Knowledge talk:Consensus

2533:) and in those cases I'd guess that wp:consensus would go with the accurate side if there was even a debate. Most discussions have much more complex attributes such varying values, differing definitions of "correct"/ "incorrect", varying meaning of words, tilting article by inclusion/exclusion, selecting which of Knowledge's vague and overlapping rules to apply, conflicting POV objectives (each self-defined as the only "correct" one) etc. "Sources" alone also does not settle it, you can always find a source that has the same POV as you. WP:Consensus is generally our way of making those decisions. 305: 2172:.Policies occasionally provide some brief overlapping coverage, and this would be one such area where it can exist. If editors feel VNOT is not the right place for it, the proper approach might be to flesh out the changes at WP:EP following the NOCON move, bring the policy up to date following discussion, and then decide if ONUS needs revisited. We may find more consensus at that point to remove it from VNOT and/or rephrase accordingly, but now doesn't seem like the time. -- 1804:".I don't see it this way. When you have a consensus to take action one way, then you equally have a consensus against taking action the opposite way. So if you have a "consensus to remove", then you have a "consensus against keeping". You shouldn't phrase this as "no consensus to keep". I prefer to preserve "no consensus" for situations that represent outcomes of inaction, or stalemates. -- 238: 1498: 1441: 268: 2549:

You are right. Therefore, I believe that the quality of arguments aimed at forming consensus should be more related to their persuasive power rather than their correctness. Furthermore, I think that the quality of arguments for consensus can be measured by the level of support they receive within the

2229:

Consider me on board if some form of NOCON is staying in policy, just being relocated. Don't think I would support a move to an essay, however. I understand the principle behind NOCON already loosely exists in WP:EP from the comments above, but I think the reason for its existence is that it needs to

2011:

about no consensus (which is presumably why you wrote NOCON to begin with), so I would prefer a rewrite to a full-scale move, though obviously the wording is very difficult. (Prefacing each bullet point with "According to WP:EXAMPLE..." might help somewhat.) That said, although NOCON has somehow come

1650:

Nope. Practice has it that it depends how recently the material was added and the NOCON means nocon for inclusion or exclusion and then if it was there for long enough, it has consensus pending any possible further discussion to resolve the nocon discussion one way or another. Of course this leads to

1559:

Well, and not just in BLPs, the problem remains that the version in the article is presumed to have consensus, including that it belongs in the article for all the right reasons (sourcing/npov/nor/noncvio). So if there is no consensus, its presence in the article misrepresents a consensus that does

1447:, and it says that WP:BLP says that contentious matter gets removed if there's no consensus", but you could just as easily say – and probably ought to be saying – "WP:BLP is a core content policy, and it says that contentious matter gets removed when editors don't agree that it's adequately sourced". 2613:

Anyways, I personally find the argument "Knowledge should reflect the truth" to be pretty weaksauce. It's not that we don't want to reflect the truth, it's that any project this big which values "the truth" will have a pretty tough time governing itself. The reason policies like consensus exists is

1792:

When a proposal to take action results in "no consensus", then logically the proposed action is not taken. What happens next depends. The conditions I listed count for something, and in applicable situations, they can be enough to tip the "no consensus" balanced scale in favor of retaining disputed

2705:

can be understood as follows: regardless of whether an argument initially represents a minority or majority opinion, a high-quality argument with greater persuasive power is more likely to be unanimously agreed upon or accepted by the majority in the process of forming consensus. In the process of

2617:

There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this. I personally don't think that is a good mindset. What matters most, I think, is justification. How you present your justification matters,

2393:

The definition of consensus involves opinions or decisions that are generally accepted within a group, without explicitly addressing correctness. Consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. Even if the majority agrees on a certain viewpoint, it may still be incorrect. Sometimes,

1683:

I'm not saying that, I'm saying it depends, on when it was added and possibly some other things too (eg conlevel). As for your first version, that's what I want the closers to do, although they are more likely to opine than decide. What they tend to do now is say nothing and leave it to editors to

2301:

I read decades ago that towards the end of the Roman empire, the tax laws would be written in gold ink on purple vellum, proclaimed with great ceremony, and then ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the taxes. I would like Knowledge to take the opposite approach to its policies:

1178:

Ah, well that's taking it way back! Is it more clear though? I suppose it depends on how the RfC is worded. The "proposed change" could be in reference to the bold edit added a year ago...or...it could be in reference to the recent effort to remove it. I suspect that's why additional verbiage was

777:

I do agree with this point..... if someone's closing an RFC they should not tell people just to go ahead and have another RFC. If bold edits are contested and RCF are inconclusive...... those that edit wars in the contested content should be dealt with accordingly not rewarded with the content be

1924:

Which means, that where the discussion is in respect to core content policies (besides in some cases of BLP or CVIO), it results in the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance. Which is often

2645:

It's unclear to me why in the request for de-adminship, OP's misquote of a third-party admin that they believed the block "isn't justified to be indef" as "isn't justified" still hasn't been corrected. My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist

2397:

I guess that Knowledge uses a consensus-based decision-making process rather than a correctness-based one for good reasons. Determining absolute correctness can be challenging, especially in areas where there is ongoing debate or where information is subject to interpretation. Consensus allows

1668:

I wonder if you have thought about the distinction between "There is no consensus either way, and that means we keep/remove/undo/whatever" (=what I've been saying for years) and "There is no consensus either way, and that means this version has consensus" (=what you appear to be saying here).

1073:

used to talk about the importance of "the wiki way" in identifying consensus, which is to say: If an edit sticks, it probably has some level of consensus. It might be a shaky, tenuous, temporary weakling of a consensus, but it's enough of a consensus that other editors don't feel obliged to

2641:

for an admin on zhwiki to be desysopped, after they have themselves been blocked by said admin citing numerous reasons (one of which is misinterpretation of the consensus policy by suggesting that it is majority rule), then trying to get people to become an angry mob with said admin "abusing

1977:

written down in policy anywhere else? That's the part I'm most concerned about (and the main reason why most people cite NOCON, I think). You're of course right that the BLP wording (and everything else) is just a summary of other policy, and I indeed don't really care about those parts of

1091:

What I read him as expressing is what is now called BRD and SILENCE. What I have deduced is that BRD is good for rapid development, and was more often appropriate in 2004 than 2024. Now, different to then, it is much better, expected, almost demanded, that there be a talk page record of

542:" before saying "Please gain consensus for this first." So what the editor is really saying is "I think there is a problem with this edit and I've told you what it is. Your next step is to take it to the talk page to explain why you think I'm wrong and see what other editors think." 2270:

that are scattered about on various pages. Despite the number of editors here that may indicate otherwise (which in the grand scheme of things is still a small sampling of Knowledge's overall user base), NOCON is needed in some form. You were onto something all those years ago.

1578:

to have consensus up until the consensus was disputed, but NOCON is about when that presumption has just been proven false. You literally cannot have a presumed consensus in the article when the discussion just ended as no consensus; it is an X-and-not-X situation.

1327:

I think it would be best for NOCON and ONUS to be reconciled and put in one place. CLOSE is probably the best, but it is not a policy or guideline. And that is the primary problem with putting only NOCON in CLOSE, it leaves ONUS as the only policy statement on the

1074:

instantly revert the edit. This may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues (or if someone has outside influences, such as a paid editor or a volunteer for a political campaign), but that's the goal: to find something that the other 'side' won't revert.

1925:

important for article creation and improvement because we replicate articles in-form across the pedia, by editors going, that's done there, I'll replicate in kind or use it, here. And we believe it also matters to the quality, we provide readers to rely on.

645:

Turning to your question, the Knowledge goal is to resolve disputes based on the relative strength of the reasons put forth by editors with differing views (and, perhaps, some adjustments to take into account everyone's concern). There is no magic number. -

2690:), I argue that it is more important for Knowledge to reflect the collective agreement of its contributors rather than striving solely for objective truth. This reflects my belief that Knowledge should prioritize representing consensus over absolute truth.. 2244:

The main reason it exists is because I thought it would be convenient to have a handy summary of all the different rules about what to do when a discussion has a no-consensus result that are scattered about in various policies, guidelines, and procedural

2394:

the correct viewpoint of a minority may be overlooked by the majority, but this does not affect its correctness. This means that while consensus plays an important role in the editing process of Knowledge, it is not always directly linked to correctness

2614:

to make a decision-making process that actually works. It's going to be so worthless when you want to create a decision-making system that follows from "correctness". There's a whole philosophy of that I don't think I'm qualified enough to get into.

1992:

That's a statement of statistical fact. It is not a rule and doesn't tell you what to do in any given situation. "If BLP, remove it" is a policy requirement. "Yeah, looking at a bunch of these, I see this pattern" is not a policy requirement.

762:

It seems to me that closers must be more active in this, its no use just saying it's Nocon, go ahead and sort it out. OK, in some cases it can be very clear but often it won't be so clear, as in the case that has prompted this question here.

2494:

Consensus doesn't imply correctnes or truth, but it does show the best understanding that the community has in a certain situation. If editors don't think the outcome was correct they should look to the strength of their arguments. --

1211:, where it will have more immediate relevance. No changes to the wording/facts/etc. in the section are suggested – just a simple move of these words out of this page and over to the more closely related page. What do you think? 2105:

There is a conflict between NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS. If you demote NOCON to an essay then you are picking sides in that conflict. Is that an intended or unintended consequence of your support for "move only NOCON"? -

1745:" is not literally true. When you have a consensus to remove, you also have "no consensus to keep". I realize this sounds pedantic, but this kind of P&G content really needs to be as wikilawyer-resistant as we can make it. 556:

I don't understand how an editor can simply remove a content and claim that 'there might be a problem explain yourself'. The concept of judicial system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This can be applied to other things as

2706:

forming consensus, the final method to determine whether consensus has been reached must be through understanding the level of support within the community, as this aligns with the meaning of consensus. Hopefully, my

1759:

takes a default position of retaining information (though it cares about whether Knowledge retains information, rather than whether any given article retains the information). Removing this particular sentence from

2167:

Moving that last sentence out of VNOT essentially removes ONUS from WP:V. That's a big change and something we may want to shelve for now. Obviously, it's a hot button topic with editors on both sides of the fence:

2638: 2618:

just as the justification itself. There will be people who won't accept your justification. That's fine, not because you'd think you are "right", but because you believe you've made a valid effort in getting what

2740:

A part of why we got rid of "Verifiability not truth" was because it denigrates/deprecates the pursuit of accuracy (in those cases where objective fact exists) by using a word with a second common meaning of #2

2285:

I think the biggest mistake was not predicting the shift towards revering The Policies™ (may their words endure forever). If I had, the collection probably would have ended up on its own page. Compare, e.g.,

748:

Wondering if the old wording was more clear? We seem to have a new generation of editors that have a different interpretation of this policy. That caused us more edit wars than it solves. Nostalgic old man. :

2626: 2214:

Yep, fine by me and since it's to another policy page, less objectionable for some people, I would think. And we can still leave some sort of summary here pointing to there, that's doable as well, right?

1179:

added later on. Unfortunately, as we've seen, it hasn't really gotten us any closer to solving the underlying issue of determining when a bold edit achieves some level of consensus without discussion. --

1975:

When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit

1308:

That's interesting to know, but not very clear. Do you think it would ultimately be best for NOCON and ONUS both to get moved to the other page, or do you think it would be best for neither to move?

1793:

content. It seems most that participate in these discussions agree with that sentiment. Where we seem to differ or want more clarification (or where the wikilawyering sets in) is in regard to

599: 2667:

I do not agree with your interpretation of my intention and will leave these points for other users to comment on, as I believe you may have misunderstood my intention due to your comments:

1842:

When you have a decision that there is no consensus for a change, then that change does not have consensus. There may be no consensus about what to do instead, but there is no consensus.

2736:

Word commonly used in unsubstantiated or wild claims. E.G. "The truth about aliens at Area 51" "The truth about our alleged moon landings" "The truth about microchips in Covid vaccines"

2298:, and yet is no less effective for not being on a guideline page. But this one, especially when people twist "this usually happens" into "The Policy™ Requires this", has been a mistake. 1748:

I really wish editors would quit fixating on the idea of additions and removals, when the real question may be something like "Shall we have ==This== section or ==That== section first?"

563:

If some editor thinks there might be a problem, and the said content is well cited, shouldn't he use the talk page to prove why he thinks there might be a problem to the said content?

1141:

that predates some of the recent tinkering. Is that the "old wording" you had in mind, and if so, what about this version seems more clear? Presentation, phrasing, or both?FWIW,

1943:. Does this mean "No consensus means there actually is no consensus, but we'll pretend, for the sake of convenience, that there is a consensus for some version or another"? 1379:

Apart from the seeming logic of such a move, the thing that interests me most is whether it will result in closers paying more attention to it in their closes. Do you think?

1409:

WP:CLOSE is not policy, so moving NOCON over there would just remove it from policy, which I do not think would be a good idea (when there's no consensus, there needs to be

1393:

I have no idea if it will affect closer behavior, or if it might affect "closee" behavior (e.g., fewer close challenges, close challenges that are better explained, etc.).

516:

on (so not what's popular to them), although it's still their job to understandably and in summary fashion relate the relevant body of reliable literature, see generally

229: 331:, which says that editors at the English Knowledge do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added? 282: 1651:

altercations and I think closers ought to at least opine, if not decide, on such matters in their closes (and discussion openers should ask them to opine as well).

1530:

Still be able to remove badly sourced contentious matter when editors can't form a consensus that it's well-sourced, because the BLP policy requires this action,

2669:"There is also the idea that even if my viewpoint disagrees with the consensus, I can still sit in peace knowing I am "right" if I would write things like this" 708:

This is true, but I've honestly seen it happen multiple times. Consensus can cause a group to react to scepticism like an immune system spotting a bacterium.

2591: 2518: 2483: 697: 50: 85: 2012:

to symbolize the objections to ONUS, getting rid of the symbol won't get rid of the conflict or the deep-seated objections: the central problem remains

1665:

I also think that it's helpful, for the minority of discussions that get formally summarized, for the closers to express an opinion on what to do next.

1941:

the article remaining in internal doubt with respect to policy compliance, but external (or on-its-face) certitude with respect to policy compliance

391: 2169: 1778:

Best thing is to get the principle right, get it done and then wikilawyer it. Trying to wikilawyer it first just results in nothing getting done.

1545:

If you pick the latter, then please tell me what we would actually lose by "only" having the BLP policy as an official policy that requires this.

1413:

answer, whatever it may be, to the question of what to do). I've thought before that it'd be good to have some sort of guideline on closing (like

1092:

consultation. Number of Watchers is no longer meaningful, and a quiet bold edit on a quiet page can be reverted as undiscussed even years later.

349:

in the context of whether this page should be a policy rather than a guideline. It has been discussed and amended many times since then, e.g.,

129: 91: 2302:

They are not statutes. They are not sacred. They are a handy summary of reality. And when they diverge from reality, we should fix them.

2007:

I suppose you're right, and if anything my confusion only proves your point that something needs to change. I do think this page has to say

1874:

Alice's edit. Maybe he rearranged a few more sentences, or added some explanatory text in an attempt to make Alice's change be less bad.)

1050: 358: 354: 350: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 933:

Question " Should Knowledge:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be moved to Knowledge:Closing discussions? (and/or Editing policy).

1905:

The decisions about what to do next are prejudiced in favor of Alice's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".

418:

What if the right number of editors to reach consensus on a certain topic of an article is absent from participating that discussion?

346: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 278: 274: 1145:

was the last revision I paid attention to. I now see that some mini-subheadings have since been added along with a bullet covering

824:, aka NOCONSENSUS, does not belong in this policy. No consensus is not a strategy for achieving consensus. No consensus belongs in 1514:

Some years ago, I added a little copy/summary of the BLP rules to this page. This little copy did not create or change any rules.

1290:

NOCON and the last sentence of ONUS are yin and yang. You can't make this change without changing the balance between the two. I

1021:

The post close discussions/editing have not achieved any consensus either and I have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter.

415:

Recently someone asked me to gain consensus first even though I cited a strong, universally accepted reference for the material.

277:

on Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

899:

Either we do it, and see if BRD will identify a Very Interested Person™, or we have an Official Discussion™ (RFC or otherwise).

2587: 2514: 2479: 1508: 693: 1723:

Then a stalemate should result in retaining the disputed content...for now. Relegating this advice to an essay demotes it. --

1698:

And this to me would be an inconsistency and an overall issue that requires guidance. Concur with Selfstudier.No consensus to

31: 2694: 2683: 2607: 560:

It's like accusing someone of theft, and then asking the accused to prove that he did not commit theft. This is irrational.

1149:. While well-intentioned, I think these unnecessarily crowd an already cluttered NOCON that's struggling to be concise. -- 850: 829: 383: 80: 1106:

Nothing should be reverted "as undiscussed." Editors should provide a substantive rationale. For more on this topic, see

793:

If it had been a few months, then things might be ambiguous, but that isn't the case here - six weeks is just too short.

377: 2021: 1983: 1422: 671: 309: 978:

Not entirely opposed to moving it, but I think some form of it needs to be retained in policy, and if not here then at

664:

Everyone with a new idea that gets lots of opposition thinks themselves Galileo, the vast majority are just wrong. The

71: 2573: 2500: 2465: 2435: 2295: 713: 679: 237: 124: 2564:

This is already how consensus works, by editors policy based arguements. The second part though comes to close to

2290:, which is a handy list of all the times policy requires in inline citation, and yet is not on a policy page, and 2361: 1978:

NOCON—although if we're going to state the general rule, we probably need to cross-reference the exceptions too.

1930: 1833: 1598: 1565: 525: 2701:), I also oppose majority voting and fully support the consensus-building approach. The key idea is as follows: 248: 2339: 2158: 2111: 2083: 1756: 1469: 1351: 1336: 1299: 1263: 1235: 1115: 857:

usually applying after the discussion is over should probably just get lost on during the trip to that page.

825: 651: 614: 547: 1764:

policy would not actually make it impossible for you to claim that A Policy™ Requires the outcome you prefer.

1354:. I have no issue with ONUS remaining described in WP:V, but NOCON should be no more than a pointer to WP:EP. 670:

If an editor disagrees with you the first thing is to try discussion on the articles talk page, failing that

2291: 2017: 1979: 1845:

This is important for policies to get right, because the alternative is that we reward edit warring to keep

1536:

Have no idea what to do, because the BLP policy isn't enough all by itself, and you need to be able to cite

1520: 1432: 1418: 2307: 2253: 2205: 2054: 2013: 1998: 1948: 1915: 1769: 1674: 1641: 1584: 1550: 1455: 1398: 1313: 1277: 1249: 1216: 1079: 959: 904: 862: 798: 286: 1607:

Right, the issue is usually about how long it has been in the article in relation to it being contested.

2673:"My hunch is that they are less interested in the "truth" than playing with it as in populist politics." 2378: 2220: 2191: 2140: 2126: 2034:

edit, by a now-indeffed editor, which was not only discussed but actively objected to. The same editor

1783: 1689: 1656: 1612: 1384: 1058: 1026: 1007: 941: 890: 768: 709: 630: 568: 503: 490: 481: 471: 450: 430: 422: 794: 1417:

but not just for deletion), but as long as WP:CLOSE is a mere "information page" I would oppose this.

2703:

The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view

2658: 2357: 1926: 1829: 1622: 1594: 1561: 1484:

BLP says we remove contentious matter unless editors agree that it's well-sourced. This encompasses

521: 1828:

They are certainly contrary, and some may just will to see it as consensus version, nonetheless. --

790:

I think in this case it is clear; an edit in place for just six weeks doesn't become the status quo.

2748: 2540: 2335: 2154: 2107: 2095: 1854: 1631:

an RFC just closed saying that "there is no consensus about whether this should be in the article",

1593:

What you just said, is another way of saying what I said, if it's in the article it has consensus.

1524: 1465: 1366: 1332: 1295: 1259: 1231: 1111: 1097: 1041: 918: 876: 854: 840: 821: 647: 610: 600:

Knowledge:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary

543: 498:

As a new editor I was trying to understand the concept of 'consensus during editing' myself first.

328: 61: 35: 2711: 2565: 2551: 2530: 2445: 2417: 2399: 2276: 2235: 2177: 1809: 1728: 1184: 1154: 987: 812: 727: 598:

ing the other editor and asking why they believe your addition promotes a point of view. Compare

253: 101: 76: 2082:

No, my first belief, and my long term gut feel, and my latest reading, is that NOCON belongs in

1361:. Both are true regardless of whether there has been a formal discussion to be formally closed. 1272:

This question was already asked three weeks ago, so it's too late to do something else "first".

2303: 2266:

handy, or at least it should be, since as you say it was meant to gather in one place several

2249: 2201: 2050: 1994: 1944: 1911: 1765: 1670: 1637: 1580: 1546: 1451: 1394: 1309: 1273: 1245: 1212: 1075: 955: 950:

I think a split/merge discussion is the usual format. I've started a separate sub-section at

900: 858: 57: 1450:

You'd lose nothing any maybe even gain something by citing the policy that is most relevant.

2715: 2555: 2421: 2403: 2374: 2287: 2216: 2187: 2136: 2122: 1884:

prejudiced in favor of Bob's version just because "It's in the article so it has consensus".

1846: 1779: 1685: 1652: 1608: 1380: 1070: 1054: 1022: 1003: 937: 886: 764: 731: 626: 564: 499: 485: 467: 459: 445: 441: 426: 381:

Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.

250: 2398:

Knowledge to function effectively even in the face of uncertainty or differing opinions. --

982:. Otherwise, the guidance may be viewed as a demotion of sorts at an informational page. -- 2649: 2087: 1464:

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for a good observation. I oppose making WP:NOCON a non-policy.

1358: 1331:

On the other hand, good luck getting community consensus on reconciling NOCON and ONUS. -

1208: 1204: 665: 409: 17: 2729:"Truth" is a bad word to use because it has two completely different common meanings: 2707: 2698: 2687: 2457: 2091: 1414: 1362: 1227: 1107: 1093: 1037: 914: 872: 836: 578: 539: 1002:

Quite happy for the details to be examined (impartially). If there's some volunteers.

2439: 2334:

moving NOCON to EDITING POLICY (being sure to leave a link to NOCON in CONSENSUS). -

2272: 2231: 2173: 1850: 1805: 1752: 1724: 1180: 1150: 1146: 983: 808: 606: 592: 517: 484:

you were posting here. Have you read the page for which is the talk page carefully?

1438:

So, e.g., if the dispute is over BLPs, then you can currently say "Well, NOCON is a

1849:

out of the article during a discussion (which would actually be a violation of the

1435:, NOCON doesn't (and isn't supposed to) say anything that doesn't appear elsewhere. 979: 512:

Well, when discussing the substance of articles, it's not editors that we formally

342: 1507:, but BLP is definitely, absolutely, indisputably a policy. It's even one of our 588:

What to do if you don't agree with that rationale? Start a discussion, perhaps by

1940: 1244:

I haven't thought about it, but I think we should deal with one thing at a time.

444:

Please be specific and provide a link to where you were asked to gain consensus.

807:

Part of the problem is that we seem to have forgotten how to reach compromises.

582: 252: 2752: 2719: 2662: 2597: 2559: 2544: 2524: 2489: 2451: 2425: 2407: 2382: 2365: 2343: 2311: 2280: 2257: 2239: 2224: 2209: 2195: 2181: 2162: 2144: 2130: 2115: 2099: 2058: 2025: 2002: 1987: 1952: 1934: 1919: 1837: 1813: 1787: 1773: 1732: 1693: 1678: 1660: 1645: 1616: 1602: 1588: 1569: 1554: 1503: 1473: 1459: 1426: 1402: 1388: 1370: 1340: 1317: 1303: 1281: 1267: 1253: 1239: 1220: 1188: 1173: 1158: 1119: 1101: 1083: 1062: 1045: 1030: 1011: 991: 963: 945: 922: 908: 894: 880: 866: 844: 816: 802: 785: 772: 756: 735: 717: 703: 655: 634: 618: 572: 551: 529: 507: 493: 475: 453: 434: 1636:

then "if it's in the article it has consensus" is a false statement, right?

1168: 1130: 780: 751: 2608:

Knowledge:What is consensus?#Not necessarily equate to or imply correctness

927:

I'll get grief if I bold edit that, it's a policy page, so I guess an RFC.

726:, although consensus does not necessarily equate to or imply correctness. 2200:

That plan would require editors to agree to move NOCON out of this page.

1867:

anything. Maybe she just moved a sentence from one section to another.)

1718:

Was subject to discussion including a reasonable amount of participants

281:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

1870:

Bob dislikes it and changes the article again. (NB: Not necessarily

267: 2294:, which is a bulleted list summarizing the common characteristics of 1857:

shortcuts that gets cited for the opposite of what it actually says).

1853:

essay, which I recommend actually reading, because it's one of those

577:

You boldly added content. The other editor boldly removed it, citing

1902:

The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".

1877:

The discussion about what to do closes as "no consensus either way".

1800:

To your point: "When you have a consensus to remove, you also have

520:, so that's what they either have agreement on or need to resolve. 2677:

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth

2414:

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_might_become_hindrance_to_truth

1481:

Okay, guys, let's try this again from the top. Here's the facts:

778:

included with experience editor having to deal with consequences.

304: 2627:

Knowledge:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus?

2121:

It's not demoting NOCON to an essay if moved to Editing policy?

1574:

I don't think that's true. The version in the article might be

885:

Three of us, really, though how does one progress such a thing?

412:

was sentenced to death, the consensus was against what he said.

1258:

Sounds like a plan! Let's deal with the ONUS sentence first. -

273:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

2676: 2529:

Very few things are simply objectively correct or incorrect. (

2413: 374: 294: 262: 254: 26: 1036:

You have opened an RFC to try and settle the matter? Where?

1910:

If anything, we want to reward editors for using restraint.

723: 2633:

is important. ActivelyDisinterested was quick to spot that

2568:, consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest. -- 2262:

You've weathered a lot of storms in these here parts! ;)It

605:

What to do about your content during the discussion? See

1323:

Note: I am only talking about the last sentence in ONUS.

2675:

My essays and above comments were triggered by reading

2456:

The thing to remember when Galileo is mentioned is the

2230:

be spelled out; editors need something to point to. --

2046: 2042: 2038: 2035: 2031: 2016:

that there was never consensus for in the first place.

1163: 1142: 1138: 463: 338: 315: 109: 1715:

Within an article with a reasonable amount of traffic

2635:

consensus building shouldn't be a popularity contest

2153:

And move the last sentence of ONUS there as well? -

1899:

Bob dislikes it but decides not to risk an edit war.

1492:"we don't have a consensus that it is well-sourced". 1357:

With both nested in WP:EP, both can be mentioned in

2170:

WT:Verifiability/Archive 80#ONUS - a different idea

1540:

policies to get the badly sourced material removed?

2086:. Nest there, it can be better referred to from 1051:Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine 822:Knowledge:Consensus#No consensus after discussion 674:is a useful guide to other options available. -- 2606:OP has added the following section to an essay: 1863:Alice changes something. (NB: Not necessarily 1133:, just for clarification, what exactly is this " 1488:"we have a consensus that it's badly sourced" 1347:Neither NOCON nor ONUS belong in WP:Consensus. 1226:Will you propose to move the last sentence of 952:Knowledge talk:Consensus#Moving NOCON to CLOSE 853:. Also, I think the rather dubious bit about 1712:Has been in place a reasonable amount of time 930:Here? (Editing policy is also a policy page). 8: 722:Your are right. The consensus is used for 2041:the statement about BLPs and insisted for 951: 871:That’s two of us, with a silent audience. 2434:. We are the ones to report the sources. 404:Consensus might become hindrance to truth 1880:The decisions about what to do next are 2637:. But hey. There's a reason why OP has 2389:Consensus-based (not correctness-based) 462:, please read the notice-box on top of 2702: 2672: 2668: 2634: 2630: 1974: 1801: 1134: 7: 2625:OP has also created an essay titled 2030:Or we could say that the problem is 1737:The statement that "No consensus to 1478:I wish that I'd never started NOCON. 1527:: If we removed NOCON, would you: 347:a brief discussion on the talk page 34:for discussing improvements to the 25: 2631:level of support in the community 2356:) with moving to EDITING POLICY. 1350:I think both belong primarily in 849:I like the idea of putting it in 2629:and is about why they think how 1496: 1439: 303: 266: 236: 51:Click here to start a new topic. 2710:provides a better explanation. 1509:Knowledge:Core content policies 1203:As suggested above, let's move 2077:Moving NOCON to Editing Policy 2047:"no consensus means no change" 1939:I don't know what you mean by 1294:moving only one into CLOSE. - 1137:" you're referring to? Here's 1088:I miss Kim. He was very wise. 936:with this convo as RFCbefore. 279:policy editing recommendations 1: 2416:triggered my above comments. 2383:08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2366:19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2344:16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2312:17:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2281:07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2258:05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2240:22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2225:21:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2210:20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2196:18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2182:18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2163:15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2145:15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2131:15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2116:15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2100:13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2059:17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2026:09:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2003:06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1988:21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1953:03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1935:14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1920:17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1838:17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1814:04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1788:20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1774:20:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1733:18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1694:18:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1679:17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1661:17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1646:17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1617:12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1603:11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1589:06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1570:20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1555:17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1474:13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1460:05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1427:03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1371:13:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1341:15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1318:00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 1304:00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 851:Knowledge:Closing discussions 48:Put new text under old text. 480:You really should have told 2753:14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1403:17:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1389:16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1282:21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1268:18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1254:17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1240:15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 1221:23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 1189:10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1174:09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1159:03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1120:00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1102:01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 992:16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 964:23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 946:09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 923:01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 909:00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 423:fallacy of popular opinions 56:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2768: 2720:14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 2663:10:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 2598:09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 2560:17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2545:14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2525:14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2490:14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2452:13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2426:11:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 2408:01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1084:16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1063:11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1046:11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1031:09:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1012:22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 895:17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC) 881:23:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 867:16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 845:22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 817:21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 803:21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 786:21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 773:21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 757:20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 736:11:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 718:13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 704:12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 656:16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 635:07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 619:07:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 573:06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 552:16:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 530:15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 508:12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 494:11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 476:11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 454:10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 435:07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 320:Frequently asked questions 99: 2622:think is right to others. 2186:That sounds like a plan. 2014:one undiscussed 2014 edit 1797:; how is that determined? 421:How does WikiPedia fight 388: 86:Be welcoming to newcomers 1896:Alice changes something. 1757:Knowledge:Editing policy 1741:is also no consensus to 1702:is also no consensus to 1135:different interpretation 18:Knowledge talk:CONSENSUS 2679:as I mentioned earlier. 2135:Oh, OK, you struck it. 538:The editor said "Fails 2430:We're not the ones to 1519:Now the question for @ 1502:A policy is not magic 830:WP:Closing discussions 283:keep cool when editing 81:avoid personal attacks 2373:per discussion above. 1199:Moving NOCON to CLOSE 672:WP:Dispute resolution 482:User talk:StarkReport 339:added in January 2007 230:Auto-archiving period 1802:no consensus to keep 2733:Accurate / Accuracy 2436:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 2296:WP:Reliable sources 1847:m:The Wrong Version 1706:. If something is: 1628:in the article, and 1139:a version from 2017 913:Any day now maybe. 2248:Boy, was I wrong. 2018:Extraordinary Writ 1980:Extraordinary Writ 1521:Extraordinary Writ 1495:BLP is a policy. 1433:Extraordinary Writ 1419:Extraordinary Writ 1230:to CLOSE as well? 710:Tiggy The Terrible 92:dispute resolution 53: 2596: 2581: 2577: 2571: 2523: 2508: 2504: 2498: 2488: 2473: 2469: 2463: 2084:WP:Editing policy 1860:What we want is: 1795:reasonable amount 1352:WP:Editing policy 826:WP:Editing policy 702: 687: 683: 677: 398: 397: 368: 367: 318: 293: 292: 261: 260: 72:Assume good faith 49: 16:(Redirected from 2759: 2656: 2654: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2569: 2511: 2506: 2502: 2496: 2476: 2471: 2467: 2461: 2448: 2442: 2292:WP:NOTGOODSOURCE 1942: 1500: 1499: 1443: 1442: 1171: 783: 754: 690: 685: 681: 675: 668:is also a thing. 597: 591: 488: 448: 394: 375: 308: 307: 295: 270: 263: 255: 241: 240: 231: 112: 27: 21: 2767: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2650: 2647: 2446: 2440: 2391: 2358:Alanscottwalker 2079: 1927:Alanscottwalker 1830:Alanscottwalker 1684:figure it out. 1623:Alanscottwalker 1595:Alanscottwalker 1562:Alanscottwalker 1497: 1440: 1201: 1167: 1164:more clear here 779: 750: 746: 666:Galileo fallacy 595: 589: 522:Alanscottwalker 486: 446: 406: 389: 364: 363: 321: 319: 257: 256: 251: 228: 118: 117: 116: 115: 108: 104: 97: 67: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2765: 2763: 2738: 2737: 2734: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2691: 2680: 2643: 2623: 2615: 2611: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2527: 2492: 2458:Galileo gambit 2454: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2368: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2336:Butwhatdoiknow 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2299: 2246: 2227: 2155:Butwhatdoiknow 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2108:Butwhatdoiknow 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1878: 1875: 1868: 1858: 1843: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1798: 1790: 1749: 1746: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1666: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1560:not exist. -- 1543: 1542: 1541: 1534: 1525:Peter Gulutzan 1517: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1493: 1479: 1466:Peter Gulutzan 1462: 1448: 1436: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1355: 1348: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1333:Butwhatdoiknow 1329: 1325: 1296:Butwhatdoiknow 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1260:Butwhatdoiknow 1232:Butwhatdoiknow 1200: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1112:Butwhatdoiknow 1089: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 934: 931: 928: 833: 791: 788: 745: 744:WP:NOCONSENSUS 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 720: 669: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 648:Butwhatdoiknow 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 622: 621: 611:Butwhatdoiknow 603: 561: 558: 544:Butwhatdoiknow 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 405: 402: 400: 396: 395: 386: 385: 382: 379: 372: 366: 365: 322: 302: 301: 300: 298: 291: 290: 271: 259: 258: 249: 247: 246: 243: 242: 120: 119: 114: 113: 105: 100: 98: 96: 95: 88: 83: 74: 68: 66: 65: 54: 45: 44: 41: 40: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2764: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2735: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693:In my essays( 2692: 2689: 2685: 2682:In my essays( 2681: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2653: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2599: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2583: 2582: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2532: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2510: 2509: 2493: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2481: 2475: 2474: 2459: 2455: 2453: 2449: 2443: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2395: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1972: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1577: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1198: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1170: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 948: 947: 943: 939: 935: 932: 929: 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 898: 897: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 870: 869: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 847: 846: 842: 838: 834: 831: 827: 823: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 805: 804: 800: 796: 792: 789: 787: 782: 776: 775: 774: 770: 766: 761: 760: 759: 758: 753: 743: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 719: 715: 711: 707: 706: 705: 701: 699: 695: 689: 688: 673: 667: 663: 657: 653: 649: 644: 636: 632: 628: 624: 623: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 601: 594: 587: 586: 584: 580: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 562: 559: 555: 554: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 510: 509: 505: 501: 497: 496: 495: 492: 489: 483: 479: 478: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456: 455: 452: 449: 443: 439: 438: 437: 436: 432: 428: 424: 419: 416: 413: 411: 403: 401: 393: 387: 380: 376: 373: 370: 362: 360: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 330: 326: 317: 314: 311: 306: 299: 297: 296: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 269: 265: 264: 245: 244: 239: 235: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 128: 126: 122: 121: 111: 107: 106: 103: 93: 89: 87: 84: 82: 78: 75: 73: 70: 69: 63: 59: 58:Learn to edit 55: 52: 47: 46: 43: 42: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2743: 2742: 2739: 2728: 2651: 2619: 2585: 2580:isinterested 2572: 2535: 2534: 2512: 2507:isinterested 2499: 2477: 2472:isinterested 2464: 2431: 2396: 2392: 2370: 2353: 2331: 2304:WhatamIdoing 2267: 2263: 2250:WhatamIdoing 2202:WhatamIdoing 2104: 2051:WhatamIdoing 2008: 1995:WhatamIdoing 1945:WhatamIdoing 1912:WhatamIdoing 1890: 1881: 1871: 1864: 1855:WP:UPPERCASE 1794: 1766:WhatamIdoing 1761: 1742: 1738: 1703: 1699: 1671:WhatamIdoing 1638:WhatamIdoing 1581:WhatamIdoing 1575: 1547:WhatamIdoing 1537: 1531: 1501: 1489: 1485: 1452:WhatamIdoing 1444: 1410: 1395:WhatamIdoing 1322: 1310:WhatamIdoing 1291: 1274:WhatamIdoing 1246:WhatamIdoing 1213:WhatamIdoing 1202: 1143:this version 1076:WhatamIdoing 1020: 956:WhatamIdoing 901:WhatamIdoing 859:WhatamIdoing 855:WP:STATUSQUO 795:BilledMammal 747: 691: 686:isinterested 678: 513: 420: 417: 414: 407: 399: 371: 369: 343:User:Circeus 334: 333: 329:WP:CONEXCEPT 327:: When was 324: 323: 312: 233: 123: 30:This is the 2566:WP:NOTAVOTE 2531:WP:Accuracy 2375:Selfstudier 2217:Selfstudier 2188:Selfstudier 2137:Selfstudier 2123:Selfstudier 1780:Selfstudier 1686:Selfstudier 1653:Selfstudier 1609:Selfstudier 1381:Selfstudier 1071:Kim Bruning 1069:Years ago, 1055:Selfstudier 1023:Selfstudier 1004:Selfstudier 938:Selfstudier 887:Selfstudier 765:Selfstudier 724:good reason 627:Kawrno Baba 625:Thank you. 565:Kawrno Baba 500:Kawrno Baba 487:Doug Weller 468:Kawrno Baba 460:Doug Weller 447:Doug Weller 442:Kawrno Baba 427:Kawrno Baba 392:Jimmy Wales 287:don't panic 2659:talk to me 2646:politics. 2352:I'm fine ( 2036:repeatedly 1709:Verifiable 1625:, if it's 1504:pixie dust 337:: It was 2744:North8000 2536:North8000 2288:WP:MINREF 2092:SmokeyJoe 2009:something 1893:want is: 1872:reverting 1363:SmokeyJoe 1094:SmokeyJoe 1038:SmokeyJoe 915:SmokeyJoe 873:SmokeyJoe 837:SmokeyJoe 94:if needed 77:Be polite 36:Consensus 32:talk page 2652:Deadbeef 2642:blocks". 2441:The Grid 2273:GoneIn60 2232:GoneIn60 2174:GoneIn60 2088:WP:CLOSE 1889:What we 1806:GoneIn60 1753:GoneIn60 1725:GoneIn60 1576:presumed 1359:WP:CLOSE 1209:WP:CLOSE 1207:over to 1205:WP:NOCON 1181:GoneIn60 1151:GoneIn60 984:GoneIn60 809:Blueboar 345:, after 125:Archives 102:Shortcut 62:get help 2671:, and 2576:ctively 2550:group. 2503:ctively 2468:ctively 2432:correct 2371:Support 2354:support 2332:support 2039:removed 2032:another 1415:WP:DGFA 1228:WP:ONUS 1108:wp:DRNC 682:ctively 579:WP:NPOV 540:WP:NPOV 410:Galileo 234:90 days 2712:Gluo88 2552:Gluo88 2418:Gluo88 2400:Gluo88 2245:pages. 1865:adding 1851:WP:QUO 1755:, the 1743:remove 1704:remove 1445:policy 1328:issue. 1292:oppose 728:Gluo88 607:WP:QUO 518:WP:DUE 357:, and 285:, and 275:policy 110:WT:CON 2708:essay 2639:asked 2460:. -- 2268:rules 2045:that 2043:years 1891:don't 1523:and @ 980:WP:EP 581:(not 557:well. 408:When 130:Index 90:Seek 38:page. 2749:talk 2716:talk 2657:→∞ ( 2556:talk 2541:talk 2447:talk 2422:talk 2404:talk 2379:talk 2362:talk 2340:talk 2308:talk 2277:talk 2254:talk 2236:talk 2221:talk 2206:talk 2192:talk 2178:talk 2159:talk 2141:talk 2127:talk 2112:talk 2096:talk 2090:. - 2055:talk 2022:talk 1999:talk 1984:talk 1949:talk 1931:talk 1916:talk 1834:talk 1810:talk 1784:talk 1770:talk 1762:this 1739:keep 1729:talk 1700:keep 1690:talk 1675:talk 1657:talk 1642:talk 1613:talk 1599:talk 1585:talk 1566:talk 1551:talk 1486:both 1470:talk 1456:talk 1423:talk 1399:talk 1385:talk 1367:talk 1337:talk 1314:talk 1300:talk 1278:talk 1264:talk 1250:talk 1236:talk 1217:talk 1185:talk 1169:Moxy 1155:talk 1147:FfDs 1131:Moxy 1116:talk 1110:. - 1098:talk 1080:talk 1059:talk 1042:talk 1027:talk 1008:talk 988:talk 960:talk 942:talk 919:talk 905:talk 891:talk 877:talk 863:talk 841:talk 828:and 813:talk 799:talk 781:Moxy 769:talk 752:Moxy 732:talk 714:talk 652:talk 631:talk 615:talk 609:. - 593:ping 583:WP:V 569:talk 548:talk 526:talk 514:rely 504:talk 491:talk 472:talk 464:here 451:talk 431:talk 359:here 355:here 351:here 316:edit 310:view 79:and 2620:you 2590:» ° 2570:LCU 2517:» ° 2497:LCU 2482:» ° 2462:LCU 2450:) 1973:Is 1882:not 1538:two 1490:and 1172:🍁 784:🍁 755:🍁 749:--> 696:» ° 676:LCU 585:). 341:by 2751:) 2718:) 2697:, 2686:, 2661:) 2648:0x 2592:∆t 2558:) 2543:) 2519:∆t 2484:∆t 2438:– 2424:) 2406:) 2381:) 2364:) 2342:) 2330:I 2310:) 2279:) 2264:is 2256:) 2238:) 2223:) 2208:) 2194:) 2180:) 2161:) 2143:) 2129:) 2114:) 2098:) 2057:) 2049:. 2024:) 2001:) 1986:) 1951:) 1933:) 1918:) 1836:) 1812:) 1786:) 1772:) 1731:) 1692:) 1677:) 1659:) 1644:) 1615:) 1601:) 1587:) 1568:) 1553:) 1532:or 1472:) 1458:) 1425:) 1411:an 1401:) 1387:) 1369:) 1339:) 1316:) 1302:) 1280:) 1266:) 1252:) 1238:) 1219:) 1187:) 1166:. 1157:) 1118:) 1100:) 1082:) 1061:) 1053:. 1044:) 1029:) 1010:) 990:) 962:) 954:. 944:) 921:) 907:) 893:) 879:) 865:) 843:) 835:- 815:) 801:) 771:) 734:) 716:) 698:∆t 654:) 633:) 617:) 596:}} 590:{{ 571:) 550:) 528:) 506:) 474:) 466:. 433:) 425:? 390:— 384:” 378:“ 361:. 353:, 232:: 226:24 224:, 222:23 220:, 218:22 216:, 214:21 212:, 210:20 208:, 206:19 204:, 202:18 200:, 198:17 196:, 194:16 192:, 190:15 188:, 186:14 184:, 182:13 180:, 178:12 176:, 174:11 172:, 170:10 168:, 164:, 160:, 156:, 152:, 148:, 144:, 140:, 136:, 132:, 60:; 2747:( 2714:( 2699:2 2695:1 2688:2 2684:1 2610:. 2594:° 2588:@ 2586:« 2578:D 2574:A 2554:( 2539:( 2521:° 2515:@ 2513:« 2505:D 2501:A 2486:° 2480:@ 2478:« 2470:D 2466:A 2444:( 2420:( 2402:( 2377:( 2360:( 2338:( 2306:( 2275:( 2252:( 2234:( 2219:( 2204:( 2190:( 2176:( 2157:( 2139:( 2125:( 2110:( 2094:( 2053:( 2020:( 1997:( 1982:( 1947:( 1929:( 1914:( 1832:( 1808:( 1782:( 1768:( 1751:@ 1727:( 1688:( 1673:( 1655:( 1640:( 1621:@ 1611:( 1597:( 1583:( 1564:( 1549:( 1511:. 1468:( 1454:( 1431:@ 1421:( 1397:( 1383:( 1365:( 1335:( 1312:( 1298:( 1276:( 1262:( 1248:( 1234:( 1215:( 1183:( 1153:( 1114:( 1096:( 1078:( 1057:( 1040:( 1025:( 1006:( 986:( 958:( 940:( 917:( 903:( 889:( 875:( 861:( 839:( 832:. 811:( 797:( 767:( 730:( 712:( 700:° 694:@ 692:« 684:D 680:A 650:( 629:( 613:( 602:. 567:( 546:( 524:( 502:( 470:( 458:@ 440:@ 429:( 335:A 325:Q 313:· 289:. 166:9 162:8 158:7 154:6 150:5 146:4 142:3 138:2 134:1 127:: 64:. 20:)

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