persons policy?) --

3511:"Idealistic" and "unlikely" don't concern me, but there are a few other specifics that I would be interested to hear your take on: 3087:

completely and immediately. We end up doing it a couple months to a couple years later after they've caused far more damage anyway.

2100:– Leave policy on article deletion as it is, there is nothing wrong with it; unless any future situation(s) may require amendments. 4092: 3918:

So you have to wait two months before you can edit an article about a person on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Fuck that. --

3091:

as editcountitis. Would we really be better off if the developers, crats, admins, etc., all just started writing articles instead?

1676:

in an edit history or a log to mean something other than what it does mean: which is simply that a page linked-to does not exist.

944:

first rule. Pure common sense this one. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say I genuinely thought this was already possible.

4080:

Serious or persistent vandalism = indef block. You are no longer welcome. Go create a new account and get auto-confirmed again.

4073: 3959: 3927: 3908: 3887: 1671:… fair while on Internet, and I knew the perils of personal information on WWW pages long before Knowledge (XXG) even existed. 1403:

they can and cannot edit. There is no point in someone who knows diddly about Mathematics editing a maths article, is there? :)

3775: 2773:

need not be vaguely worded or able to be interpreted in five hundred different ways to suit one person or another's viewpoint.

532: 332: 1911:

Common sense when it comes to images. Sure a article does look nice with images but don't overload it and lay them out nicely.

3545:

Good questions, Gurch. Forgive me for changing your format to add numbering, but tis so I can address without interspersing.

207: 1883: 3179: 3132: 4032:

a tool. However, I would like to see one simple and mabye even plausible change to RFA: any negative comment that doesn't

3838: 2927: 4715:{{For direct quotations, place all periods and commas that are part of the quoted material inside the quotation marks. 4619: 4105:...a MASSIVE template/warning box on new article creation explaining the need for reliable sources and notability, or... 3095:

trimming or a request to delete as an attack. "If you don't want your work to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it"!

2776:

I think you mean the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is more direct in expressing contempt for the King. —

488:

This and the alienation of more social users is probably the biggest problem with Knowledge (XXG). Brilliantly stated. —

4211:

that might be hateful to some other person, somewhere in the world, I would probably find myself rooted to the spot --

3360:

If someone suggests a change and the only responses are along the lines of "see Peren", then its time to implement it.

2186:, I believe that pages without citations should be dealt with properly, aside from simply sticking an ugly tag on it. – 2161: 1667:

I suggest un-learning that prejudice, rather than trying to force its effects onto other people. I've been around a …

409: 100:(As an aside, that comment left by that banned user was greatly amusing. I enjoyed reading it. Too bad s/he's banned.) 4315: 4261: 3993: 3948: 3736: 3461: 3440: 3419: 3395: 3371: 3307: 3270: 3228: 3078:

As stated above, don't overly worry about people blowing off a bit of steam by socializing. It's a problem if they're

2679: 2497: 2461: 753: 4169: 335:

for any proposed change or addition to it. There are some circumstances where "anyone can edit" doesn't mean "anyone

4108:...new articles can ONLY be created using a guided article creation wizard (with a specific step to insert sources). 1844:

WP:OVERLINK » "It is generally not necessary to link... Plain English words, including common units of measurement".

4158:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

3203:

Go on the offensive against serious vandals - we need links with Police and ISPs to get the real sickos locked up.

3068:, or at very most make clear that they are not an exemption to it, just make it more likely proper sourcing exists. 1786:

Discussions to ban disruptive users are not "lynch mobs". Anyone found calling it that will be banned forthwith :-)

3815: 3763: 3619: 3584: 3503: 3126: 2722: 2491: 2411: 2391: 2339: 2307: 377: 263: 4383: 3244:

If the content isn't actually illegal in itself, adding it to a public website isn't illegal either. And if it

1906:

Bots » Most have the world in their username but some don't (Easier to notice on Recent Changes/Page Watchlist)

778: 359:

through the pyramid with the exception of the developers, up to and including the checkusers, arbcom and Jimbo.

160:

I will just start simple and slowly add things as I go along. I agree with nearly all of MessedRocker's rules.

2563: 1534:

want to have a star on their user page? Of course, there should also be a mechanism in place by the readers. —

1471: 1412: 1356: 1215: 815: 739: 4929: 3470: 75: 4700: 4458: 3676: 2784: 2397: 2298: 2138: 2115: 1995: 1973: 1807: 1740: 1736: 1725: 1567: 1542: 1504: 1256: 1163: 899: 711: 684: 548: 496: 389: 292: 272:. Indeed, you'll find your idea already written up in that form, without the namecalling that you used, at 216: 187: 142: 65: 3494:

be no "walk away and start a new account and try again", the incentive to behave oneself is much higher. ++

3449: 3428: 3382: 3215: 2605: 2226: 974: 681: 493: 4742:. Most other varieties of English follow one or the other of the two models shown below. Follow ENGVAR. 4310: 4256: 3988: 3943: 3731: 3602:

Sure, it probably is. Except this is an idealistic statement, not a realistic one, so that isn't relevant.

3456: 3435: 3414: 3390: 3366: 3302: 3265: 3223: 3175: 2864:

issues. Consistency is good, but not because a few editors have an axe to grind with a certain convention.

2777: 2674: 2601: 2190: 2134: 1983:– allow all admins on commons and meta to automatically be administrators on the English Knowledge (XXG). 1535: 961: 748: 677: 489: 430:

I think that the rewrite by Helenalex is a good idea and it may even become a serious policy discussion.--

137:

defeats the whole purpose of having a virtual space welcoming participants, especially the capable ones.

4924: 4370:

able to avoid policy mistakes, lessen conflicts, and foresee and forestall problems in the first place.

3138: 2923: 1492: 1425: 1369: 1284: 1176: 280: 152:

Everyone starts editing this page but the fact is how much you edit that much it will become successful

138: 4388:

Since we are being idealistic here, I would say preferring to retain only principles #1, 2, 3 and 4. -

2988:

Editors of all ages are as welcome as each other, as long as they're a net positive. No ageism allowed!

1792:

Editors of all ages are as welcome as each other, as long as they're a net positive. No ageism allowed!

1072: 3831:

off your watchlist, even if you were editing in your real name (how is it an "eyebrow raising area")?

2824:

There's probably more, but I can't think of any, probably because it's 5:33 in the morning over here.

4866: 3123: 2719: 2488: 2408: 2388: 2336: 2304: 4683: 4631: 4599: 4581: 4565: 4551: 4523: 4486: 4472: 4420: 4410: 4392: 4326: 4303: 4272: 4220: 4205: 4190: 4045: 4019: 4004: 3981: 3915:

Auto-confirm raised to 60 days and 100 mainspace edits with a clean record (no blocks or warnings).

3841: 3818: 3794: 3766: 3747: 3714: 3700: 3682: 3622: 3587: 3565: 3540: 3404: 3341: 3318: 3295: 3281: 3257: 3239: 3150: 2798: 2728: 2712: 2690: 2666: 2630: 2608: 2576: 2557: 2543: 2475: 2417: 2375: 2345: 2328: 2313: 2250: 2177: 2155: 2062: 2050: 2036: 2024: 2006: 1820:

These are not so much proposed rules, but proposals to the pre-exising systems so they work better.

1758: 1708: 1685: 1652: 1638: 1600: 1585: 1437: 1381: 1296: 1270: 1188: 1059: 1041: 990: 968: 929: 914: 790: 764: 605: 588: 569: 514: 439: 423: 252:

using xyr own ordinary editing tools, I disagree with the implied notion of using AFD as a hammer.

146: 119: 79: 4696: 4595: 4482: 973:

Agreed wholeheartedly, people who act immature or who are otherwise obviously lacking in necessary

773: 4912: 3060: 3036: 978: 53:- Sorry, I had to say something. Hyphens are on my keyboard; the two varieties of dashes are not. 4519: 4454: 4417: 4389: 3670: 2387:

Thought up a new proposal relating to the old one, check it out and let me know what you think.--

2153: 1962: 1057: 510: 502: 398: 204: 4648:

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

4362: 3197: 2211: 1462:

to bring up on wiki, you need to bring it up on wiki. Just don't turn it into an all out war :)

1120:

Newbies would not be allowed to create new articles, sorry, I work with music, it's a nightmare.

842: 483:(I don't say this as an obsessive inclusionist, but as someone who's deleted almost 3000 pages.) 374:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)/Archive 41#Clarification of conflict of interest policy

4355: 2106:– delete all articles without any sourcing, even if the event/place/person/thing is well-known. 4679: 4671: 4627: 4299: 4282: 4201: 4165: 4041: 3976: 3904: 3835: 3696: 3172: 2708: 2626: 2553: 2471: 2371: 2187: 2173: 2131: 1969: 1940:

Ban the whole "Unwritten Rules" system, it just causes more problems and issues than its worth

1803: 1753: 1718: 1703: 1681: 1633: 1610: 1580: 1480:

Tea and Biscuits should be the last warning. If you deny the tea and biscuits..you are banned.

1467: 1408: 1352: 1252: 1211: 1159: 986: 811: 735: 707: 435: 385: 288: 4853:

People have argued that it looks to them like the British style is becoming more popular but

4366: 3549: 3106:

Don't worry too much about what I've written here. It would work, but it'll never come to be.

2750: 826: 536: 525: 4543: 4510: 4439:

We need more rules written like this. Who needs to bite newbies when we can scare them off?

4343: 4154: 3937:

I'm so tempted to support that, but I fear it would be just too easy to game such a system,

3073:

This includes on towns, villages, railroad terminals, and everything else without exception.

2919: 2110: 2057: 2031: 2001: 1487: 1420: 1364: 1279: 1171: 4854: 4028:; we need to thouroghly address all concerns as to how an admin will use the tools and not 2861: 2770: 1848: 1417:

Yeah, but you would think with a million geeks we would have a lot of mathmatics articles.

1345: 1231: 1133: 1103: 871: 834: 830: 364: 241:

never touch it and odds are nobody else will, but I won't suffer it to be deleted so stick

171: 4862: 4572: 4561: 4468: 4406: 4379: 4242: 4216: 4186: 4088: 4069: 4025: 4015: 3923: 3883: 3785: 3710: 3596:

Color me elitist. If they don't have a CC and don't have a mobi, they can't edit. Oh well.

3561: 3536: 3332: 3291: 3253: 3146: 2662: 2572: 2539: 2457: 2324: 2294: 2241: 2046: 2020: 1991: 1596: 1563: 1266: 1151: 1037: 895: 596: 584: 560: 544: 414: 183: 110: 61: 4292:

if your own antennae tell you it's a bad thing to have done to you, don't do it to others

2088:– seems entirely obsolete to me; though I haven't seen the discussion regarding that yet. 1137: 1099: 883: 838: 648:

It still remains a conundrum why the people who know about bots can't actually flag them.

405: 4308:

Sorry Dweller, I got hung up on "this is the whole law", thanks for the further lesson.

1867:

This "common english" could/would/does easier differ on the country its being taught in.

125:

between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses because I see too many people confusing

4739: 4692: 4591: 4478: 4246: 2221: 1690:

Yes, I read your essay before, and it's a good one. But userpages, as I explain above,

3065: 3055: 2000:

Possibly. Commons would need an admin who is very familiar with image policy, though.

4515: 4450: 4238: 3811: 3759: 3642: 3615: 3580: 3499: 3211: 3165:

Eliminate all permanent admin positions and replace them with biannual confirmations.

3024: 2891:

Knowledge (XXG) does not deal in facts, 'the truth', or whatever you want to call it.

2794: 2144: 1613:), I assume a red page user is new. It's prejudiced I know, but that's how it is for 1309:

A fake yellow bar is only appropriate on April 1st. Any other day and it is annoying.

1048: 506: 453: 198: 4675: 4623: 4295: 4278: 4197: 4161: 4037: 3970: 3900: 3832: 3692: 3552:

that says you can have a separate account to edit in controversial areas. Oh well.

2704: 2622: 2549: 2467: 2367: 2169: 1965: 1799: 1747: 1697: 1677: 1627: 1574: 1463: 1404: 1348: 1248: 1207: 1155: 982: 807: 731: 703: 431: 381: 284: 105: 4290:

You're both complicating and expanding it beyond what it says. It's very simple -

951:

have come to the conclusion it would be an ideal solution for numerous situations.

56:

They are, they just require between 3 and 5 keypresses depending on your OS :) --

4819: 4805: 4794: 4783: 4772: 4761: 4750: 4723: 4036:

address how an admin will use their tools will be treated as a personal attack.--

2273:

The current 70-75% support threshold is too high, it should be lowered to 60-65%.

1838:

Make sure standards/documents don't contradict each other. An example of that is

4119: 2283:

Most of the comments below are about a proposal that is no longer listed here.

1732: 1644: 1322:

If you can edit at AN or ANI. It's a safe bet you are not blocked. So don't ask.

921: 906: 463: 4806:

Arthur C. Clarke wrote the short story "Loophole", which was published in 1946.

3779:

the rich, and drive away anyone interested in anything remotely controversial.

4557: 4464: 4402: 4375: 4212: 4182: 4084: 4065: 4011: 3919: 3879: 3706: 3691:

This pretty much exclues anyone under 18 already, beyond already said points.

3557: 3532: 3325: 3287: 3249: 3142: 2658: 2568: 2535: 2453: 2320: 2290: 2042: 2016: 1987: 1592: 1559: 1262: 1033: 1028:

Biographies of people (living and dead) would be indefinitely semi protected.

891: 580: 540: 179: 57: 3042:

Verifiability and sourcing are requirements, not niceties. Find your sources

1858:

Define some of the documentation meanings. Some of examples of this inculde:

1199:

Lighten up, you are not getting paid for this. So don't take it like you are.

2360:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Anhydrobiosis

1880:

Some of the noticeboards that i quickly found for users lodging complaints:

1643:

What about some sort of thing like autoconfirmed for userpage creation? :D

531:

Surely a foundation ruling is the last thing we want – it's only because of

3780: 3206:

I'm pretty sure that Knowledge (XXG) vandalism isn't a prosecutable crime.

2852:

No more than three edits to the same page by the same editor in two minutes

2530:

the bot creates. The usage fee would go toward the WMF's financial funds.

2466:

I hadn't thought of that, but I am prepared to amend that rule. See above.

1337:

There is no such thing as a designated editor. So sober up before you edit!

1312:

If you ignore the new message. You are held responsible for what may occur.

4111:

No Myspace-like user pages (including my own). That's what Myspace is for.

1484:

Yeah, I know. Not rules more like essays I hope some one writes some day.

4643:. Copying and pasting a rationale defeats the point. Let's take this one- 4230: 3807: 3755: 3611: 3576: 3495: 3207: 3028: 3020: 2790: 2483:

Hmm, I'm not sure about that one, it would solve the RfA problem, but it

2452:

Wouldn't this just encourage people to not mark their edits as minor? --

1606: 1527:

the result is shown somewhere which gives people an idea of the quality.

2763:

Stop writing policies like we're some sort of constitutional convention.

1331:

We know it is the Internet. But please use a spellchecker (I.E. Firefox)

4724:

The Prime Minister said, "The treaty is reasonable and will be signed."

3514:

What about bots? What about other legitimate uses of multiple accounts?

2277:

More encouragement for new users to learn about editing Knowledge (XXG)

1903:

Standardize Usernames for certain things. A example for this would be:

1083: 1079: 4795:

Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," performs "Born in the U.S.A."

3168:

Eliminate length as a(n unspoken) criterion for a successful article.

3828: 3725: 2964:

Eliminate length as a(n unspoken) criterion for a successful article.

1773:

RFA is not broken, people are. No more perennial suggestions please!

4903: 4234: 2011:

And Knowledge (XXG) would need an admin who is very familiar with

1916:

Don't go overboard, eg: as my IRC quote has already been shown by

1075:, the infobox of music articles would not contain a genre section. 890:

Er... you do know that's not at all what Huggle is for, right? --

4732:(The Prime Minister spoke a complete sentence with its own stop.) 1827:

Cleanup MoS so is easier to understand for less advanced editors.

195:

As I said I will continue to add things here if I think of them.

4102:

Expansion of CSD criteria (especially A7) in conjunction with...

3986:

Whoops, OK but a thousand minor edits fixing typos or redlinks?

3721: 3122:

Thank you! Edit counts are so worthless they should be banned.--

3047:

sourcing, not pay lip service to it while in reality not caring.

2094:– ditto what Biblio says above; I can't see a reason why not to. 1841:

WP:MOSNUM » "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked"

702:

Please read all of the many times that this has been explained.

574:

Given their budget for legal expenses, I think that's what they

2672:

would we still get editors like me who started as IP editors?

1092:

I would liberally blacklist shitty forums and unreliable sites.

133:, which is as disheartening as it undermines one's credibility. 4250: 3476: 2846:

Your area of interest is not the only one a reader cares about

2015:

policies, too. You can't have it one way and not the other --

1130:

If it works, let it be. It isn't the process merely the person

625:

good reason. While I've seen others griping about it before,

394:

Yes and no. It's a guideline not a policy in that it has the

3781:

You can see for yourself what the end result would look like

2182:

Actually, I meant the article itself. Regardless of sources

1530:

Some of those things probably motivate people to write. Who

1451:

Argue in your emails. Talk in the Wiki. If you can't. Leave.

408:

despite the fact that use of company names as a username is

1731:

Not at all. HTML studiously ignores them when rendering :)

93:

see if something is good not just on paper but in practice.

4784:"Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety". 4773:"Carefree," in general, means "free from care or anxiety." 4277:

Looks like you missed the last eight words of the Rule. --

1830:

Reduce the number of subpages so content is easier to find

1448:

If you know it is going to cause drama. Don't bring it up.

1143:

When everyone tells you that you are wrong. You are wrong.

719:

Vandals are not allowed to remove warnings from their talk

447:

Abolish A7, A9 and possibly G11 as speedy deletion reasons

4762:

The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable".

4751:

The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable."

4477:

No, because in enforcing this rule, you are breaking it.

1315:

You've found the lost city of Atlantis. Now stop digging

281:

User talk:Uncle G#Knowledge (XXG):Somebody Else's Problem

3014:

This is a free content project. Our goal is to generate

1237:

If you are under 18, you aren't posting your photo here.

806:

backs it before developers will be willing to enact it.

676:

In simpler words: RFA isn't broken, people are broken. —

270:

Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem

3656: 3649: 3000:

Rename the Main Page to something out of article space.

2487:

would encourage people to just edit to become admins.--

1932: 1928: 1851: 1776:

Rename the Main Page to something out of article space.

1140:

are not for personal complaints. (unless it is serious)

626: 471: 2697:

Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles

1789:

Polls are not evil, people complaining about them are.

1247:

This should already be a policy. Why isn't it policy?

2222: 1890:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

1234:

if you are writing like it is an advertisement board.

905:

Should be. Perhaps a new program needs to come out.

3477:

Lar's idealistic and unlikely to be implemented rule

2868:

Kill project banners, instead make a simple link to

4705: 2448:obstacle course which very few people ever finish. 1068:

Controversy and criticism sections would not exist.

329:

Massively streamline the MOS and codify what's left

4500:. Original research should be a blockable offense. 1745:It doesn't ignore them in the source code though. 522:Work out once and for all what our image policy is 1361:Again, I prefer my title. It's a lot more witty. 4820:To use a long dash on Knowledge (XXG), type in " 4706:Darkfrog24's Rules: Extend ENGVAR to punctuation 3705:Color him ageist as well as elitist, I guess -- 2997:(like that) in main prose (one of my pet hates). 1552:(like that) in main prose (one of my pet hates). 1334:Your opinion matters. As long as you make sense. 2354:The problem is that that preconception is just 2160:Deleting articles that lack sources is already 39:Template messages should seem like natural text 2995: 2621:Point taken, I thought IAR was a guideline :) 1550: 369:article is biased and fix it where necessary. 3162:Eliminate promotional material from articles. 1849:Knowledge (XXG):ANI#Possible Lightbot Problem 356:All admins/crats are automatically desysopped 8: 4556:"person I don't agree with", most likely -- 3064:Notability subguidelines should redirect to 2700: 2366:an account. This situation is not unique. 1555:All regular editors should have a userpage. 524:, getting a foundation ruling if necessary. 1896:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard 1227:Youtube, Myspace and blogs are not sources! 941: 658:Streamline MOS, create "for dummies" primer 3116:Eliminate all rules except "Common Sense." 1168:Yeah I know. But I like how I said it. :) 372:It's a guideline, not a policy. See also 3855: 2647:Any one editing Knowledge (XXG) would be 4141: 3517:What about people without a credit card? 1951:CHU clerks to get new right(s) to rename 1015:Commons rules your ass - get used to it. 920:Actually, what the fuck was I thinking? 654:Another sort of common sense-based rule. 406:block users with "promotional" usernames 4882:Never allow perfect to delay excellent. 4861:would be in a British English article. 4570:"Person with fewer friends than me". – 3874:and use that as our mission statement. 2759:This should be fairly self-explanatory. 1847:A example of this issue can be seen at 1728:. Yes, really. Annoying aren't they? 877: 802:Why it isn't here yet, I have no idea. 619:Abolish pre-emptive blocking completely 274:Knowledge (XXG):Somebody Else's Problem 2164:. You mean deletion of articles that 1621:editors should create a userpage, not 4855:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball 4613:Block people who ignore the NFC rules 4509:Are you serious? Careful, or one of 4099:MoS streamlined and made into policy. 4083:This is what already happens, no? -- 1917: 318:a week or so of needless bureaucracy! 7: 4148:_Rule-2009-01-06T12:18:00.000Z": --> 4143:_Rule-2009-01-06T12:18:00.000Z": --> 3110: 2994:Ban the use of plain external links 1549:Ban the use of plain external links 2897: 2753:to attempt to rewrite site history. 2432:I will think up more and add them. 2128:Delete all articles lacking sources 1319:you're only going to make it worse. 1089:I would ban external link sections. 1006:More will probably be added later. 664:Don't over-obsess over "Myspacing." 343:Create a new Userright:Limitedsysop 4537:Block idiots if they don't shut up 3856:Zunaid's rules - bucking the trend 2840:Don't do what you don't want to do 2319:source of vandalism, and so on -- 2271:Lower the threshold to pass an RfA 1673:User:Uncle G/On having a user page 646:Split out bot flagging to the BAG. 635:More to follow if I think of them… 14: 4622:have to do with Knowledge (XXG)? 4397:You mean retaining #1 and #3 and 3663:The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel) 2898:Cimon Avaro's counter-reformation 1884:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiquette alerts 1523:Abolish 3RR as a useless concept. 4176: 4173: 4155: 4147: 4142: 3137:Hard to do that, though. Unless 2143:Agree, sorry folks, but I do. — 1605:Unless I know of the user (e.g. 1325:A threat is a threat. Report it! 315:Don't put process above product. 4576: 4573: 4544: 4463:*bans SineBot and MiszaBot* -- 3789: 3786: 3336: 3333: 3171:That last one is my favorite. – 2435: 2245: 2242: 2162:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy 1645: 922: 907: 697:Hoaxes cannot be determined to 600: 597: 564: 561: 418: 415: 339:edit", and this is one of them. 114: 111: 4321: 4316: 4311: 4267: 4262: 4257: 4145:Dweller's Rules, <ahem: --> 3999: 3994: 3989: 3954: 3949: 3944: 3742: 3737: 3732: 3643:“No, but, yeah, but, no, but…″ 3377: 3372: 3367: 3313: 3308: 3303: 3276: 3271: 3266: 3234: 3229: 3224: 2918:of my counter-reformation. -- 2685: 2680: 2675: 1927:Layout the images nicely, eg: 1779:Learn that Knowledge (XXG) is 1399:You can't direct people as to 1344:That already is on here - see 1095:I would split out admin tools. 759: 754: 749: 652:Allow crats to desysop/decrat. 250:to perform that action xyrself 27:Some original research allowed 1: 4889:Admit mistakes, them move on. 4711:Extend ENGVAR to punctuation. 4670:rationale to be presented in 4444:Do something in the mainspace 4353:with first four principles of 3861:Set a clear goal: This is an 3471:10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 3450:10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 3429:20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 3405:10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 2858:Projects can't have consensus 228:Take some pride in your work. 45:Stop obsessing over MySpacers 4684:03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 4641:Ignore copy paste rationales 4632:03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 4620:National Football Conference 3842:08:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 3383:12:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 3111:Danny's Rules of Elimination 2920:Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 2251:23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 2227:23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 2098:Deletion policy preservation 791:22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 333:WP:Requests to amend the MOS 264:Knowledge (XXG):Reward board 4701:21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4600:17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4582:22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4566:21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4552:21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4524:13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4504:More freedom to delete shit 4487:17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4473:14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4459:13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4421:16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4411:16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4393:16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4384:16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4327:22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 4304:11:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 4273:14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4221:16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4206:13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4191:12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4171:12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4093:17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 4074:17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 4020:13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 4005:13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 3982:13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 3960:13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 3928:17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3909:18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3888:17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3819:18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3795:17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3767:18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3748:17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3715:16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3701:16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3683:15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3623:15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3588:18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3566:16:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3541:14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3507:14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3342:19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3319:18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3296:17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3282:17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3258:13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3240:09:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3216:02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3180:00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 3159:Eliminate non-free content. 3151:13:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 3133:01:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 2973:We're all in this together. 2928:22:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2834:Informing people is not bad 2818:We're all in this together. 2799:03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 2785:11:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2769:Constitution, 'rules' like 2767:Declaration of Independence 2729:19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2713:05:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2695:It's a perennial proposal ( 2691:23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2667:21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2631:18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2609:05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2577:19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2564:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Status 2558:18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2544:12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2498:21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2476:18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2462:12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2418:19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2398:19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2376:05:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2346:21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2329:21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2314:21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2299:23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 2178:04:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2156:03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2139:20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 2116:17:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 2063:20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2051:19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2037:18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2025:14:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 2007:14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1996:12:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1974:04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1759:14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1741:12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1709:10:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1686:04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1653:12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1639:17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1601:15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1586:14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1568:13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1543:18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1505:02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 1472:18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1438:15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 1413:18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1382:15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 1357:18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1346:Editing under the Influence 1297:13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1271:12:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1257:18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1216:18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1189:15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 1164:18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 1060:03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1042:13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 969:18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 930:12:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 915:12:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 900:13:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 816:04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 765:16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 740:04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 712:04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 685:20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 606:17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 589:16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 570:15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 549:20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 515:12:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 497:20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 424:19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 390:03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 293:03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 217:11:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 188:20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 120:02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 66:13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 4948: 4046:02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 3870:fact, change the title to 2808:Avoid overzealous tagging. 863:Having fun is not illegal. 670:The process is not broken. 459:tagging is no harder than 440:00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 80:09:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 4618:What do the rules of the 4542:How do you define idiot? 3754:Lose minors? Ok by me. ++ 3650:User:Thomas Jerome Newton 2893:We deal in verifiability. 2757:Be a wonk when necessary. 2600:It already is a policy. — 2436:Iceflow's Rules (Amended) 1981:Cross-wiki administration 1824:Simpler style guidelines 1808:23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 1106:, making one simply page. 991:23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 955:RfA should be age-limited 378:User:Helenalex/coirewrite 178:to be (but rarely is) -- 4871:19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 4337:Mailer Diablo's doctrine 4336: 4241:the Balkans, wrestling, 4134:delete unless cleaned up 3327:de minimis non curat lex 3188:WereSpielChequers' Rules 1864:What is common english?. 147:14:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 3872:Knowledge (XXG): the 💕 3119:Eliminate edit counts. 2265:"Second chance" unblock 2259:Res2216firestar's rules 1726:double spaced sentences 1458:If its an argument you 1245:Agreed, wholeheartedly! 1078:I would ban linking to 977:should have their RFAs 87:Implement then evaluate 1625:user. Most do anyway. 1617:personally. I did say 640:bibliomaniac15's rules 539:in the first place -- 4896:ClydeFranklin's rules 4895: 4875: 4691:I may add some more. 4434: 3139:Special:Contributions 3005:Seraphimblade's rules 3004: 2827: 2740: 2642:No IP's. At all. EVER 2442:Administration Rights 2258: 2121: 2104:Sourcing significance 1944: 1509: 1328:Let's just be friends 1124: 1009: 849: 639: 410:explicitly not banned 322: 301: 221: 155: 33:No pre-emptive blocks 16: 3901:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 3693:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 3657:Thomas Jerome Newton 3330:as I can imagine. – 3187: 2878: 2562:OK, I'll humor you. 2203: 2122:Juliancolton's rules 1000:Common sense = good. 170:I think that's what 17:MessedRocker's Rules 4498:Sources, or it dies 3827:Why would you take 3141:can be disabled -- 2425:"IPBlock" userright 2109:May add more soon. 2092:Bureaucratic powers 2086:Remove future-class 1986:And vice-versa? -- 1125:Rgoodermote's Rules 302:Richard0612's rules 254:AFD is not cleanup. 4590:meant as serious. 4586:Yeah, this wasn't 3878:project's goal -- 3776:The Kid In Africa™ 3671:User:Jack Merridew 2166:don't cite sources 1963:Scunthorpe Problem 800:Flagged revisions. 535:that we even have 503:Oscar Werner Tiegs 323:Iridescent's rules 4934: 4672:iambic pentameter 4435:J Milburn's rules 4367:proposed deletion 4356:Foundation Issues 3364: 2983:A good few rules: 2879:Neurolysis' rules 2872:relevant projects 2514:Flagged Revisions 2238: 1957:Username flagging 1931:looks worse than 1861:"Common English" 1719:Template:Talkback 1611:User:Badger Drink 1098:I would sort out 874:once and for all. 855:former category. 823:Destroy the idols 621:unless there's a 485: 212: 4939: 4932: 4927: 4923: 4876:Doc Tree's rules 4825: 4823: 4807: 4796: 4785: 4774: 4763: 4752: 4725: 4578: 4575: 4548: 4323: 4318: 4313: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4178: 4175: 4157: 4149: 4144: 4130:keep and cleanup 4001: 3996: 3991: 3979: 3973: 3956: 3951: 3946: 3791: 3788: 3744: 3739: 3734: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3659: 3652: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3426: 3422: 3417: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3379: 3374: 3369: 3361: 3338: 3335: 3315: 3310: 3305: 3278: 3273: 3268: 3236: 3231: 3226: 2782:change the rules 2687: 2682: 2677: 2623:Thor Malmjursson 2588:Forget the Rules 2550:Thor Malmjursson 2468:Thor Malmjursson 2247: 2244: 2235: 2224: 2204:Patton123's rule 2151: 2113: 2080:Contacting users 2060: 2034: 2004: 1756: 1750: 1706: 1700: 1649: 1636: 1630: 1583: 1577: 1540:change the rules 1502: 1500: 1495: 1490: 1464:Thor Malmjursson 1435: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1405:Thor Malmjursson 1379: 1377: 1372: 1367: 1349:Thor Malmjursson 1294: 1292: 1287: 1282: 1249:Thor Malmjursson 1208:Thor Malmjursson 1186: 1184: 1179: 1174: 1156:Thor Malmjursson 1055: 1010:mattbuck's rules 966:change the rules 926: 911: 786: 781: 776: 761: 756: 751: 730:been in vogue. 602: 599: 566: 563: 481: 468: 462: 458: 452: 420: 417: 403: 397: 235:So go and do it! 215: 210: 201: 156:Addshore's Rules 116: 113: 4947: 4946: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4930: 4925: 4898: 4878: 4821: 4708: 4654: 4437: 4339: 4243:Richard Dawkins 4151: 4026:human resources 3977: 3971: 3858: 3674: 3673: 3669: 3655: 3648: 3479: 3466: 3462: 3457: 3445: 3441: 3436: 3424: 3420: 3415: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3190: 3113: 3007: 2945: 2900: 2881: 2830: 2828:Melodia's Rules 2743: 2438: 2261: 2206: 2145: 2124: 2111: 2058: 2032: 2002: 1947: 1818: 1754: 1748: 1724:Ban the use of 1704: 1698: 1634: 1628: 1591:maliciously -- 1581: 1575: 1512: 1510:Majorly's rules 1498: 1493: 1488: 1486: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1419: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1363: 1290: 1285: 1280: 1278: 1182: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1152:Don't be a dick 1127: 1071:No one likes a 1049: 1022: 1012: 948:A new Userright 876:Basically what 852: 784: 779: 774: 642: 556:zOMG unfree!!1! 466: 460: 456: 450: 401: 395: 325: 304: 224: 213: 199: 196: 158: 19: 12: 11: 5: 4945: 4943: 4921: 4918: 4917: 4908: 4897: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4886: 4877: 4874: 4829: 4827: 4826: 4809: 4808: 4798: 4797: 4787: 4786: 4776: 4775: 4765: 4764: 4754: 4753: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4727: 4726: 4713: 4712: 4707: 4704: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4660: 4659: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4645: 4644: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4534: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4501: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4436: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4399:re-introducing 4338: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4247:Global Warming 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4150: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4128:Interpret all 4126: 4123: 4115: 4112: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3729:with my name. 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3660: 3653: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3603: 3600: 3597: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3524: 3521: 3518: 3515: 3490: 3489: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3452: 3431: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3201: 3194: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3117: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3076: 3069: 3054:Notability at 3052: 3048: 3040: 3032: 3006: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2998: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2981: 2976: 2970: 2965: 2962: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2930: 2906: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2888: 2880: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2865: 2855: 2849: 2843: 2837: 2829: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2815: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2789:Yeah. Thanks. 2760: 2754: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2645: 2644: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2527: 2526: 2517: 2516: 2507: 2506: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2445: 2444: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2421: 2420: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2281: 2280: 2274: 2268: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2230: 2229: 2218:do not disrupt 2210:Make abuse of 2205: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2107: 2101: 2095: 2089: 2083: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1954: 1946: 1945:Caulde's rules 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1925: 1921: 1912: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1893: 1887: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1865: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1845: 1842: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1777: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1722: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1553: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1511: 1508: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1131: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1107: 1096: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1076: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1026: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1003: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 952: 945: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 918: 867: 851: 850:Garden's rules 848: 847: 846: 820: 819: 818: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 744: 743: 742: 716: 715: 714: 689: 688: 687: 667: 661: 655: 649: 641: 638: 632: 631: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 519: 518: 517: 499: 444: 443: 442: 428: 427: 426: 360: 353: 350: 347:automatically 340: 324: 321: 320: 319: 312: 303: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 232: 223: 220: 208: 193: 192: 191: 190: 157: 154: 150: 149: 134: 122: 95: 94: 84: 83: 82: 68: 48: 42: 36: 30: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4944: 4935: 4933: 4928: 4916: 4914: 4909: 4907: 4905: 4900: 4899: 4890: 4887: 4883: 4880: 4879: 4873: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4858: 4856: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4817: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4792: 4789: 4788: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4770: 4767: 4766: 4759: 4756: 4755: 4748: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4741: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4721: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4710: 4709: 4703: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4668: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4656: 4655: 4647: 4646: 4642: 4639: 4638: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4616: 4614: 4611: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4580: 4579: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4549: 4547: 4541: 4540: 4538: 4535: 4532: 4531:Ignore idiots 4529: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4512: 4508: 4507: 4505: 4502: 4499: 4496: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4445: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4422: 4419: 4418:Mailer Diablo 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4391: 4390:Mailer Diablo 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4372: 4371: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4347: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4328: 4325: 4324: 4319: 4314: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4271: 4270: 4265: 4260: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4239:Russell Brand 4236: 4232: 4228: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4179: 4172: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4153: 4152: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4124: 4121: 4116: 4113: 4110: 4107: 4104: 4101: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4081: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4062: 4059: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4003: 4002: 3997: 3992: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3980: 3975: 3974: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3952: 3947: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3897: 3896: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3876: 3875: 3873: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3820: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3804: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3793: 3792: 3782: 3777: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3746: 3745: 3740: 3735: 3727: 3723: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3684: 3678: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3661: 3658: 3654: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3624: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3604: 3601: 3598: 3595: 3589: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3554: 3553: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3512: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3492: 3491: 3486: 3481: 3480: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3460: 3453: 3451: 3448: 3444: 3439: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3423: 3418: 3410: 3406: 3403: 3399: 3394: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3375: 3370: 3359: 3343: 3340: 3339: 3329: 3328: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3317: 3316: 3311: 3306: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3274: 3269: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3227: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3204: 3202: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3191: 3181: 3178: 3176: 3174: 3170: 3169: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3131: 3128: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3118: 3115: 3114: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3067: 3062: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3038: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3025:Virgin Killer 3022: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2969: 2966: 2963: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2952: 2950: 2947: 2946: 2943:Poached rules 2942: 2936: 2934: 2933:Defensibility 2931: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2912: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2882: 2873: 2871: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2841: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2831: 2825: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2809: 2806: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2688: 2683: 2678: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2534:How much? -- 2533: 2532: 2531: 2525: 2524:Bot Licensing 2522: 2521: 2520: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2496: 2493: 2490: 2486: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2443: 2440: 2439: 2433: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2396: 2393: 2390: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2309: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2237: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2219: 2215: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2193: 2191: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2150: 2149: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2117: 2114: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2064: 2061: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2005: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1913:For example: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1902: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1862: 1860: 1859: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1837: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1815: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1766: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1751: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1710: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1654: 1650: 1648: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1496: 1491: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1429: 1424: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1383: 1380: 1378: 1373: 1368: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1288: 1283: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1190: 1187: 1185: 1180: 1175: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1119: 1115: 1112: 1109:User's would 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1074: 1073:genre warrior 1070: 1067: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1054: 1053: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1007: 1001: 998: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 971: 970: 967: 963: 959: 958: 956: 953: 949: 946: 943: 942:Bibliomanic's 940: 939:BAG flagging. 937: 931: 927: 925: 919: 917: 916: 912: 910: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 889: 888: 887: 885: 879: 875: 873: 868: 864: 861: 860: 859: 856: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 821: 817: 813: 809: 804: 803: 801: 798: 792: 789: 788: 787: 782: 777: 768: 767: 766: 763: 762: 757: 752: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 726:It has never 725: 724: 723: 722: 720: 717: 713: 709: 705: 700: 696: 695: 693: 690: 686: 683: 679: 675: 674: 671: 668: 665: 662: 659: 656: 653: 650: 647: 644: 643: 637: 636: 628: 627:this incident 624: 620: 617: 607: 604: 603: 592: 591: 590: 586: 582: 577: 573: 572: 571: 568: 567: 557: 552: 551: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 527: 523: 520: 516: 512: 508: 505:for example. 504: 500: 498: 495: 491: 487: 486: 484: 478: 473: 465: 455: 448: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 422: 421: 411: 407: 400: 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 379: 376:and, indeed, 375: 371: 370: 367: 366: 361: 357: 354: 348: 344: 341: 338: 334: 330: 327: 326: 316: 313: 309: 306: 305: 295: 294: 290: 286: 282: 277: 275: 271: 265: 260: 259:other editors 255: 251: 247: 246: 244: 240: 236: 233: 229: 226: 225: 219: 218: 214: 205: 203: 202: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 168: 166: 163: 162: 161: 153: 148: 144: 140: 139:ThePedantKing 135: 132: 128: 123: 121: 118: 117: 107: 103: 102: 101: 98: 92: 88: 85: 81: 77: 73: 72:41.114.80.209 69: 67: 63: 59: 55: 54: 52: 49: 46: 43: 40: 37: 34: 31: 28: 25: 24: 23: 4919: 4910: 4901: 4888: 4881: 4859: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4828: 4815: 4810: 4801: 4790: 4779: 4768: 4757: 4746: 4737: 4719: 4714: 4690: 4666: 4640: 4612: 4587: 4571: 4545: 4536: 4530: 4503: 4497: 4443: 4438: 4398: 4358: 4352: 4349: 4342: 4309: 4291: 4255: 4133: 4129: 4033: 4029: 4010:inclined -- 3987: 3969: 3965: 3942: 3938: 3871: 3866: 3865:first and a 3863:Encyclopedia 3862: 3802: 3784: 3730: 3641: 3607: 3571: 3484: 3455: 3434: 3413: 3389: 3365: 3331: 3326: 3301: 3264: 3245: 3222: 3173:Juliancolton 3079: 3072: 3061:undue weight 3043: 3015: 3008: 2979:From Majorly 2978: 2972: 2967: 2959: 2948: 2932: 2915: 2910: 2903: 2890: 2884: 2869: 2867: 2857: 2851: 2845: 2839: 2833: 2823: 2817: 2811: 2807: 2781: 2766: 2762: 2756: 2746: 2673: 2648: 2646: 2641: 2592: 2587: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2503: 2484: 2482: 2446: 2441: 2431: 2424: 2404: 2386: 2363: 2355: 2282: 2276: 2270: 2264: 2240: 2236: 2217: 2209: 2188:Juliancolton 2183: 2165: 2147: 2146: 2132:Juliancolton 2127: 2103: 2097: 2091: 2085: 2079: 2012: 1980: 1956: 1950: 1852:(Perma Link) 1819: 1780: 1746: 1696: 1691: 1668: 1646: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1573: 1539: 1531: 1485: 1483: 1459: 1418: 1400: 1362: 1316: 1277: 1244: 1169: 1110: 1051: 1050: 1005: 999: 965: 954: 947: 938: 923: 908: 904: 881: 869: 862: 857: 853: 822: 799: 775:bibliomaniac 772: 771: 747: 727: 718: 698: 691: 669: 663: 657: 651: 645: 634: 633: 622: 618: 595: 575: 559: 555: 533:one of those 521: 501:Ditto - see 482: 476: 446: 413: 362: 355: 346: 342: 336: 328: 314: 307: 278: 269: 267: 258: 253: 249: 242: 238: 234: 227: 222:Reyk's rules 197: 194: 175: 165:Common Sense 164: 159: 151: 130: 126: 109: 99: 96: 90: 86: 50: 44: 38: 32: 26: 20: 4902:Don't be a 4822:— 4658:rationales. 4363:complicated 4177:_Rule": --> 4174:_Rule": --> 4170:_Rule": --> 4156:_Rule": --> 4137:statements. 4120:Citizendium 4061:different? 2765:Unlike the 2747:Lighten up. 2741:One's rules 858:Anyways... 480:elsewhere? 4920:That's it. 4863:Darkfrog24 4665:Jeez, not 4132:!votes as 4034:explicitly 3803:deliberate 3388:rejected. 3037:censorship 2960:From Danny 2904:Usefulness 2718:section.-- 1892:aka WP:ANI 1886:aka WP:WQA 1230:It's only 975:competence 878:Iridescent 200:·Add§hore· 4913:WP:COMMON 4693:J Milburn 4592:J Milburn 4479:J Milburn 4346:all rules 3966:mainspace 3485:traceable 2184:available 1898:aka WP:AN 1816:Peachey88 692:Expand G1 399:guideline 104:That was 4931:FRANKLIN 4922:Signed, 4791:American 4769:American 4747:American 4676:*Dan T.* 4624:*Dan T.* 4516:Peet Ern 4451:Peet Ern 4322:Chequers 4268:Chequers 4231:Abortion 4000:Chequers 3955:Chequers 3743:Chequers 3467:Chequers 3446:Chequers 3425:Chequers 3401:Chequers 3378:Chequers 3314:Chequers 3277:Chequers 3235:Chequers 3198:wp:civil 3196:Enforce 3130:firestar 3029:Guernica 3021:Kim Phuc 2968:From One 2949:Preamble 2916:item one 2812:en masse 2726:firestar 2686:Chequers 2649:required 2606:be happy 2495:firestar 2415:firestar 2395:firestar 2343:firestar 2311:firestar 2289:Why? -- 2214:bannable 2212:WP:POINT 1918:AddShore 1607:User:JzG 1558:Why? -- 1117:warring. 979:NOTNOWed 882:We have 760:Chequers 682:be happy 507:Peet Ern 494:be happy 363:Abolish 176:supposed 51:Hyphens! 4816:Correct 4802:British 4780:British 4758:British 4720:Correct 4667:another 4359:in mind 4296:Dweller 4279:Dweller 4198:Dweller 4196:Rule.-- 4162:Dweller 4038:Ipatrol 3972:Majorly 3968:edits. 3550:WP:SOCK 3200:at RFA. 3099:either. 3051:exists. 2911:enabler 2705:Uncle G 2368:Uncle G 2170:Uncle G 2148:Realist 1966:Uncle G 1800:Ipatrol 1749:Majorly 1717:Delete 1699:Majorly 1678:Uncle G 1629:Majorly 1619:regular 1576:Majorly 1532:doesn't 1084:youtube 1080:myspace 1052:Realist 1020:Realist 983:Ipatrol 880:said. 808:Uncle G 732:Uncle G 704:Uncle G 432:Ipatrol 382:Uncle G 311:messes. 285:Uncle G 106:Moulton 4915:sense. 4904:m:DICK 4885:(XXG). 4740:differ 4546:Garden 4350:except 4344:Reboot 4249:, the 4030:become 3829:Beaver 3726:Beaver 3572:really 3044:before 2954:time): 2862:WP:OWN 2771:WP:IAR 2751:essays 2504:ArbCom 2223:Patton 2216:it's " 2112:Caulde 2059:Caulde 2033:Caulde 2003:Caulde 1933:(This) 1929:(This) 1871:fully. 1733:Stifle 1692:do not 1647:Garden 1520:abuse. 1104:WP:ANI 924:Garden 909:Garden 884:Huggle 841:, and 365:WP:COI 337:should 308:Think! 4926:CLYDE 4588:quite 4577:scent 4574:iride 4558:Gurch 4511:these 4465:Gurch 4403:Gurch 4376:Gurch 4317:Spiel 4263:Spiel 4235:Hamas 4213:Gurch 4183:Gurch 4085:Gurch 4066:Gurch 4012:Gurch 3995:Spiel 3964:1000 3950:Spiel 3920:Gurch 3880:Gurch 3839:Drake 3836:Jason 3833:Brian 3790:scent 3787:iride 3738:Spiel 3707:Gurch 3677:david 3608:every 3558:Gurch 3533:Gurch 3463:Spiel 3442:Spiel 3421:Spiel 3397:Spiel 3373:Spiel 3337:scent 3334:iride 3309:Spiel 3288:Gurch 3272:Spiel 3250:Gurch 3230:Spiel 3143:Gurch 3027:, or 2778:harej 2701:above 2681:Spiel 2659:Gurch 2602:harej 2569:Gurch 2536:Gurch 2485:might 2454:Gurch 2428:less. 2356:wrong 2321:Gurch 2291:Gurch 2246:scent 2243:iride 2043:Gurch 2017:Gurch 1988:Gurch 1669:cough 1623:every 1593:Gurch 1560:Gurch 1536:harej 1489:Rgood 1422:Rgood 1366:Rgood 1281:Rgood 1263:Gurch 1173:Rgood 1100:WP:AN 1034:Gurch 962:harej 892:Gurch 870:Kill 843:CIVIL 755:Spiel 678:harej 630:this. 601:scent 598:iride 581:Gurch 565:scent 562:iride 541:Gurch 490:harej 419:scent 416:iride 257:that 180:Gurch 127:which 115:scent 112:iride 70:Halo 58:Gurch 4911:Use 4867:talk 4697:talk 4680:talk 4628:talk 4596:talk 4562:talk 4520:talk 4483:talk 4469:talk 4455:talk 4407:talk 4380:talk 4312:Ϣere 4300:talk 4283:talk 4258:Ϣere 4217:talk 4202:talk 4187:talk 4166:talk 4146:Rule 4089:talk 4070:talk 4042:talk 4016:talk 3990:Ϣere 3978:talk 3945:Ϣere 3924:talk 3905:talk 3884:talk 3867:wiki 3783:. – 3733:Ϣere 3724:and 3722:MILF 3711:talk 3697:talk 3675:aka 3562:talk 3537:talk 3458:Ϣere 3437:Ϣere 3416:Ϣere 3392:Ϣere 3368:Were 3304:Ϣere 3292:talk 3267:Ϣere 3254:talk 3225:Ϣere 3212:talk 3147:talk 3127:2216 3080:only 3066:WP:N 3056:WP:N 3016:free 2924:talk 2795:talk 2723:2216 2709:talk 2676:Ϣere 2663:talk 2627:talk 2573:talk 2554:talk 2540:talk 2492:2216 2472:talk 2458:talk 2412:2216 2392:2216 2372:talk 2364:with 2340:2216 2325:talk 2308:2216 2295:talk 2174:talk 2047:talk 2021:talk 1992:talk 1970:talk 1804:talk 1755:talk 1737:talk 1705:talk 1682:talk 1635:talk 1597:talk 1582:talk 1564:talk 1468:talk 1460:need 1409:talk 1401:what 1353:talk 1317:your 1267:talk 1253:talk 1212:talk 1160:talk 1150:See 1136:and 1134:AN/I 1102:and 1082:and 1038:talk 987:talk 896:talk 827:NPOV 812:talk 750:Ϣere 736:talk 708:talk 623:very 585:talk 545:talk 537:NFCC 526:NFCC 511:talk 472:here 454:prod 436:talk 412:? – 386:talk 289:talk 243:that 239:I'll 184:talk 143:talk 131:that 129:and 91:then 76:talk 62:talk 4251:LHC 3808:Lar 3756:Lar 3612:Lar 3577:Lar 3531:-- 3496:Lar 3208:One 3124:Res 2870:ALL 2791:One 2780:// 2720:Res 2604:// 2489:Res 2409:Res 2389:Res 2337:Res 2305:Res 2013:its 1924:it. 1781:not 1538:// 1499:ote 1494:erm 1432:ote 1427:erm 1376:ote 1371:erm 1291:ote 1286:erm 1232:COI 1183:ote 1178:erm 1111:not 981:.-- 964:// 872:COI 835:3RR 831:BLP 728:not 680:// 576:are 492:// 283:.) 211:ont 174:is 172:IAR 4869:) 4824:". 4818:: 4804:: 4793:: 4782:: 4771:: 4760:: 4749:: 4722:: 4699:) 4682:) 4674:. 4630:) 4598:) 4564:) 4550:. 4539:. 4522:) 4485:) 4471:) 4457:) 4409:) 4382:) 4348:, 4302:) 4245:, 4237:, 4233:, 4219:) 4204:) 4189:) 4168:) 4160:-- 4122:). 4091:) 4072:) 4044:) 4018:) 3926:) 3907:) 3886:) 3810:: 3758:: 3713:) 3699:) 3614:: 3579:: 3575:++ 3564:) 3539:) 3498:: 3294:) 3256:) 3246:is 3214:) 3149:) 3023:, 2926:) 2797:) 2711:) 2703:. 2665:) 2629:) 2575:) 2556:) 2542:) 2474:) 2460:) 2405:of 2374:) 2327:) 2297:) 2239:– 2176:) 2049:) 2023:) 1994:) 1972:) 1806:) 1739:) 1684:) 1651:. 1615:me 1609:, 1599:) 1566:) 1470:) 1411:) 1355:) 1269:) 1255:) 1214:) 1162:) 1138:AN 1040:) 989:) 928:. 913:. 898:) 839:OR 837:, 833:, 829:, 814:) 738:) 710:) 699:be 587:) 558:– 547:) 513:) 477:is 467:}} 464:db 461:{{ 457:}} 451:{{ 438:) 402:}} 396:{{ 388:) 380:. 291:) 186:) 145:) 78:) 64:) 4906:. 4865:( 4695:( 4678:( 4626:( 4594:( 4560:( 4533:. 4518:( 4481:( 4467:( 4453:( 4405:( 4378:( 4298:( 4285:) 4281:( 4215:( 4200:( 4185:( 4164:( 4087:( 4068:( 4040:( 4014:( 3922:( 3903:( 3882:( 3816:c 3814:/ 3812:t 3764:c 3762:/ 3760:t 3709:( 3695:( 3620:c 3618:/ 3616:t 3585:c 3583:/ 3581:t 3560:( 3535:( 3504:c 3502:/ 3500:t 3290:( 3252:( 3210:( 3145:( 3039:. 2922:( 2814:. 2793:( 2707:( 2661:( 2625:( 2571:( 2552:( 2538:( 2470:( 2456:( 2370:( 2323:( 2293:( 2172:( 2130:– 2045:( 2019:( 1990:( 1968:( 1802:( 1735:( 1721:. 1680:( 1595:( 1562:( 1466:( 1407:( 1351:( 1265:( 1251:( 1210:( 1158:( 1086:. 1036:( 985:( 894:( 810:( 785:5 780:1 734:( 706:( 583:( 543:( 509:( 434:( 384:( 287:( 276:. 209:C 206:/ 182:( 141:( 74:( 60:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:If you could re-write the rules - Knowledge (XXG)

Index