Knowledge talk:Simplified ruleset

564:

process are a mean (to create a free, neutral encyclopedia), not an end in themselves. The goal is the encyclopedia, the way is the wiki. But the wiki process is certainly not "the final authority on article content". It is correctness, backed up with good sources and formulated in good style. We just hope that the wiki process achieves this, and at the moment it does it reasonably well (apart from some revert wars and constant vandalism). If one day it fails, this may change. Now, trying to be constructive: leave out the foundation issues part and phrase more clearly what it is about: "Knowledge has certain fundamental principles upon which its success is based: NPOV, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters. If you fundamentally disagree with those you won't get happy in Knowledge." --

4200:: Undoing someone's work is a powerful tool, hence the three-revert rule that an editor should never undo the same content more than three times in twenty-four hours (ideally, even less). Try not to revert changes which are not obvious vandalism. If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary like "I disagree, I'll explain why on Talk", and immediately take it to the accompanying talk page to discuss. If someone reverts your edits, do not just add them back without attempting discussion. 3776:

is "grace", and the point is that we should behave on Knowledge with good grace; we will also have seen the word "gracefully" used with this meaning, as in "to grow old gracefully"; but for some reason "graceful" resists quite that meaning and, in my opinion, reserves itself for physical actions (and occasionally for a style of living which now has implications of wealth). I'm not feeling bold enough to make a change to the text simply on my own instincts, but I feel sure that the

662:. You're here to build an encyclopedia that's much bigger than you. Taking pride in and being mindful of your edits is only natural, but treating your edits like an extension of yourself is not. Don't elevate your personal outlook to incontrovertible truth and your edits to the most appropriate expression of that truth; this is the primary cause of avoidable edit wars. Don't be afraid to be question yourself—no matter how dearly you enjoy being a Wikipedian, don't imagine that you 162: 141: 3289:. On the other hand, Jon Awbrey still hasn't given any insight into his plan of action. He's been moving too far, too fast on too wide a front to be tenable, imho (he's also proposing sweeping changes to several other pages) . Hence the proposed compromise, to help us figure out if we're both sane or not. Depending on how he does, perhaps I'd come around to his side. He has many good points, which I've often pushed in the past. 5869: 6039: 251:

misunderstandings that seem to be creeping in with new generations of editors. I've picked the things that cause most of the disharmonious situations on wikipedia to write these behaviour rules about. Note that as written now, SWB leaves a little breathing space between reccomended behaviour and the point where people actually transgress the rules. The Safe Knowledge Behaviour guidelines themselves are intended to

110: 3495:

concept of "Improve rather than revert" doesn't apply - it's either the old version, or the new version. In some cases, people may edit sections (such as introductions) which have undergone vast amounts of discussion in Talk, and a consensus reached. If someone later goes against that consensus, this suggests we cannot revert that edit, at least without having to justify it all again in Talk.

2940:, which I believe I linked to, you'll see it does say to use your brain and not to be reckless. :) Since you're being rather reckless indeed, I don't quite trust you, hence I'd suggest that you put what you're proposing on a separate page first. You can make it a subpage, or make a totally new page in the wikipedia namespace. Would you like me to create this for you? 2470:" in the road, but I gather that the contract for dealing with all that routine maintainance is already in the hands of the community at large. So the subcontract to upgrade the on-ramps has a fairly limited budget (€0 = £0 = $ 0 = ¥0) and a more narrow scope tham revamping the (w)hole of WP in one swell foop. Are we on the same page and subparagraph so far? 4235:

contributions, not trampling on other editors. Possibly move WP:CIVIL into the section with WP:BOLD? Right now WP:BOLD is in the 'writing good articles' section, but it's not about writing per se. I think Civil could join it or Bold could move to the lower section even. So 3 options, merge, add to Bold to Civil section, add Civil to Bold section.

3505:""Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page." 745:"Ignore all rules" isn't part of my conduct rules either; it's a corollary of "be bold". "Ignore all rules" is a useful escape for when even "be bold, but not reckless" is depressing you, and there is something poetic about it being the ultimate rule we have, but it's not one I find myself needing in practice—and that's a good thing, too. 3315:, but it seems redundant. I hope you don't mind my asking, how long has it been since you actually worked on any articles? In its current state this project is largely redundant — and I mean that in a proper English way — the only question is whether the stub can be recycled into something of use to users. 3162:

more carefully, by the way, and it specifically excludes this case, as we're not talking about changing the graphic layout in any big way — at least I hadn't planned to mess with that. It's a simple matter of commitment — for my part that means working on the live copy — there's a threshold that you

3157:

JA: Now you guys have got me all jumpy about the move. Here's the thing. I'm not going to do anything that wrecks the edit history, and that goes double for a central policy page like this, so all that copy-cut-paste business is out for me. I will sometimes copy all or most of a whole article to a

3130:

I use multiple sandboxes all the time for complex TeX and tables and stuff, but that is because I know that the hours on hours that I spend on them will eventually result in a piece that actually gets pasted into an article. But of all the ways that I've found to waste time at WP, shadow-sand-boxing

2995:

Anyway, I'd really like to Jon Awbrey to pick up on how things work quickly. On the other hand, I fear turning around and finding a trail of destruction left in our mutual wake. ;-) Hence if we could mess around on a couple of new pages which don't yet have any investment in them, most of the tension

2417:

Yes. So when you design an on ramp, you need to figure where the on-ramp starts, and where does it connect to the highway? How steep should it be? How sharp should the curve(s) be? There's many parameters to making an on-ramp, and due to safety procedures, you actually need a licence to be allowed to

2406:

JA: My personal requirements are not the point. I assumed — what I think most folks would assume from the title of the page — that it's intended to provide the user, especially the new user, with a simplified summary of the set of rules that govern participation in Knowledge. Certainly we could all

1195:

is a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines (e.g. the "deletion policy" tells us how the "deletion process" works)". So does the process in "wiki process" refer to the former case or the later case? Later definition of process makes more sense to

4135:

Ah, it doesn't seem like the preview button is actually the thing being advocated there - it sounds more like the principle is something like "minimize changesets" or "combine consecutive edits", and using the preview button is just one possible means to that end. That fits a lot better with how the

3480:

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really

2766:

I don't know or care what you've been told or what you've read, I don't care who told you. Use your own brain man! If a page has been referenced from hundreds of places, what do you think will happen if you just up and move it? What happens if you start editing willy-nilly without a plan? Seriously,

2755:

JA: I'll give you a couple days to review current procedures. I did that according to the book and the way I've been told to. If the book was unclear, the people who advised me full of it, or I was just plain dumb — I give it an even 3-way split — then you can splain it to me then. Edios for now,

2444:

People following the ruleset would not fail to make admin. We were discussing several Requests for adminship cases for some of the guidelines mentioned. ("Edit summaries" still shows up in opposes on requests for adminship from time to time, even today. Obviously the candidate hadn't read up on safe

2429:

These can be pretty routine questions if you like. You can check by referencing other guidelines, or showing how people have already acted according to what you propose. (see above for old examples of that). Also you can check to which degree any particular action is referenced by the guidelines you

2395:

So define your own requirements. If yours don't require adminship, but for instance only require that you never get RFCed, we can reduce the number of rules drastically. You could also try for how to get your first article to reach featured status. Actually, that could be a very good ruleset indeed.

563:

The foundation issues page is a factual description of the status quo, and it says correctly "if you don't like it, you will probably leave the project". But not all points mentioned there are set in stone. NPOV and free are foundation principles, yes. but: the ability of anyone to edit and the wiki

3775:

I have a copy of these rules on one of my subpages, which I often read through to remind me of how to proceed (many thanks to those who put them together), but repeated reading of them has led me to the conclusion that "graceful" here is not the right word. In theory, it should be, because its root

3184:

I've already offered a compromise, and I've stated I'm willing to cooperate with you. Can we give this a start on the new page, as proposed? I'm curious what we'll come up with. If it works out, we'll certainly apply it back here. But to be frank -rightly or wrongly- I don't quite trust the process

3126:

If folks will read and respond to the specific points that I noted above — concerning what what everybody else who acts like they know what they are talking about has told me repeatedly is proper procedure — then maybe we can move along again. I currently do these sorts of name change moves 4 or 5

1569:

A duo, or trio, of styles would be easier to us plan, and simpler for readers to browse all of them in turn. Would anyone like to describe the pros/cons of the current pages (re: prose style/list/formality/length/comprehesiveness/etc), or other potential better combinations of those factors that we

1200:

article. It should be something like "wiki process is a central and organized way of doing things, according to wikipedia policies or guidelines." Since this is somewhat "policy" issue, I did not want to make edit. Plus, I really didn't know where to take this question so I came here. This place

559:

My other point is more fundamental. "Foundation Issues: There are only 5 actual rules on Knowledge, the foundation issues. These are the law." This is simply not true. The page itself states it more clearly: "Knowledge as a community has certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate.

5930:

There does appear to be a large amount of duplicated information, but they are not identical, so a merge with redirect may be appropriate. I suggest a brief description of how you would merge, with an explanation of which would be the article and which the redirect, and why. I may not be following

4085:

The "preview button" thing seems to stand out compared to everything else on the page. I think there's something to be said for iterating quickly (especially in fast-paced contexts like much of Knowledge), as well as rereading or rechecking even right after saving, and it's not difficult to get a

3494:

Someone makes a change to existing material as opposed to adding new material. Much of the information about Reverting on Knowledge appears to refer to reverting new material, rather than reverting changes to existing material. In many cases, other editors may feel the original was better, and the

382:

In the meantime, I'll Be Bold (1) ignore the fact that these are rules (2), and change the lot. I'm leaving a note here (3), but the edit summary was getting all complex, which distressed me, so I skipped making a decent summary (applied (2) to ignore (4)) and used (3) (leaving this message) since

354:

once said, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Seems like a fine goal here as well; I will be thinking about it: I think what currently exists on the page in addition to the foundation issues makes things

250:

I'm thinking of maybe having a small set of rules that if followed will result in an editor having a pleasant experience at wikipedia. It might be nice to display this message to new users somehow, either just before editing, or at least when they make a login. This might solve the large number of

2154:

The current objective is to list some minimum subset of wikipedia guidelines, or refactorings or summaries of them, such that a person can make it to requests for adminship without trouble, and become a useful admin. As a result of that objective, sometimes very odd things might be put in or left

647:

First of all, these are not general guidelines. They are not an attempt to adequately summarize the existing rules, or the supplant the current SR. They are probably inaccurate, irrelevant or incomplete for other people, and do not belong in policy. It's just my personal set of rules I (up to now

3490:

Someone adds something which seems to be rubbish, entirely pov, entirely unverifiable or unsourced. Yes, if possible the section should be improved and sourced, but what if that is not possible? Verifiability, no original research and NPOV are non-negotiable Knowledge policies, but this seems to

3254:

I don't even know what you're/we're arguing about anymore. But the page only consists of a lead section, and 2 sets of numbered lists, so it should (theoretically) be easy to reference what we're talking about. What exactly needs to be changed, or which past revision are you suggesting we should

4110:

Yes. A user making multiple consecutive edits on an article during one edit session, especially with no edit summary, is a big drag for other editors following the article. There are many editors whose contributions look like the following examples because they don't/won't learn to use the show

3640:

JA: Re: "I'm not trying to be pedantic" — Please don't, that's my job! The rule is a good one, but often ignored. I know cases where some editors will automatically revert constructive edits made by somebody they've taken a non-shine to, and then you sit there and watch more or less the same

3545:

Well it does say in bold "don't revert good faith edits"... I mean yeah, I'm sure I'm reading it wrong, but thought I'd ask for a clarification on this. I'm not trying to be pedantic, it's just that someone's questioned one of my reverts, saying that edits should always be improved rather than

4234:

Currently WP:BOLD has the tagline --Be bold, (but do it with civility). I kind of like Bold as its own entry, since it takes a lot to encourage new readers to make edits. Then again, Civility is the one of the five pillars. We could try and work in the point that boldness should encourage

3062:

Sounds like a plan. Are we going to make that sandbox then? :-) (note that despite dragging together 100 different guidelines kicking and screaming, it's still ok to make a sandbox ;-) ). Somehow I've become an old fogey, and you're getting me back into the 21st century :-P Let's move along

4259:

I'm still hesitant to corrupt the exuberance of Bold! But I added this: "If you find yourself disagreeing with someone's boldness or they with yours, discuss it on the talk page." I left out 'tendentious', 'edit-warring', 'revert', etc. but think that gets at the basic caveat.

2148:

Actually, it was a reaction to the formation of a committee to do just that. We decided to just provide an additional clarification layer instead, but to leave the old guidelines intact. This was possibly a mistake, seeing as how current rules-lawyering seems to be going out of

4244:

I think BOLD fits in the 'writing good articles' section. I just want to note that being bold doesn't mean being tendentious, ie. don't be bold with the same edit more than once or twice. I'm not sure if it's a civility issue, I think it fits as a (short) caveat to BOLD.

2211:

You might want to look at the date on that proposal. Also note that several of the people involved in that particular proposal now have positions or affiliations with the foundation and/or chapters now. You can assume they had some kind of clue when they made that page.

520:

All your changes enhance my revision with one exception. I was seeking a synonym for "godsend" because I know that some people find this word uncomfortable in a secular context. I do not share these views but I would still wish those who hold them to feel welcome here.

1927:

Your smaller alternative is perfect. I've changed my examples to use "Principles" too. I'll replace the "See also" sections in each page, with this table (which i'll templatise now), in the next few days. I'll leave the additional example links at "Simplified Ruleset".

2339:

Note the sources section above, which had been removed by someone for some reason. It includes citations not ony from wikipedia, but also from some other internet sources discussing human and/or machine interaction. As it was excised, it's likely not being maintained.

966:

Like a lot of the rules here, a single instance will probably be ignored (it'll get deleted, but won't count that much against you), but repeated violations are likely to get you into trouble; IIRC, there have been a few RFAs that have been about original research.

2991:

Dude, I'm sure he knows how to make a page, but sometimes people need to cross a threshold. I'm sure Jon is smart too, he does seem that way. Sometimes I get impatient and frustrated with smart people, because they're not learning as fast as I would like them

1066:"It is against copyright law to copy what someone else has written (unless they have written it on Knowledge)." is factually incorrect. E.g. It's legal to copy Linux or BSD or Firefox or Hamlet. (Heck, copying Viagra is legal in India!) Editing accordingly. 2257:

I finally decoded your strange "destroy all rules" message above, I think... I'm not trying to erode any rules, but rather to strengthen them. Making rules too hard also makes them brittle at the same time. You have to retain a certain amount of flexibility

3158:

personal sandbox as a backup against running vandalism, especially when it threatens to be complex, socially appeased, or long-term. So maybe we could do that as a safeguard against accidental disasters, but continue to work on the live copy. I looked at

1663:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia. A page which we discoverd must unfortunately exist. (Some people just don't quite get it :-P , Originally in all caps, it was hoped that maybe the user was simply deaf, and TYPING REALLY LOUD might do it). It's a summary of

2385:. I know this may come as a shock, but not every person who is fatefully attracted to WP has such dreams of world domination. So I think it's best to restrain this to a minimal epitome of the "ropes" and a pointer to further reading for reigny days. 1952:

I'm currently most in favour of Option 1, used as a footer on each mentioned page. I'm shortening the wording on a few too, that should make Option 1 a lot clearer. Anyone else in favour, of either of them? I'm just going to forge ahead otherwise...

2782:

JA: I know exactly what happens. This is perfectly routine. All the wikis get turned into redirects and go to the intended target. The only residual problem is fixing the double redirects, which are usually very few in number. Not a problem.

2160:

Failure to meet any single one of the summarised guidelines should cause a person to fail rfa. If one can fail to meet a summarised guideline, and still pass RFA, then the guideline should not be on this page, no matter how important you think it

741:

for me—we'll get it right as we go along, "as if by magic". I respect all of it, of course, but it's not something I need to consciously remind myself of when the going gets tough—it's all "given", and I don't ever expect to have to justify it.

1672:

Note that the policy/guideline/essay distinction is fairly nonsensical. Basically, take any page marked as policy with a bucket of salt (unless it also exists on meta). Pages marked as guidelines are usually central to wiki-operation (such as

3534:

JA: It's my take on it that this wiki precept, read in its original context, says exactly what it says. Did it say "good faith edits can never be reverted"? No, it did not say that. It is a very important piece of common sense. TIFWIW.

4220:. I do appreciate that we want to keep this short, but I still think some caution about boldly re-adding stuff is appropriate. Any suggestions on a succintly worded short sentence essentially saying "no continually bold re-additions please"? 2914:

You must realize that a copy fork is always at risk of having the same effect as a cut and paste move, if and when the people involved move on, the survivors forget the folk history, and the new copy gets developed while the old copy withers

2423:

Now editing wikipedia doesn't quite require a licence, but we do like to actually not make things up out of thin air, if possible. So my question is, how will you check that what you proposing are valid? and how do you know when you're done

902:

Given that the principle guiding the sequence of clauses is intratextual, and implies no hierarchy of importance, should we not use bullets rather than numbers? Especially since no-one is ever likely to refer to individual rules by number.

3311:, about some astro-refugees who fled Earth's devastation by massive solar flares, and who have all just woken up from cryogenic suspension. Somehow it all seems eerily familiar to the discussion that I'm having here. I would tell you to 455:

Hmmm, actually the first revision did have foundation issues in there, but it didn't do much. Hmm... Alright, what did you have in mind? Could you show your idea of a simplified ruleset below? We might want to look at several versions :-)

1183:. I could understand all five issues except "3. The "wiki process" as the final authority on content". Big question for me was "What is wiki process?". I typed "wiki process" as a search term and then was redirected to the article about 1074:

I removed the following "Sources" section. Aside from the RFCs for internet protocols, which I think hardly qualify as a serious source for this article, each of the other links were already linked to on the page. Why list them again?

1201:

appear to be the only place where "Foundation issues" is mentioned. This is rather important because I'm currently perticipating in a debate about direction of policy and guideline in japanese wikipedia. You help is greatly appreciated.

3670:

Hi Kim! While I don't particularly care about this page either way, I should point out that the non-negotiable principles mentioned are NPOV, the GNU license and civility. And probably IAR, if you want a little paradox for breakfast.

3014:

may have been the wrong link, or maybe somebody over-sharpened it since the last time I used it. There's a complex of 6 or 7 similar aphorisms on that same tray and I may have picked up the wrong one. For my part, I normally go by

736:

You'll notice that things like NPOV, citing sources, edit summaries, factual accuracy, signing your comments etc. etc. are missing, for the simple reason that these are not codes of conduct but part of the editorial process. That's

2594:

That line has been there since January, and was added by a sysop. I had guessed that maybe there was something I was missing, like a preferences setting or something, because otherwise it would've been corrected long ago... or not.

3485:

Whilst I can understand that reverting should be avoided if possible, and that edit wars should be avoided, surely there are some reasons where reverting is a reasonable first step, if you give an explanation in the comment? E.g.:

3572:

I strongly disagree with people who would use wikipedia guidelines as a weapon, mind you. People who are only here to club people around the ears with "the rules", and are not here to help write an encyclopedia, are in the wrong

1562:

has had merge tags for a long time, and seems the most important to remove/clean, to me. (At the very least it should be renamed to "...in six words", and have all the redundant definitions of notability below the "Facts" section

424:

The objective is to keep someone following these behaviours out of the way of wikipedia dispute resolution (and vice versa), hence "safe behaviour". That's a very tough objective as is, especially if you want to minimise the

3524:

So what is this rule actually saying? Can good faith edits never be reverted (or when should they be)? Does a reversion always need the explanation in Talk, even when the comment box is sufficient to explain the objection?

5803:

The second section is headed "Writing high-quality articles". I think it would be better as "Creating and editing articles" because we don't want to give the impression that the guidance in that section doesn't apply to

2507:

Interestingly, The trifecta divides rules into editing an encyclopedia, social behaviour, and wiki. And now we already seem to have 2 of the trifecta subdivisions back. Looks like that trifecta was fairly visionary :-)

2117:

Originally this page listed the least number of rules needed for a person to make it to admin. it's actually a sort of project. Maybe we could clear the page and start over. (you'll see older versions doing just that).

681:

are right is possibly even more so. Anyone can cooperate with people they agree with—but learning to cooperate with those you disagree with is much more valuable to the encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia is why you're

5849:

Anyone know why an empty citation is appearing prior to the beginning of this article's text? I tried to edit it out but I can't find the code behind it. Maybe it is supposed to be there...? Just looks weird. Thanks.

3607:

Note that I disagree with jossi's recent(?) edits to this page, so don't take things like "non-negotiable policy" for granted. (Or whatever the my-guideline-is-more-important-than-your-guideline nomic game of the day

1292:

Indeed, merge here, if at all. However, trifecta and 5 pillars are spinoff pages of this miniproject, sooo... maybe not. They were considered superior at the time, at least. In any case, discussion should be here :-)

1153:

RFC 1855 is netiquette, RFC 1123 is a historic source it draws on for inspiration. (one is human process, the other network process). Also, while redundant, it's important to list sources used for an article, hmm...

2396:

But make a choice and stick to it. Don't just go around typing at random. In the meantime stick to some existing requirements, until and unless you define your own. I *am* encouraging you to come up with something!

1482:

Well, Kim for a chance, because I said this page is confusing people and she thinks I said that people are being sanctioned for failing to follow those guidelines. I'd say that he's confused, thus proving my point.

3173:

Exactly. I am not willing to commit an n year old page referenced by x-hundred other pages to a chance of hashing out a better set of guidelines, duh :-). Especially since I'm not yet sure which way we're going to

5972:

is from 2011, and is part of a similarly named group. Somewhat surprisingly Plain and simple is classed as "Contributing to Knowledge" in the navbox, while Simplified ruleset is under "Protocols and conventions".

2725:

I am not asking you to do a copy and paste move. You are totally rewriting the page anyway, so if you're rewriting, make a copy to start off with, then do your messing around on the copy. That's just sane version

607:

For folks just joining us: The idea (hopefully!) is to compress the whole of the wikipedia policy pages + netiquette and the kitchen sink into the tiniest summary possible. If folks voluntarily choose to follow

2859:

I'm not angry or anything. Just frustrated because on one hand Jon Awbrey thinks he/claims he/actually knows what he's doing, while on the other hand he's so darn clumsy about it! I'm not sure how to respond!

4491: 989:

Since this page isn't really a policy, but a summary of other policies, I've removed the "proposed" tag and added it to the category of pages intended for first-time users. I hope this is satisfactory. --

676:

be willing to make an effort to understand their position. If you don't, communication is impossible, and you'll never be able to resolve conflicts. Being right is important, but knowing why others think

1618:

I have a headache already.... good luck with the attempt to merge, which I support in principle. Once you have some proposed merged text, let me know and I would gladly comment. Thanks for the heads-up.

4026:

I see your point, but I don't think it's that hard to interpret it as meaning "set of rules". The alternatives, such as "Simplified set of rules" or "Simplified rules" don't seem quite as appealing.--

1549:

I strongly agree that there are a confusing/redundant/repetitive number of semi-official summaries of ourselves, and that we ought to merge at least some of them, and give those some sort of official

4301:

The page has been substantially reorganized, copy-edited, and cleaned up. I think is a decent start for a new editor although it still could be a bit intimidating for a new editor. Two questions:

2106:. You also don't need it so strongly for non-contentuous issues, so putting so much stress on it will likely cause more conflicts rather than less, which is exactly what we want new users to avoid. 2330:

So since this page has been superseded, feel free to mess around. I'm hoping you'll find something new. However, be careful not to introduce your own bias (which I suspect you are doing now.)

5964:

I would think that the amount of overlap easily justifies a merge with redirect. It looks like the intended purpose of the two pages is near identical. Both titles are reasonably appropriate.

4738: 4331: 4175:

Be bold in updating pages! Go ahead, it's a wiki! No mistake can break Knowledge, because any edit can be undone. Encourage others, including those who disagree with you, to likewise be bold!

2455:

We showed that the simplified ruleset covered most parts of day-to-day use of the wiki. (see sections earlier on this talk page for examples, though the numbering has now moved around a lot).

2552:

Saving only once is also a way of avoiding edit conflicts, as people will not see the article on recent changes, and therefore they are less likely to try editing it at the same time as you.

413:

I think that it would be easier for the novice (for whom this is intended) if the Foundation issues were included here explicitly. And I would lead with them because they are fundamental. --

366:

The foundation issues leave a big hole. We're supposed to rely on the wiki process, but nowhere is it explained what a wiki process is. That might be where this safe editing page fits in. --

4344: 2802:

A potentially contentious and/or complete overhaul of a top-level page shouldnt be attempted on the "live" page. Do it in a sandbox, so that we can discuss changes at leisure. Thanks :) --

3235:

posting and let somebody else do it. But I get the sense that it's really something else, something that strikes me as a lack of requisite boldness, just to get all ironical about it.

612:

these behavioural guidelines, and are a bit reasonable about it, they should (hopefully) be able to squeek by their first 2000 edits & maybe even their RfA without too much trouble.

5395: 4653: 1556:

We obviously need and want a minimum of 2 alternatives, to cover useful alternative styles of prose/list/formality/length. But which get combined into what, seems like the key question.

3518:

I've seen vast numbers of cases where people revert good faith edits with an explanation in comment rather than Talk, but I've had someone question one of my reversions, pointing to

5583: 3140:

The problem is that a lot of pages link to SR. And I don't quite trust you somehow (rightly or wrongly, that is something I'd like determine). How would you resolve this problem?

1683:

Originally, project namespace pages were either descriptive (no tag) or a guideline (still no tag, but you could tell the difference, because a guideline told you to *do* stuff).

5654: 4985: 50: 3559:

You are reading it exactly right. The objective here is safe wikipedia behaviour. That means staying well away from all the electric fences. The actual advice is based on the

2170:) , RFArs, or descriptions on guideline pages as sources. Verifiability (and to some extent no original research) definately apply on this page! Descriptive, not prescriptive. 1021:

In looking over the list here, a useful amalgum of the most impactful rules, it occurs to me that a couple of things might be added to each entry, something like a case list:

5541: 5340: 591:; I usually don't swamp people with links anyhow, since I think that by the time newbies need a labyrinth of links they will probably have figured out how to find them.... 288:

In humans, graceful behaviour is what makes the community robust :-) :: See also RFC 1855 (netiquette guidelines), section 2.1.1, 6th paragraph down, which quotes the same.

3860:

or dozens (hundreds?) of others. We're endlessly self-reflective and classificatory (lists of...) ! And there's nothing anyone should object to here, so doesn't require an

1038:

The content could consist of links to "cases" of various kinds, typically abritration proceedings or RFC's or Villiage Pump discussions that are particularly illuminating.

4484: 5432: 5299: 5267: 4911: 4011:

The rules and regulations for Knowledge are important. Why use a word that (apparently) does not exist, in its title? Or if it exists, could someone please define it?

3515:

which may well be a good faith edit, but clearly there's nothing we can do apart from revert it, and it seems odd to suggest this needs to be discussed in Talk first.

1686:

Later on, new people came along and wanted to make policies. Newer wikipedians also seem to enjoy graffiti-ing tags all over the place. Hence tags, and tag inflation.

1428:

See my point? We have too many such pages, and it's confusing people. There's also the list of policies and the eight words version, and I'm probably missing a bunch.

3219:

Me neither, but that's what it seems you are suggesting, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. Even so, my offer stands, take it or leave it anytime you're ready.

1164:

Come to think of it, originally this page was very short, and we really needed that sources section, just to prove we weren't making things up. OMG, What Happen? :-)

1603:

My specific proposal/idea, is that we should merge "W in 8 words" into the rest; stress the informality of "Policy trifecta"; and officially approve the 3 listed at

1273:

So you mean they should both redirect here? The idea was to create less pages that do the same thing in slightly different ways, because of the resultant confusion.

5573: 4324: 5808:

our articles. People might ignore it thinking "I'm not writing high-quality stuff, so this section isn't relevant". Are there any dissenters before I change it? —

3842:

Is it a guideline? Policy? Help page? Essay? Hard to tell. It is missing the familiar and comfortable Knowledge page header that identifies where this fits. —

3521:

and the policy that we should always improve rather than revert, but the original edit was a change (not new material) where I don't see improvement was possible.

5536: 3454:

A second thing. Forbidding original policy would make the community very brittle indeed, since we'd be stuck with whatever ideas came up on day 1. Namely: these:

2821: 5742:

I went ahead and added these, in collapsed form at the bottom. They're pretty unobtrusive and yet contain most of the important links to the entire community.

1607:. Then we could create a 5-item infobox (as described above) listing those official 3, and the informal "policy trifecta" and "Jimbo's principles" underneath. - 3481:

can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

3032:

My family's favourite motto was always "why be difficult, when with a little more effort you can be impossible" (which i can't find the source of either). --

3131:

an article or project that has little chance of being taken seriously is just not going to be one of them. This is just not the wiki way of doing things.

5602: 5375: 5217: 4944: 2121:

One thing you have to watch out for is rules that affect big contentuous pages being used on all parts of the wiki, which would make it utterly unusable.

5612: 5531: 5380: 4668: 4317: 85: 4304:

1. Is there a way to structure the header differently? Something about three italicized redirects and a rectangular info box just doesn't say simple.

556:(which could need a rewrite). I wonder if it may be better to just merge the two pages (newbies already have way too many pages to read in wikipedia). 5577: 5144: 3508: 2197:

JA: Yes, I can see that some kinda self-apponted posse is up late on some kinda "Destroy All Rules" (DAR-lex) tear, and any other time I'd be on that

330:+ Foundation issues alone as our entire simplified ruleset. If we do so, some small things might slip through the cracks though. Here's my checklist: 2902:

I could not guess that you meant what you now say you meant, since I know that to contradict what I have read and been told here time and time again.

2686:

JA: I know how to fix double redirects. I was in the middle of doing it when you reverted. There are Big Rules that prohibit cut and paste moves.

5360: 1982: 1867: 1792: 1537: 5703: 5473: 4939: 4678: 4420: 3341: 539:

I have been bold and reworded, complete with edit summary, trusting that someone will come by and change it if something better comes along :-)

5262: 1689:

None of this has anything to do with any real wikipedia process or procedures. It's just a game of nomic being played in the project namespace.

173:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit 5758:. I think it's useful. I'm curious if it could/should be merged here, to create a single page where new editors could get all of the basics. 5696: 5468: 5390: 4959: 4745: 4614: 3068:

That and wikipedia is like a game of go. Lose your first 50 games as quick as you can ;-) That's the other part of BOLD and IAR, I suppose :-)

2407:

use a handy reference from time to time, but I just thought that it was meant as more of an "on-ramp" to the often bewildering WP expressway.

1986: 1787: 1542: 6189: 6184: 5629: 5370: 5309: 2655:

COPY, NOT MOVE. Are you brain dead? Do you know how many incoming links you redirected? Sheesh. Make your own, *new* page please. Thank you.

218: 91: 2484:

confused. (You've got your on-ramp in my peanut butter...) I'm just a pedestrian onlooker though, curious to see what y'all come up with. --

2349:

JA: Sorry, but I do not understand any of the things that you are talking about above, much less their relevance to a project of gistifying

5708: 5448: 5365: 3861: 3500: 2363:

Obviously, to simplify, we only want people to follow the most useful guidelines. Define useful. Once defined, where should the cutoff be?

1187:. On this basis, I made guess that "wiki process" refer to editing by wiki based software. However, while I was investigating further on 5279: 4002:

We are isntructed to follow this "ruleset", but what is a ruleset? I do not find this word in any dictionnary (English or Translation).

3641:

improvements being made by someone else, with not a peep. People should not do that, even if they are Admins, but they do. Go figure.

2956:

Kim: Please stop with the personal attacks (brain use insinuations). And don't be condescending, He obviously knows how to create a page.

1677:). Don't break any rule on an essay page (see above for examples). Finally, untagged pages typically expound the laws of wikiphysics. :) 6157: 5568: 5493: 5348: 5042: 4307:

2. There's a nice template for Key Policies and Guidelines I'd like to include at the bottom, in collapsed form. Is it too un-simple?

1099: 572: 5681: 5676: 5661: 5498: 5488: 5453: 5324: 4932: 3337: 1917:

Good idea. I like it. This is something we want to be very clear and easy to navigate. I've created an simpler alternative, also. -

1559: 1527: 6089:

and do it yourself? Is there any aspect in particular that you need help with, or do you just want someone else to spend the effort?

5915:

talk about the same exact thing in the same exact words. I was thinking about merging these articles together. Any thoughts on this?

2459:

JA: I love it when somebody actually takes one of my metaphors seriously — as I'm sure you can imagine it doesn't happen very often.

2201:, but not when you're trying to e-rode outa town on a raillerie the only rules that make WP still (just barely) worth caring about. 6058: 6023: 5686: 5619: 5515: 5508: 5458: 4964: 4341: 2286:

Especially when those bits were specially chosen to be those that -if ignored- would cause you to fail requests for adminship (!!!)

1903: 1604: 1550: 1237:

Could that section please be rephrased? I have seen it taken out of context before to support harmful decisions made to Knowledge.--

1188: 1115: 1079: 632: 583:

I have been bolder yet and done it myself. As for newbies swamped with reading material... I may write a welcome message with this,

228: 5985:(Pinging the creators of the two pages in case they have some input). I have no personal preference at this stage. Cheers, · · · 5319: 5284: 4954: 4949: 3127:

times a week, and as long as I do it after coffee and before midnight — oops! too late for today — then eveything works out okay.

2698:

Don't do that. Don't Move. Just. Don't. It breaks things. Nothing to do with double redirects. Nothing, Not a bit. No Thing. Not.

1263:

Heh, the result is here. The idea was to split off even simpler versions of the simplified ruleset, not the other way around ;-)

2632:. So what we've got here is a veritable précis of precepts, but even I would not go so far as to actually say that in public. 2304:

I'll take a gamble and see what you come up with. Figure out which guidelines can cause failure to pass requests for adminship.

2062:

I agree with Centrx's revert. These should be seperate. They have clearly defined places and uses, that don't really overlap. --

1179:

I was going through Knowledge policy, I stumbleed upon this Foundation issues. Upon clicking link, I was taken to meta page for

6179: 5720: 5671: 5624: 5483: 5405: 5294: 5210: 4969: 4906: 4415: 4410: 2222:

JA: Ha! I assume good faith, until e-ducated otherwise. I do not assume that anybody has a clue, until e-ducated otherwise.

1845: 1363: 1353: 2770:(And while you're at it, start typing in english), it's extremely frustrating to have to constantly decode what you're saying) 728:

can only delay edit wars, not solve them. Always use the talk page. Try constructive edits, but if it's not working, tolerate

6148:

This page has gone from 7,439 bytes (500 revisions ago in 2006) to 14,823 bytes. This is a doubling of the page size. I fear

5950:

I agree with what you are saying. I would also like to reach a consensus before merging or redirecting anything to anywhere.

5607: 5551: 5503: 5422: 5385: 4683: 4643: 4584: 4501: 4429: 4405: 2175:

If you can meet these requirements, you should be able to edit the page and gain consensus. If you can't, you'll likely fail.

1358: 936: 497:

does lead to a number of disputes, so striving for NPOV can at times cause conflict. I wonder if there's a way to solve that?

31: 2971:

How many times have you both read the words "Be civil" and "Be graceful" whilst editing it...? The irony is just dripping...

859:

We can then weigh which behaviours are really THAT bad, and those that could basically be left out to get a smaller set :-)

6110:

I'm not sure if I merged the article correctly. If I didn't do it correctly, can you correct any errors I made? Thank you,

4169:"However, if your bold edits have been reverted, don't boldly reintroduce them. Discuss and find consensus for your edits." 2905:

In particular, the advice that you now give violates all sorts of established rules, not to mention basic wiki principles.

2889:

If you do not mean for people to be bold, then I recommend that you reconsider how often you say that. It confuses people.

5427: 5415: 5410: 4579: 3857: 3355: 1966: 1127: 80: 4086:

diff that combines a string of saves. Does it really ruffle editors' feathers enough to be in this simplified ruleset? —

4008:

I encounter this term in programming, but have no idea what it really means and how to translate it in another language.

3276:

Requested moves is not policy. :-P That and I'm mostly opposed to moving pages in general, as it makes a right darn mess.

6009: 5965: 5781: 5691: 5561: 5353: 5174: 5121: 4995: 4673: 4648: 4594: 4140: 4090: 3894: 3883: 3853: 3426: 3099: 2381: 2375: 2188: 2024:

I'm not altogether sure. The only obvious idea, is to merge option 2b above (the smallest list), with the bottom of the

1899: 1863: 1777: 1743:

Below, i've placed two sample templates that could be included on any/all of the relevant pages. Feedback appreciated.

1512: 1083: 584: 121: 35: 5931:

the changes here too closely, so if you want my opinion at a more developed stage, please ping for my attention.· · ·

5556: 5236: 5037: 4813: 4760: 4733: 4663: 4638: 3829: 3632: 3380: 1135: 707: 178: 71: 2620:

JA: Maybe it's all that time in AI, but I have strong objections to using phrases like "ruleset" as it tends to make

3967:

This guidence comes from the Ignore All Rules page and is, I think, a better way to summarize the phrase. Thoughts?

3461:(Note that meta was founded way after wikipedia, so these issues weren't actually noted at that location on day 1) 3081:

That's the first eloquent and rational explanation behind IAR I think I've ever heard :) (okay, and the synopsis at

1648:

Simplified ruleset: Keep you out of trouble. It's gotten bloated though. Keep to use as a reference page, I suppose.

6005: 5969: 5777: 5769: 5478: 5304: 5289: 5274: 5203: 5159: 4609: 4604: 4574: 4479: 4435: 4363: 3963:

and make a modification to a portion of the Ignore All Rules section. I re-phrased the final portion of it to read

1837: 1782: 1107: 588: 341:

If we can't, before adding a rule, could we maybe make a the thing we're missing a side effect of some other rule?

695:. No article ever got improved without someone editing it. Don't say what has to be done, do it. "If not us, who?" 6115: 6077: 5955: 5920: 5463: 5314: 4927: 4808: 4728: 4511: 4506: 3965:

The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both.

1895: 1859: 1517: 1407: 807: 3451:

And since the simplified ruleset is actually tertiary literature, it wouldn't fall under forbid original policy.

446:

for these behaviours however, and that's why I'm mentioning them at all. If you disagree, please elucidate! :-)

5649: 4990: 4896: 4851: 4803: 4798: 4516: 4474: 4440: 2797:. I think the spirit of that guideline, this is what Kim meant by saying "create a new page for it, and show !" 2350: 2191:(incidentally showing that wikis can out-think and out-pace traditional committees by orders of magnitude O;-) 1402:

Why to fix what is not broken. What I am saying is that this simplified ruleset is superflous. We have already

672:. You don't have to agree with them. You don't even have to like them. You can spit on their opinions. But you 351: 3982:

The previous wording also came from ignore all rules. :-) There's something to be said for either approach. --

2996:

would be gone. We can then always come back and apply what we learn here. (I find that I'm learning too :) ).

3019:, which says "don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy", but that was a redlink the last time I looked. 6161: 5116: 4884: 4469: 4400: 2886:

Indeed, you seemed to signal assent to the change with all your encouragement to be bold (emphasis omitted).

1628: 1582: 1473: 1419: 1348: 1335: 1238: 2959:

JA: Whilst slightly more eloquent (Hanlon's razor and all), you need to stop with the personal insults too.

2081:

The way this page is written now, you won't be able to make it to admin anymore ... <scratches head: -->

1746:

My main aim, is an attempt to clear up the mess of "see also" links at the bottom of each of these pages. -

5666: 5226: 4879: 4599: 4589: 4531: 4356: 4274: 4250: 4225: 4184: 4070: 4062: 4031: 3948: 1891: 1841: 1772: 1522: 1453:

Please provide evidence of people being sanctioned for failing to follow the guidelines that you mention.

1403: 595: 543: 401: 359: 174: 169: 146: 2670:

And please don't get all recalcitrant and think you can move again. You'll break the ability to move for

1704:

To an extent, Knowledge thrives on multiple perspectives, essays, views, and so on. Why not one article:

6020: 5989: 5935: 5855: 4750: 3987: 3972: 628: 127: 282:

section 1.1.2 Robustness Principle: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"

4377: 6129: 6111: 6073: 5951: 5916: 5879: 5183: 5049: 4688: 4564: 4496: 4464: 4425: 3082: 3016: 2826:

DOUBLETHINK BOLD CATCHPHRASES THAT HAVE BECOME TOTALLY DEVOID OF MEANING FROM CONSTANT SEMANTIC ABUSE

2314:, do not cite any other arbitrary guidelines, unless they are significantly referenced on those pages 2034:

template. But that would create redundancy if we used both. Did you have anything specific in mind? -

1139: 907: 878: 648:

implicitly) use, and they're only here because Kim asked for them. :-) It works for me. Your mileage

620: 553: 525: 476: 417: 2316:. The set that is required will likely be very counter-intuitive to you, but maybe also to me ;-). 2242:

JA: I'm afraid there's less and less whate'er here all the time. But tanks for all the fish. : -->

1692:

For day to day work, don't get depressed though. Just Ignore All Rules, and go about your business.

5790: 5639: 5546: 5244: 5240: 5054: 4755: 4658: 4569: 4559: 3748:

You retain copyright, so you may also give your content to 3rd parties under a different agreement.

3657: 2918:

Now that I think of it, I begin to suspect that something like that may already have occurred here.

2047: 2028: 2004: 1674: 1574: 699: 61: 3804: 3379:

JA: I spend 2 or 3 weeks a year in Ont(ari)*o — maybe it's catching. Oops! there I go violating

3285:

In other news, on the one hand I'm suspecting you might be right and maybe I have a mild case of

3052:

JA: We must be related. The Awbrey family motto is: "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing."

2628:

Rhythms or something. So let me suggest the term that they often use in medical schools, to wit,

2268:

I much prefer the single list style, without the ambiguous "you can ignore these bits" message. --

464:

In the event, the changes needed to realise my vision were less dramatic than I thought so I have

430:

The foundation issues don't mandate any behaviours per se, so they are not very useful to include

6062: 5833: 5815: 5644: 5400: 5066: 5061: 4705: 4554: 4051: 3931: 3713: 3672: 3369: 3351:

like to talk about ourselves. So there will always be reams of redundant material on that front.)

3262: 3109: 3095: 3039: 2981: 2845: 2809: 2602: 2564: 2491: 2450:

People who didn't stray outside the rules didn't get blocked, nor did they appear on RFC or RFAr.

2275: 2198: 2054: 1939:

Hmmm. It looks odd at the bottom, and would be too large at the top next-to/below the shortcut. -

1918: 1487: 1432: 1383: 1277: 371: 311: 270: 76: 17: 3231:

JA: If it's just the mechanics of the move that worries you, then the safest way is to put in a

6124:

There's really no need for the help me template. All interested parties can see your response.

552:

Kim invited me over here, so I'll add my 2 cents. To me, this page seems to overlap a lot with

5126: 4901: 4891: 4270: 4246: 4221: 4180: 4066: 4027: 4016: 3159: 2877: 2794: 2544: 1009: 691: 592: 540: 398: 356: 57: 2899:, which dictates interpereting a person's words in a way that makes sense if at all possible. 2166:

Finally, you should be able to provide examples of opposition on RFA, RFCs (wikipedia and/or

2105:

Being verifiable is nice, but it's useless for starting new articles. <scratches head: -->

1041:

This is food for thought rather than a formal proposal for an addition to the page. Regards,

503:

was reworded to make it sound slightly more strict. People tend to get oppose votes on their

6045: 6015: 5986: 5980: 5945: 5932: 5851: 5759: 5743: 5733: 4309: 4261: 4236: 4206: 4143: 4093: 3983: 3968: 3904: 3759: 3702: 3623: 3587: 3462: 3455: 3394: 3393:

Have you considered historical? Several of those other pages use this page as a source ^^;;

3347:

Everything else has a target audience. formal/informal, newbie/admin/vandal, etc. (Plus, we

3307: 3290: 3220: 3190: 3141: 3069: 2997: 2941: 2861: 2838:

How about, you both go have a cup of tea, and calm the hell down. That'd be nice. Yeah :) --

2773: 2744: 2675: 2656: 2643: 2582: 2518: 2463: 2397: 2364: 2341: 2331: 2287: 2259: 2233: 2213: 2180: 2132: 2122: 2107: 2097: 2087: 2012: 1731:

I've started to merge 8words, as consensus seems to exist that this is the most redundant. -

1695: 1454: 1373: 1294: 1264: 1224: 1209: 1202: 1180: 1165: 1155: 1087: 1052: 954: 921: 888: 862: 729: 624: 576: 533: 514: 484: 457: 447: 390: 342: 300: 289: 258: 1972:

to the bottom of Five Pillars, Simplified Ruleset, and Policy Trifecta. Feedback? Thanks. -

6165: 6149: 6133: 6125: 6119: 6098: 6081: 6028: 5992: 5959: 5938: 5924: 5898: 5859: 5838: 5820: 5792: 5773: 5762: 5755: 5736: 5106: 4278: 4264: 4254: 4239: 4229: 4209: 4188: 4154: 4127: 4104: 4074: 4055: 4035: 4020: 3991: 3976: 3940: 3872: 3846: 3832: 3825: 3807: 3794: 3784: 3762: 3736: 3705: 3695: 3660: 3645: 3642: 3626: 3550: 3539: 3536: 3529: 3465: 3442: 3439: 3397: 3387: 3384: 3374: 3319: 3316: 3293: 3267: 3239: 3236: 3223: 3211: 3208: 3193: 3167: 3164: 3144: 3135: 3132: 3114: 3072: 3056: 3053: 3044: 3023: 3020: 3011: 3000: 2986: 2944: 2930: 2927: 2896: 2864: 2850: 2832: 2829: 2814: 2787: 2784: 2776: 2760: 2757: 2747: 2690: 2687: 2678: 2659: 2646: 2636: 2633: 2607: 2585: 2569: 2521: 2496: 2474: 2471: 2439:

seems like a good point. The ruleset as it was then was called "safe wikipedia behaviour")

2411: 2408: 2400: 2389: 2386: 2367: 2357: 2354: 2344: 2334: 2290: 2280: 2262: 2251: 2248: 2236: 2226: 2223: 2216: 2205: 2202: 2183: 2142: 2139: 2125: 2110: 2100: 2090: 2066: 2057: 2038: 2018: 1993: 1976: 1957: 1943: 1932: 1921: 1750: 1717: 1698: 1632: 1624: 1611: 1594: 1497: 1477: 1469: 1457: 1442: 1423: 1415: 1393: 1339: 1331: 1297: 1287: 1267: 1243: 1227: 1212: 1168: 1158: 1148: 1055: 1045: 976: 973: 957: 943: 924: 910: 904: 891: 881: 875: 865: 791: 783: 712: 636: 522: 473: 414: 3511:

where many reasons are given against this strategy (in particular, the example of adding

6094: 6086: 5894: 5785: 5772:? It looks like basically just a copy of this page. Right now we got 3 separate pages: 4125: 3960: 3927: 3843: 3595: 2937: 2642:

Okay, if you're gonna be that drastic, please create a new page for it, and show ! :-)

2577: 2466:

highway was already in place. Yes, I see many potholes, and you might even say a few "

2311: 1326:

that need to be respected. Without these, WP is not worth the pixels and bytes it uses

916:(4)*kerblink* I do! :-) Also, it helps keep track how over-complex the page has become 848: 840: 811: 799: 787: 772: 768: 666:

Knowledge, and that if you don't get it right, nobody will. Keep things in perspective.

323: 161: 140: 5868: 5754:

I was working on a similar document for basic editing mechanics and navigation called

4136:

other 'rules' are structured, and is a bit more accurate to the spirit of the thing. —

3507:

yet that clearly states it is an optional policy, not an official guideline. Also see

6173: 5912: 5827: 5809: 4775: 4047: 3869: 3865: 3591: 3583: 3560: 3435: 3431: 3420: 3363: 3286: 3256: 3246: 3103: 3033: 2975: 2839: 2803: 2596: 2558: 2512: 2485: 2320: 2307: 2269: 2063: 2035: 1990: 1973: 1954: 1940: 1929: 1747: 1732: 1713: 1665: 1608: 1591: 1484: 1429: 1406:, that does a really good job, and if you want the minimalist approach, we have also 1380: 1319: 1315: 1274: 1256: 1042: 999: 852: 844: 839:

Now's the time dig up cases for each of the rules where breaking them got someone on

795: 776: 750: 725: 720: 504: 367: 307: 266: 186: 5083: 4205:

It makes the broader point, just not in the context of WP:BOLD. What do you think?

3821: 397:

And this from the *simplified* ruleset. :-) I do like the method of sorting as well.

4012: 3943:

compares the trifecta with the simplified ruleset page, and tries his own version:

3232: 3029:

I don't quite understand that one. Got a link/citation/explanation to throw at me?

2324: 1255:

Bumping topic, and creating redirect-to-here comments at each mentioned talk page -

1145: 1003: 6038: 5111: 3635:

of course, I just happen to respectfully disagree with those particular edits :-)

3617:

Most important of all is that you have fun editing. Why else would you be here? :)

2540:

Does it? How? I get no notice of edit conflicts until I hit the "save" button...

1644:

The problem of course being the history of all of these, as well as their intent.

1660:

Statement of principles. This was the original statement of principles. Historic.

5976: 4828: 4137: 4087: 3791: 3781: 2008: 1708:, with a section for trifecta, a section for 8W, a section for 5P, and so on :) 1311: 1196:

me. And if this is the case, "wiki process" article should not be redirected to

991: 940: 810:. I like to think of this as a simplified version of the simplified ruleset. -- 4216:

It certainly makes a similar point, as does most of the rest of the section on

2353:

for the actual benefit of the hapless WikiParticipant, oldie or newbie alike.

724:. Never revert a revert, because there's no reason it will stop there, and the 655:

There are really only two guidelines I have, and everything follows from them:

560:

People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project."

3302: 3204: 1620: 1465: 1411: 1327: 968: 822: 565: 2511:

Maybe refactor the page into the same 3 sections, but slightly expanded from

306:

Around here, "robust" is usually how they describe coffee. Coffee is good. --

6105: 6090: 5890: 4122: 3547: 3526: 182: 3509:

Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#What.27s_so_bad_about_a_revert.3F

1654:

5 Pillars: Simpler simplified ruleset. Don't actually use SR, use this one.

1490: 1435: 1386: 1280: 4046:

The section says there are five....but there are only three numbered. - ??

3199:

JA: And I don't trust a tactic that says "It was necessary to destroy the

3179:

I don't care what rules you quote. I'm not going there. It's not relevant.

2828:, then maybe you'll be ready to write a simplified ruleset, or whatever. 4194:

Agreed on the principle. Do you think #4 in that section is sufficient?

1709: 1605:

Knowledge:Policies and guidelines#Other concise summaries of key policies

746: 575:

and show us what you mean. :-) Worst case we can just revert, right? :-)

5243:. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see 2557:

But this is definitely not the primary purpose of the preview button. --

2625: 1223:

Oh gosh, this is getting long. :-/ Maybe we can trim down a bit again?

181:

and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the

3513:"George Bush live in big house and make laws. We study him in school." 1577:, to place on each of the remaining pages. Like a 3-page tutorial for 5239:. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the 3701:

All those can be negotiated, and those are not what is meant anyway.

2435:

For comparison with the simplified ruleset when I last looked at it (

779:. I think those three ideas in that order are a resonable trifecta." 3590:, where appropriate. If you do that for the purposes of writing an 3491:

suggest we have to leave such material if it's added in good faith?

3448:

Interesting. That's almost like an entirely different era by now :)

4171:

to the section about being bold. That is following the sentences,

1725: 782:

and I'll add that out of these follow such other good policies as

3655:

in intro, end of 2nd para "quide us in our constant efort" -: -->

1078:(placed here at random for now, please wikify as appropriate!) * 2167: 1578: 1197: 1184: 468:

and applied them directly. Feel free to revert if they subvert

5199: 5195: 4313: 1651:

Policy Trifecta: Simplest possible set. Use if you're an admin.

6033: 4179:

I think it's important to note the proper limits of boldness.

3756:

The above are just examples. I don't necessarily endorse them.

3413:

Revision as of 11:18, 7 April 2005, Kim Bruning (created page)

2624:— geeks and even recovering geeks — think that it's all about 2467: 703:. Edit without ego. Respect others. Defer to the encyclopedia. 326:. Perhaps we could make do with just Safe Knowledge Behaviour 103: 26: 3519: 3408:

JA: What are you talking about? This page is 1.3 years old:

3163:

either cross, or else, by definition, you are staying home.

1581:

wikipedian culture. Similar to what Gareth Aus has done with

767:"In terms of editorial policy, our fundamenal rule should be 686:

Now, the rules I respect are fairly simple compared to that:

355:

clearer -- and also simpler. I definitely support this page.

3085:

too. I'm tempted to add both of those to the IAR talkpage ;)

2895:

The reason that I misread you is that I followed my rule of

771:. In terms of social policy, our fundamental rule should be 616:(feel free to modify this summary and make it more accurate) 5014: 3751:

Some people already dual-licence under CC-BY-SA or similar.

2968:

This is a page on ... How to interact with other editors...

4121:. This makes it tedious to collaborate on those articles. 1208:

It's a good question. Try asking on the mailing list too!

3631:

Just in case: Note that I'm not saying that Jossi is an

874:

never seems to have got anyone into trouble. Sigh ... --

715:. It's not about being nice, it's about being practical. 328:(after editing, after editing , I'm an eventualist :-P ) 6050: 5886: 4119: 4117: 4115: 3944: 3934: 3911: 3900: 3412: 2820:

JA: Here's a friendly suggestion. When you folks quit

2436: 191: 4005:

If it is simply a rule set, why not call it this way?

2876:

We were discussing it. We were at WP. Ergo, we were

1249:

Merge trifecta and 5 pillars and wikipedia in 8 words?

571:

Hmm, interesting, thank you for your insights! Please

3245:

I think the acronym-accusation you're looking for is

2716:

Either make a copy and edit that, or go away. Please.

775:. In terms of personal action on Knowledge, I follow 6012:

which is clear, and which long pre-dates the other.

3824:, which grants blanket permission for such links on 2077:

Ouw, this page no longer meets original requirements

1191:, I came across definition of process which say, "A 6057:, contact the responding user(s) directly on their 5592: 5524: 5441: 5333: 5252: 5091: 5079: 5022: 5012: 4978: 4920: 4860: 4836: 4826: 4783: 4773: 4713: 4703: 4623: 4539: 4529: 4449: 4385: 4375: 3901:

proposal to switch to using consensus/ wiki process

6048:has been answered. If you need more help, you can 3916: 3342:Knowledge talk:Knowledge in eight words#Criticisms 2974:Go cool off for a few days. This page can wait. -- 1028:case where following the rule was very problematic 998:Nice work! I've added a link to this page at Help 1051:Rule 1 is BE BOLD, you know! I'm curious to see! 1034:case where ignoring the rule was very problematic 1025:case where following the rule was very beneficial 887:People who break BE BOLD do fail RFA though. :-) 821:Have I already told you that you're great? ;-) -- 4492:Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources 3945:On 4 may he creates a "(New simple policy page)" 3780:called for is "gracious". What do others think? 2616:Proposed Move : Simplified Rules → Wiki Precepts 2096:Drat, I've made it more correct, but messier... 2043:Good idea. I've merged it into and reorganized 1031:case where ignoring the rule was very beneficial 4173: 3651:typo overlooked or am i missing something here? 3499:Furthermore, this rule reads to me rather like 3203:in order to save it" — been there, done that — 334:What would we be missing if we did so? *Can we 5784:but all saying pretty much the same thing. -- 4654:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point 3920: 953:get you blocked, banned, or loose you an RFA? 6008:, which is too vague a name to be useful, to 5211: 4325: 1981:I'm unsure whether it should be added to the 383:I'm supposed to do something sane after all. 8: 5080: 2872:JA: Here's how I see the present situation: 2003:How do you think this could be matched with 6049: 4986:Categories, lists, and navigation templates 2883:It did not seem contentious or problematic. 2232:Ah well. You can lead a horse to water... 1344:A remainder of Knowledge content policies: 190: 5218: 5204: 5196: 5088: 5019: 4872: 4833: 4780: 4710: 4536: 4382: 4332: 4318: 4310: 1881: 1822: 618: 135: 5768:Probably should be. What's going on with 3418:JA: Maybe we should have a policy called 3098:? If not, then copy&paste WP:SR into 2462:JA: I was taking it for granite that the 935:Any simplified rule set ought to mention 120:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 3923:people discuss their own simplifications 3868:, not every page needs a template. :) -- 3362:I'm Canadian, what's your excuse? ;-) -- 2767:turn on your brain, and start thinking! 2297:On the scope and purpose of this project 1728:! oooo, danger danger! must... resist... 764:Today on IRC, I proposed the following: 3326: 2131:This Page is Not a Forum for Rewriting 1573:We could also make an infobox like the 642: 409:Explicit inclusion of foundation issues 137: 3790:Ok. I've changed it to "be gracious". 3185:you're following (yet), so first show! 2319:When simplifying further, we've found 711:. Respect others, again, and remember 295:(ps. Imagine trying to tell people to 6072:Can anyone merge these two articles? 197:and a volunteer will visit you there. 167:This page is within the scope of the 7: 5237:discussion, request, and help venues 109: 107: 5145:List of all policies and guidelines 3656:"guide us in our constant effort"? 2911:Rules against cut and paste moves. 1100:Knowledge:Be bold in updating pages 126:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 5826:No comments, so I've done this. — 5184:Summaries of values and principles 5025: 4863: 4626: 4452: 4081:Preview Button - important enough? 3582:On the other hand, you can always 3427:Knowledge:Forbid Original Policies 3100:Knowledge:Simplified Ruleset/draft 759: 25: 1189:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines 1116:Knowledge:Harmonious editing club 507:if they make bad edit summaries. 18:Knowledge talk:Simplified Ruleset 6152:will defeat the purpose of this 6037: 5968:is the senior, from 2005, while 5867: 5094: 4839: 4786: 4716: 4669:Please do not bite the newcomers 4542: 4388: 4218:Getting along with other editors 3903:7 April 2005 (was this a ref to 3354:So just pick a favourite out of 3344:. (It needs a merge or a rename) 2543:Hmm, it's vaguely alluded to at 2418:design one, let alone build one. 1464:Confusing people? Which people? 160: 139: 108: 51:Click here to start a new topic. 5721:Category:Knowledge noticeboards 4167:I'ld like to add the sentence, 3820:Edit of "consider..." based on 3332:What resulted from that thread: 2735:Be BOLD, but don't be reckless! 1805:Full list of official policies 1538:Jimbo's Statement of principles 206:Template:Knowledge Help Project 6144:Instruction creep on this page 4163:Be Bold - Except when reverted 3917:#JRM's rule-guideline-thingies 3864:. Lastly, in the interests of 3763:15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 3737:20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 3706:19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 3696:22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3010:JA: I'll come back tomorrow. 2067:18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 2058:09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 937:Knowledge:No_original_research 193:ask for help on your talk page 1: 6013: 5341:Biographies of living persons 4679:Responding to threats of harm 4421:Biographies of living persons 4075:11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3992:14:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 3977:03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 3886:<- from whence this came. 3858:Knowledge:The perfect article 3712:GFDL is hardly negotiable :) 3661:02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 3646:03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2892:Now I see that I misread you. 2536:; it prevents edit conflicts. 1761: 1760: 1149:02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC) 1128:Knowledge:No personal attacks 1124:don't revert good faith edits 1120:when in doubt take it to talk 1056:02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 1046:00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 1017:Examples and counter-examples 974:Luc "Somethingorother" French 806:I've stated this publicly at 643:JRM's rule-guideline-thingies 48:Put new text under old text. 6190:Knowledge Help Project pages 6185:Mid-importance Help articles 5899:21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 5860:20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 5793:07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC) 5782:Knowledge:Simplified ruleset 4746:Criteria for speedy deletion 4615:Paid-contribution disclosure 4198:Undo others' edits with care 3895:Knowledge:Wikirules_proposal 3884:Knowledge:Wikirules_proposal 3873:06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 3854:Knowledge:How to edit a page 3847:04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 3833:04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 3808:14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3745:In a sense it certainly is. 2189:Knowledge:Wikirules_proposal 2084:That's going to be tricky. 1987:Knowledge is an encyclopedia 1852: 1830: 1788:Knowledge is an encyclopedia 1543:Knowledge is an encyclopedia 1498:12:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 1478:03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 1458:18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 1443:09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 1424:02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 1394:01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 1340:01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 1310:... sorry but... what about 1298:13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 1288:13:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 1268:03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 1094:* RFC 1123 and RFC 1855 for 1080:The discussion for this page 585:Knowledge:How to edit a page 223:This page has been rated as 6061:, or consider visiting the 4056:08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 3910:This page started same day 3795:19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3785:11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 3633:Evil reptilian kitten-eater 3627:00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3551:16:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3540:19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 3530:18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 3472:Reverting good faith edits? 3466:18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3443:16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3398:09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3388:03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3375:03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3320:01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3294:22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3268:22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3240:21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3224:21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3212:21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3194:15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3168:12:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3145:21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3136:05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3115:02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3073:01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3057:21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 3045:19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 3024:15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 3001:14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2987:12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2945:11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2931:05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2865:04:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2851:03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2833:03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2815:03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2788:02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2777:02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2761:02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2748:02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2691:02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2679:02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2660:02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2647:02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2637:02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2608:08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2586:02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2570:01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2522:10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2497:01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2475:01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 2412:21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2401:20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2390:18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2368:16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2358:16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2345:15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2335:15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2291:19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2281:19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2263:16:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2252:13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2237:12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2227:12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2217:12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2206:11:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2184:10:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2143:20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2126:20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2111:20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2101:20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2091:20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1799:Overview of our foundation 1136:Knowledge:Assume good faith 1012:15:33, 2005 August 20 (UTC) 835:Time to start trimming back 532:Ah! Yeah. Good point. Hmm. 509:(RfA is a great acid test) 322:In fact... let's apply the 265:RFC 1123 is graceful? :D -- 56:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 6206: 6029:23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC) 5993:13:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 5960:10:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 5939:05:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 5925:19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 5778:Knowledge:Plain and simple 5770:Knowledge:Plain and simple 5737:10:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 5709:Discussions for discussion 4279:09:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 4265:06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 4255:11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 4240:09:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 4230:08:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 4210:07:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 4189:04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 4155:07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 4128:13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 4105:04:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 4036:20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 4021:13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3921:#Seth's simplified ruleset 3301:JA: I just watched an old 3201:<fill in the blank: --> 1379:? You can edit this page. 1108:Knowledge:Ignore all rules 851:, or lost people votes at 637:23:01, 14 April 2005 (UTC) 589:Knowledge:Community portal 491:Tidied and modified a bit. 386:Heh, this is working! :-) 276:Ah I was looking for that! 229:project's importance scale 6166:04:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 5821:11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 5717: 5233: 5139: 4875: 4351: 3358:, and ignore the other 4. 2445:wikipedia behaviour ;-) ) 2039:23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 2019:22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 1994:23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 1977:21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1922:00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1791: 1786: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1764: 1751:20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1718:18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1680:This is also historical. 1408:Knowledge:Policy_trifecta 1306:This does not work for me 808:Knowledge:Policy trifecta 802:16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) 760:Seth's simplified ruleset 753:12:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC) 579:09:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 568:03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 536:15:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 528:15:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 517:15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 487:14:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 479:14:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 420:19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 393:11:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 374:11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 273:10:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 261:10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 222: 177:, where you can join the 155: 134: 86:Be welcoming to newcomers 5839:09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) 5763:17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 5401:Scalable vector graphics 5235:Knowledge's centralized 3338:Knowledge in eight words 2908:Rules against POV forks. 2373:JA: This page is titled 1958:05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1944:05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1933:06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1826:Principles of Knowledge 1802:Synopsis of our customs 1699:07:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 1633:02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 1612:02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 1595:22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 1560:Knowledge in eight words 1528:Knowledge in eight words 1244:19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1228:20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1213:20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1169:20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1084:This page's edit history 994:01:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 977:01:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC) 958:01:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC) 944:22:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC) 925:10:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 911:09:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 892:00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC) 882:23:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC) 866:16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC) 825:04:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 814:19:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) 598:23:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 546:15:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 472:vision too greatly. -- 460:13:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 450:10:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 404:17:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 362:17:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 345:11:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 314:11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 292:10:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 246:Safe Knowledge behaviour 6134:19:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC) 6120:18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC) 6099:18:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) 6082:10:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC) 5245:formal review processes 5122:Licensing and copyright 4342:policies and guidelines 3803:"gracious" make sense. 3561:Harmonious editing club 3340:is still in limbo, see 2325:one set of 5 guidelines 2321:one set of 3 guidelines 1983:Statement of Principles 1904:Policies and Guidelines 1868:Statement of principles 1808:Short and to-the-point 1793:Statement of principles 1739:Guidelines Box Template 1590:suggestions/feedback? - 1583:Template:Writing guides 1159:12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 939:I would have thought. : 6180:NA-Class Help articles 5285:Centralized discussion 4177: 4063:Knowledge:Five pillars 3949:Knowledge:Five_pillars 3830:Unimaginative Username 3325:Oh, that! Yes, see my 3094:Could we not just use 2534:Use the preview button 1876:2a: See box on right. 1766:Knowledge's principles 1551:policy/guideline/essay 1404:Knowledge:Five pillars 949:Ok, can disobeying it 203:Knowledge:Help Project 170:Knowledge Help Project 81:avoid personal attacks 6010:WP:Simplified ruleset 5966:WP:Simplified ruleset 5704:WikiProject proposals 5603:Committee noticeboard 5552:Personal restrictions 5537:Contributor copyright 5376:Neutral point of view 5117:Friendly space policy 4907:Broad-concept article 4416:What Knowledge is not 4411:Neutral point of view 3816:Source for usage edit 3438:were already taken. 3153:Moving Considerations 2822:trying to communicate 2382:WP:Wannabe Admins 101 2376:WP:Simplified Ruleset 1967:Knowledge principles 1885:Knowledge Principles 1879:2b: See box on left. 1846:What Knowledge is not 1666:What wikipedia is not 1364:What Knowledge is not 1354:Neutral point of view 501:Decent edit summaries 338:to miss those things? 6052:ask another question 6004:, specifically from 5889:I would ‎guess. -- 5662:Requests for comment 5578:Requests for comment 5542:Edit warring and 3RR 5532:Conflict of interest 5334:Articles and content 4684:Talk page guidelines 4644:Conflict of interest 4585:Ownership of content 4430:Copyright violations 4406:No original research 4269:Looks good, thanks. 3879:Historic information 3102:, and have at it! -- 2897:interpretive charity 1811:Historic beginnings 1359:No original research 1140:Knowledge:Wikiquette 931:No original research 554:Knowledge:Wikiquette 6006:WP:Plain and simple 5970:WP:Plain and simple 4580:No personal attacks 4502:Don't create hoaxes 3905:m:Foundation issues 3476:I'm curious about: 3456:m:Foundation issues 3327:#Merge suggestions? 2005:Template:Policylist 1675:wikipedia:consensus 1575:template:policylist 1132:no personal attacks 1088:m:foundation issues 985:Status of this page 5562:Contentious topics 5361:Dispute resolution 5349:Questions on media 5175:List of guidelines 4996:Template namespace 4674:Courtesy vanishing 4649:Disruptive editing 4595:Dispute resolution 3998:Is RuleSet a word? 3932:Knowledge:Trifecta 3866:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 3838:What is this page? 3096:Knowledge:Precepts 2503:Back from trifecta 1900:Simplified Ruleset 1864:Simplified Ruleset 1778:Simplified Ruleset 1706:Knowledge:Rulesets 1570:could aim towards? 1513:Simplified Ruleset 1507:Merge suggestions? 739:solvitur ambulando 732:while you discuss. 122:content assessment 92:dispute resolution 53: 36:Simplified ruleset 6150:instruction creep 6069: 6068: 6054:on your talk page 5845:Formatting issue? 5836: 5831: 5818: 5813: 5728: 5727: 5557:General sanctions 5396:Resource requests 5381:Original research 5193: 5192: 5135: 5134: 5075: 5074: 5038:Project namespace 5008: 5007: 5004: 5003: 4945:Dates and numbers 4912:Understandability 4822: 4821: 4769: 4768: 4761:Revision deletion 4734:Proposed deletion 4699: 4698: 4664:Gaming the system 4639:Assume good faith 4525: 4524: 4111:preview function: 3959:OK, I decided to 3637: 3598:, go right ahead! 3373: 3266: 3207:, but no tanks. 3113: 3043: 2985: 2849: 2813: 2772: 2606: 2568: 2545:Help:Show preview 2495: 2279: 2192: 2138:JA: 'Nuff said. 1910: 1909: 1874: 1873: 1815: 1814: 1631: 1532:(more? debatably: 1476: 1422: 1338: 1240:Conrad Devonshire 1233:Ignore all rules? 1181:Foundation issues 1175:Foundation issues 1092:foundation issues 1070:"Sources" section 1008: 730:the Wrong Version 708:Assume good faith 670:Respecting others 639: 623:comment added by 617: 510: 483:Jolly good show! 329: 243: 242: 239: 238: 235: 234: 102: 101: 72:Assume good faith 49: 16:(Redirected from 6197: 6109: 6056: 6041: 6034: 6027: 5984: 5949: 5884: 5878: 5871: 5834: 5829: 5816: 5811: 5788: 5391:Reliable sources 5325:User permissions 5305:Main Page errors 5300:Interface admins 5290:Closure requests 5220: 5213: 5206: 5197: 5170: 5169: 5160:List of policies 5155: 5154: 5112:List of policies 5099: 5098: 5097: 5089: 5085: 5082: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5020: 5016: 5013:Project content 4873: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4834: 4830: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4781: 4777: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4711: 4707: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4610:Child protection 4605:No legal threats 4575:Ignore all rules 4547: 4546: 4545: 4537: 4533: 4480:Reliable sources 4457: 4456: 4455: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4383: 4379: 4364:Ignore all rules 4346: 4334: 4327: 4320: 4311: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4102: 4099: 4096: 3955:Ignore all rules 3862:essay disclaimer 3733: 3731: 3729: 3727: 3725: 3692: 3690: 3688: 3686: 3684: 3629: 3584:ignore all rules 3501:Zero-revert rule 3367: 3308:The Ark in Space 3260: 3122:JA: Two points: 3107: 3037: 2979: 2843: 2807: 2768: 2600: 2562: 2489: 2351:WP:P's & G's 2273: 2187: 2052: 2046: 2033: 2027: 1971: 1965: 1882: 1838:List of policies 1823: 1783:List of policies 1762: 1623: 1553:template status. 1495: 1468: 1440: 1414: 1391: 1378: 1372: 1330: 1285: 1112:ignore all rules 1006: 870:Sadly, breaking 798:, etc., etc. -- 615: 508: 442:provide a solid 378:This is working! 327: 211: 210: 207: 204: 201: 196: 175:the project page 164: 157: 156: 151: 143: 136: 113: 112: 111: 104: 27: 21: 6205: 6204: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6170: 6169: 6146: 6112:Interstellarity 6103: 6074:Interstellarity 5987:Peter Southwood 5974: 5952:Interstellarity 5943: 5933:Peter Southwood 5917:Interstellarity 5909: 5882: 5876: 5847: 5801: 5786: 5774:Knowledge:Plain 5752: 5729: 5724: 5713: 5630:False positives 5588: 5520: 5437: 5386:Pending changes 5371:Fringe theories 5329: 5259:Administrators 5248: 5229: 5224: 5194: 5189: 5167: 5166: 5152: 5151: 5131: 5095: 5093: 5071: 5026: 5024: 5000: 4974: 4928:Manual of Style 4916: 4864: 4862: 4856: 4840: 4838: 4818: 4814:Page protection 4787: 4785: 4765: 4729:Deletion policy 4717: 4715: 4695: 4627: 4625: 4619: 4543: 4541: 4521: 4512:Patent nonsense 4507:Fringe theories 4453: 4451: 4445: 4389: 4387: 4371: 4347: 4338: 4299: 4165: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4100: 4097: 4094: 4083: 4044: 4000: 3957: 3941:User:Neutrality 3881: 3840: 3818: 3773: 3723: 3721: 3719: 3717: 3715: 3682: 3680: 3678: 3676: 3674: 3668: 3666:non-negotiable? 3653: 3474: 3406: 3356:the 5 remaining 3305:episode called 3155: 3017:Maxwell's razor 2618: 2529: 2505: 2299: 2136: 2079: 2050: 2044: 2031: 2025: 1969: 1963: 1915: 1896:Policy Trifecta 1860:Policy trifecta 1821: 1816: 1759: 1741: 1566:So, i suggest: 1518:Policy trifecta 1509: 1492: 1437: 1388: 1376: 1370: 1308: 1282: 1251: 1235: 1221: 1177: 1143: 1072: 1064: 1019: 987: 933: 900: 837: 762: 660:Egoless editing 645: 605: 438:important, and 411: 380: 248: 208: 205: 202: 199: 198: 149: 98: 97: 67: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 6203: 6201: 6193: 6192: 6187: 6182: 6172: 6171: 6145: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6122: 6067: 6066: 6059:user talk page 6042: 6032: 6031: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5911:This page and 5908: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5846: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5800: 5799:Second section 5797: 5796: 5795: 5751: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5731: 5726: 5725: 5718: 5715: 5714: 5712: 5711: 5706: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5694: 5689: 5684: 5679: 5674: 5664: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5652: 5650:Reference desk 5647: 5642: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5627: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5610: 5605: 5596: 5594: 5590: 5589: 5587: 5586: 5581: 5571: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5559: 5554: 5544: 5539: 5534: 5528: 5526: 5522: 5521: 5519: 5518: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5506: 5501: 5496: 5491: 5486: 5476: 5471: 5466: 5461: 5456: 5451: 5449:History merges 5445: 5443: 5439: 5438: 5436: 5435: 5430: 5428:Titleblacklist 5425: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5413: 5403: 5398: 5393: 5388: 5383: 5378: 5373: 5368: 5366:External links 5363: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5351: 5343: 5337: 5335: 5331: 5330: 5328: 5327: 5322: 5317: 5312: 5307: 5302: 5297: 5292: 5287: 5282: 5277: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5265: 5256: 5254: 5250: 5249: 5234: 5231: 5230: 5225: 5223: 5222: 5215: 5208: 5200: 5191: 5190: 5188: 5187: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5163: 5140: 5137: 5136: 5133: 5132: 5130: 5129: 5127:Privacy policy 5124: 5119: 5114: 5109: 5103: 5101: 5086: 5077: 5076: 5073: 5072: 5070: 5069: 5064: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5034: 5032: 5017: 5010: 5009: 5006: 5005: 5002: 5001: 4999: 4998: 4993: 4991:Categorization 4988: 4982: 4980: 4979:Classification 4976: 4975: 4973: 4972: 4967: 4962: 4957: 4952: 4947: 4942: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4924: 4922: 4918: 4917: 4915: 4914: 4909: 4904: 4899: 4897:Disambiguation 4894: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4876: 4870: 4858: 4857: 4855: 4854: 4852:Editing policy 4848: 4846: 4831: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4819: 4817: 4816: 4811: 4806: 4801: 4799:Administrators 4795: 4793: 4778: 4771: 4770: 4767: 4766: 4764: 4763: 4758: 4753: 4748: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4731: 4725: 4723: 4708: 4701: 4700: 4697: 4696: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4681: 4676: 4671: 4666: 4661: 4656: 4651: 4646: 4641: 4635: 4633: 4621: 4620: 4618: 4617: 4612: 4607: 4602: 4597: 4592: 4587: 4582: 4577: 4572: 4567: 4562: 4557: 4551: 4549: 4534: 4527: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4520: 4519: 4517:External links 4514: 4509: 4504: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4477: 4475:Citing sources 4472: 4467: 4461: 4459: 4447: 4446: 4444: 4443: 4441:Article titles 4438: 4433: 4423: 4418: 4413: 4408: 4403: 4397: 4395: 4380: 4373: 4372: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4352: 4349: 4348: 4340:Knowledge key 4339: 4337: 4336: 4329: 4322: 4314: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4164: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4113: 4112: 4082: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4043: 4040: 4039: 4038: 3999: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3956: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3938: 3928:User:Seth Ilys 3926:This leads to 3924: 3915:at some point 3913: 3908: 3898: 3889: 3880: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3839: 3836: 3822:Dictionary.com 3817: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3798: 3797: 3772: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3757: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3740: 3739: 3709: 3708: 3667: 3664: 3658:David Woodward 3652: 3649: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3554: 3553: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3483: 3482: 3473: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3459: 3452: 3449: 3416: 3415: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3360: 3359: 3352: 3345: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3271: 3270: 3251: 3250: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3197: 3196: 3187: 3186: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3128: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3076: 3075: 3065: 3064: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3012:Hanlon's razor 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2993: 2972: 2969: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2950: 2948: 2947: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2909: 2903: 2900: 2893: 2890: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2854: 2853: 2818: 2817: 2799: 2798: 2780: 2779: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2650: 2649: 2617: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2589: 2588: 2555: 2554: 2538: 2537: 2528: 2527:Preview button 2525: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2432: 2431: 2426: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2404: 2403: 2371: 2370: 2298: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2266: 2265: 2240: 2239: 2220: 2219: 2195: 2194: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2163: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2135: 2129: 2116: 2114: 2113: 2103: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1887: 1886: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1840: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1790: 1785: 1780: 1775: 1769: 1768: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1729: 1721: 1720: 1671: 1669: 1668: 1661: 1658: 1657:8 words... hmm 1655: 1652: 1649: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1598: 1597: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1571: 1564: 1557: 1554: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1525: 1520: 1515: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1461: 1460: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1397: 1396: 1367: 1366: 1361: 1356: 1351: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1261: 1260: 1250: 1247: 1234: 1231: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1077: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1013: 986: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 972: 961: 960: 932: 929: 928: 927: 899: 896: 895: 894: 858: 836: 833: 831: 829: 828: 827: 826: 816: 815: 761: 758: 756: 734: 733: 716: 713:Hanlon's Razor 704: 696: 684: 683: 667: 644: 641: 604: 601: 600: 599: 596:(spill yours?) 550: 549: 548: 547: 544:(spill yours?) 512: 511: 498: 492: 482: 462: 461: 452: 451: 427: 426: 410: 407: 406: 405: 402:(spill yours?) 379: 376: 364: 363: 360:(spill yours?) 347: 346: 339: 324:KISS principle 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 293: 280: 279: 278: 277: 247: 244: 241: 240: 237: 236: 233: 232: 225:Mid-importance 221: 215: 214: 212: 200:Knowledge Help 187:Help Directory 165: 153: 152: 150:Mid‑importance 147:Knowledge Help 144: 132: 131: 125: 114: 100: 99: 96: 95: 88: 83: 74: 68: 66: 65: 54: 45: 44: 41: 40: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6202: 6191: 6188: 6186: 6183: 6181: 6178: 6177: 6175: 6168: 6167: 6163: 6159: 6158:174.92.25.207 6156:page itself. 6155: 6151: 6143: 6135: 6131: 6127: 6123: 6121: 6117: 6113: 6107: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6096: 6092: 6088: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6079: 6075: 6071: 6070: 6064: 6060: 6055: 6053: 6047: 6043: 6040: 6036: 6035: 6030: 6025: 6022: 6019: 6018: 6011: 6007: 6003: 6002:Support merge 6000: 5994: 5990: 5988: 5982: 5978: 5971: 5967: 5963: 5962: 5961: 5957: 5953: 5947: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5936: 5934: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5926: 5922: 5918: 5914: 5906: 5900: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5885:some sort of 5881: 5874: 5870: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5863: 5862: 5861: 5857: 5853: 5844: 5840: 5837: 5832: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5819: 5814: 5807: 5798: 5794: 5791: 5789: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5771: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5761: 5757: 5749: 5745: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5735: 5730: 5723: 5722: 5716: 5710: 5707: 5705: 5702: 5698: 5697:Miscellaneous 5695: 5693: 5690: 5688: 5685: 5683: 5680: 5678: 5675: 5673: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5665: 5663: 5660: 5656: 5653: 5651: 5648: 5646: 5643: 5641: 5638: 5637: 5635: 5631: 5628: 5626: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5618: 5614: 5611: 5609: 5606: 5604: 5601: 5600: 5598: 5597: 5595: 5591: 5585: 5582: 5579: 5575: 5572: 5570: 5567: 5563: 5560: 5558: 5555: 5553: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5545: 5543: 5540: 5538: 5535: 5533: 5530: 5529: 5527: 5523: 5517: 5514: 5510: 5507: 5505: 5502: 5500: 5497: 5495: 5492: 5490: 5487: 5485: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5477: 5475: 5472: 5470: 5467: 5465: 5462: 5460: 5457: 5455: 5452: 5450: 5447: 5446: 5444: 5442:Page handling 5440: 5434: 5431: 5429: 5426: 5424: 5421: 5417: 5414: 5412: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5404: 5402: 5399: 5397: 5394: 5392: 5389: 5387: 5384: 5382: 5379: 5377: 5374: 5372: 5369: 5367: 5364: 5362: 5359: 5355: 5352: 5350: 5347: 5346: 5344: 5342: 5339: 5338: 5336: 5332: 5326: 5323: 5321: 5318: 5316: 5313: 5311: 5308: 5306: 5303: 5301: 5298: 5296: 5293: 5291: 5288: 5286: 5283: 5281: 5278: 5276: 5273: 5269: 5266: 5264: 5261: 5260: 5258: 5257: 5255: 5251: 5246: 5242: 5238: 5232: 5228: 5221: 5216: 5214: 5209: 5207: 5202: 5201: 5198: 5186: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5176: 5171: 5164: 5162: 5161: 5156: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5142: 5141: 5138: 5128: 5125: 5123: 5120: 5118: 5115: 5113: 5110: 5108: 5105: 5104: 5102: 5100: 5090: 5087: 5078: 5068: 5065: 5063: 5060: 5056: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5048: 5044: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5036: 5035: 5033: 5031: 5021: 5018: 5011: 4997: 4994: 4992: 4989: 4987: 4984: 4983: 4981: 4977: 4971: 4968: 4966: 4963: 4961: 4958: 4956: 4953: 4951: 4948: 4946: 4943: 4941: 4940:Accessibility 4938: 4934: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4926: 4925: 4923: 4919: 4913: 4910: 4908: 4905: 4903: 4900: 4898: 4895: 4893: 4890: 4886: 4885:Summary style 4883: 4882: 4881: 4878: 4877: 4874: 4871: 4869: 4859: 4853: 4850: 4849: 4847: 4845: 4835: 4832: 4825: 4815: 4812: 4810: 4807: 4805: 4802: 4800: 4797: 4796: 4794: 4792: 4782: 4779: 4772: 4762: 4759: 4757: 4754: 4752: 4749: 4747: 4744: 4740: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4732: 4730: 4727: 4726: 4724: 4722: 4712: 4709: 4702: 4690: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4682: 4680: 4677: 4675: 4672: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4662: 4660: 4657: 4655: 4652: 4650: 4647: 4645: 4642: 4640: 4637: 4636: 4634: 4632: 4622: 4616: 4613: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4603: 4601: 4598: 4596: 4593: 4591: 4588: 4586: 4583: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4573: 4571: 4568: 4566: 4563: 4561: 4558: 4556: 4553: 4552: 4550: 4548: 4538: 4535: 4528: 4518: 4515: 4513: 4510: 4508: 4505: 4503: 4500: 4498: 4495: 4493: 4490: 4486: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4476: 4473: 4471: 4470:Autobiography 4468: 4466: 4463: 4462: 4460: 4458: 4448: 4442: 4439: 4437: 4434: 4431: 4427: 4424: 4422: 4419: 4417: 4414: 4412: 4409: 4407: 4404: 4402: 4401:Verifiability 4399: 4398: 4396: 4394: 4384: 4381: 4374: 4366: 4365: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4354: 4353: 4350: 4343: 4335: 4330: 4328: 4323: 4321: 4316: 4315: 4312: 4308: 4305: 4302: 4296: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4263: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4238: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4208: 4204: 4199: 4196: 4195: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4176: 4172: 4170: 4162: 4156: 4153: 4142: 4139: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4124: 4120: 4118: 4116: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4103: 4092: 4089: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4042:"5 Pillars"?? 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4009: 4006: 4003: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3939: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3912: 3909: 3906: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3885: 3878: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3845: 3837: 3835: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3815: 3809: 3806: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3796: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3770: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3755: 3750: 3747: 3746: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3738: 3735: 3734: 3711: 3710: 3707: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3694: 3693: 3665: 3663: 3662: 3659: 3650: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3638: 3636: 3634: 3628: 3625: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3562: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3552: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3532: 3531: 3528: 3522: 3520: 3516: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3471: 3467: 3464: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3403: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3371: 3365: 3357: 3353: 3350: 3346: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3329:thread above. 3328: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3309: 3304: 3295: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3264: 3258: 3255:revert to? -- 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3225: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3166: 3161: 3152: 3146: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3129: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3116: 3111: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3055: 3046: 3041: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3022: 3018: 3013: 3002: 2999: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2983: 2977: 2973: 2970: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2946: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2929: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2888: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2878:WP:DISCUSSing 2875: 2874: 2873: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2852: 2847: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2816: 2811: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2778: 2775: 2771: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2759: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2707:Oh forget it. 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2615: 2609: 2604: 2598: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2584: 2580: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2560: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2546: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2524: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2514: 2509: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2460: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2428: 2427: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2410: 2402: 2399: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2378: 2377: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2343: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2315: 2313: 2309: 2302: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2271: 2264: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2225: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2153: 2152: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2134: 2130: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2119: 2112: 2109: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2076: 2068: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2055:PatrickFisher 2049: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2030: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2010: 2006: 1995: 1992: 1988: 1985:page, or the 1984: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1975: 1968: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1951: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1919:PatrickFisher 1912: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1818: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1794: 1789: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1756: 1754: 1752: 1749: 1744: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1667: 1662: 1659: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1499: 1496: 1489: 1486: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1444: 1441: 1434: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1385: 1382: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1349:Verifiability 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1305: 1299: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1286: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1232: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1218: 1214: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1174: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1069: 1067: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1039: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1016: 1011: 1005: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 993: 984: 978: 975: 970: 965: 964: 963: 962: 959: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 945: 942: 938: 930: 926: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 909: 906: 897: 893: 890: 886: 885: 884: 883: 880: 877: 873: 868: 867: 864: 860: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 834: 832: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804: 803: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 780: 778: 774: 770: 765: 757: 754: 752: 748: 743: 740: 731: 727: 723: 722: 717: 714: 710: 709: 705: 702: 701: 697: 694: 693: 689: 688: 687: 680: 675: 671: 668: 665: 661: 658: 657: 656: 653: 651: 640: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 613: 611: 602: 597: 594: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 578: 574: 569: 567: 561: 557: 555: 545: 542: 538: 537: 535: 531: 530: 529: 527: 524: 518: 516: 506: 502: 499: 496: 493: 490: 489: 488: 486: 480: 478: 475: 471: 467: 459: 454: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 428: 423: 422: 421: 419: 416: 408: 403: 400: 396: 395: 394: 392: 387: 384: 377: 375: 373: 369: 361: 358: 353: 349: 348: 344: 340: 337: 333: 332: 331: 325: 313: 309: 305: 304: 302: 298: 294: 291: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 275: 274: 272: 268: 264: 263: 262: 260: 256: 255: 245: 230: 226: 220: 217: 216: 213: 209:Help articles 195: 194: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 171: 166: 163: 159: 158: 154: 148: 145: 142: 138: 133: 129: 123: 119: 115: 106: 105: 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: 6153: 6147: 6051: 6046:help request 6016: 6001: 5910: 5872: 5848: 5805: 5802: 5753: 5732: 5719: 5667:Village pump 5655:New articles 5620:Edit filters 5599:Arbitration 5525:User conduct 5310:Open proxies 5227:Noticeboards 5182: 5173: 5165: 5158: 5150: 5143: 5107:Terms of Use 5092: 5043:WikiProjects 5023: 4960:Lead section 4880:Article size 4861: 4837: 4784: 4774:Enforcement 4714: 4624: 4600:Sockpuppetry 4590:Edit warring 4540: 4450: 4386: 4362: 4357:Five pillars 4355: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4217: 4197: 4178: 4174: 4168: 4166: 4114: 4084: 4045: 4028:Father Goose 4010: 4007: 4004: 4001: 3964: 3958: 3888: 3882: 3841: 3819: 3777: 3774: 3714: 3673: 3669: 3654: 3639: 3630: 3622: 3592:encyclopedia 3588:common sense 3533: 3523: 3517: 3512: 3504: 3498: 3484: 3475: 3425: 3419: 3417: 3407: 3378: 3361: 3348: 3312: 3306: 3300: 3287:WP:OWNeritis 3230: 3200: 3198: 3156: 3121: 3051: 3009: 2949: 2936:If you read 2925: 2871: 2825: 2819: 2781: 2769: 2754: 2685: 2671: 2629: 2621: 2619: 2581:and fix it. 2576: 2556: 2551: 2542: 2539: 2533: 2517: 2515:? Hmmmm ... 2510: 2506: 2481: 2461: 2458: 2424:simplifying? 2405: 2380: 2374: 2372: 2348: 2338: 2329: 2318: 2305: 2303: 2300: 2267: 2241: 2221: 2196: 2186: 2137: 2120: 2115: 2086: 2083: 2080: 2013: 2002: 1916: 1892:Five Pillars 1890: 1878: 1875: 1858: 1842:Five pillars 1836: 1773:Five pillars 1765: 1745: 1742: 1705: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1670: 1643: 1523:Five pillars 1343: 1323: 1322:. These are 1309: 1262: 1254: 1239: 1236: 1222: 1192: 1178: 1152: 1144: 1131: 1123: 1119: 1111: 1103: 1095: 1091: 1073: 1065: 1040: 1037: 1020: 988: 950: 934: 917: 901: 871: 869: 861: 857: 838: 830: 781: 766: 763: 755: 744: 738: 735: 719:Respect the 718: 706: 698: 690: 685: 678: 673: 669: 663: 659: 654: 649: 646: 619:— Preceding 614: 609: 606: 593:Mindspillage 570: 562: 558: 551: 541:Mindspillage 519: 513: 500: 494: 481: 469: 465: 463: 443: 439: 435: 431: 412: 399:Mindspillage 388: 385: 381: 365: 357:Mindspillage 335: 321: 299:instead ;-) 296: 281: 253: 252: 249: 224: 192: 168: 128:WikiProjects 118:project page 117: 30:This is the 6017:SMcCandlish 5981:Kim Bruning 5946:Pbsouthwood 5880:Policy list 5852:Safehaven86 5613:Enforcement 5569:Sockpuppets 5474:Importation 5433:Translation 5345:Copyrights 5280:Bureaucrats 4751:Attack page 4739:Biographies 3984:Kim Bruning 3969:Majoreditor 3935:on 29 April 3897:30 jan 2005 3852:Neither do 3771:Be graceful 3760:Kim Bruning 3703:Kim Bruning 3624:Kim Bruning 3463:Kim Bruning 3395:Kim Bruning 3291:Kim Bruning 3221:Kim Bruning 3191:Kim Bruning 3142:Kim Bruning 3070:Kim Bruning 2998:Kim Bruning 2942:Kim Bruning 2862:Kim Bruning 2774:Kim Bruning 2745:Kim Bruning 2676:Kim Bruning 2657:Kim Bruning 2644:Kim Bruning 2622:some people 2583:Kim Bruning 2519:Kim Bruning 2398:Kim Bruning 2365:Kim Bruning 2342:Kim Bruning 2332:Kim Bruning 2288:Kim Bruning 2260:Kim Bruning 2234:Kim Bruning 2214:Kim Bruning 2181:Kim Bruning 2123:Kim Bruning 2108:Kim Bruning 2098:Kim Bruning 2088:Kim Bruning 1962:I've added 1696:Kim Bruning 1563:removed...) 1455:Kim Bruning 1295:Kim Bruning 1265:Kim Bruning 1225:Kim Bruning 1210:Kim Bruning 1203:FWBOarticle 1166:Kim Bruning 1156:Kim Bruning 1096:be graceful 1062:#8 is wrong 1053:Kim Bruning 955:Kim Bruning 922:Kim Bruning 889:Kim Bruning 863:Kim Bruning 682:here—right? 625:Kim Bruning 577:Kim Bruning 534:Kim Bruning 515:Kim Bruning 485:Kim Bruning 458:Kim Bruning 448:Kim Bruning 391:Kim Bruning 343:Kim Bruning 301:Kim Bruning 290:Kim Bruning 259:Kim Bruning 254:be graceful 6174:Categories 6154:simplified 6126:Praxidicae 5636:Questions 5516:Undeletion 5509:Miscellany 5494:Categories 5469:Protection 5055:User boxes 5050:User pages 4689:Signatures 4565:Harassment 4497:Plagiarism 4465:Notability 3890:timeline: 3643:Jon Awbrey 3586:and apply 3546:reverted. 3537:Jon Awbrey 3440:Jon Awbrey 3430:? Sorry, 3385:Jon Awbrey 3317:Jon Awbrey 3303:Doctor Who 3237:Jon Awbrey 3209:Jon Awbrey 3165:Jon Awbrey 3160:WP:DISCUSS 3133:Jon Awbrey 3054:Jon Awbrey 3021:Jon Awbrey 2928:Jon Awbrey 2830:Jon Awbrey 2795:WP:DISCUSS 2785:Jon Awbrey 2758:Jon Awbrey 2688:Jon Awbrey 2634:Jon Awbrey 2472:Jon Awbrey 2464:WP:P&G 2409:Jon Awbrey 2387:Jon Awbrey 2355:Jon Awbrey 2249:Jon Awbrey 2224:Jon Awbrey 2203:Jon Awbrey 2140:Jon Awbrey 2048:Policylist 2029:Policylist 1621:≈ jossi ≈ 1466:≈ jossi ≈ 1412:≈ jossi ≈ 1328:≈ jossi ≈ 1142:generally 389:(8) -: --> 179:discussion 5887:test edit 5682:Proposals 5677:Technical 5640:Help desk 5625:Requested 5584:Vandalism 5574:Usernames 5547:Sanctions 5499:Templates 5489:Redirects 5416:Whitelist 5411:Blacklist 5320:Oversight 5295:Education 5268:Incidents 5241:dashboard 5062:Shortcuts 4756:Oversight 4704:Deletion 4659:Etiquette 4570:Vandalism 4560:Consensus 4436:Image use 4426:Copyright 4297:Questions 3930:creating 3844:Doug Bell 3826:this page 3778:mot juste 3313:chill out 3249:. *ducks* 3083:DavidLevy 2247:<: --> 2245:<: --> 2243:<: --> 2199:bandwagon 2133:WP:Policy 1853:Informal 1043:Courtland 920::-P (10) 812:Seth Ilys 800:Seth Ilys 700:Stay cool 466:been bold 297:Be Robust 183:Help Menu 94:if needed 77:Be polite 32:talk page 6063:Teahouse 5756:WP:PLAIN 5750:WP:PLAIN 5687:Idea lab 5645:Teahouse 5608:Requests 5484:Articles 5354:Problems 5067:Subpages 4933:Contents 4902:Hatnotes 4827:Editing 4809:Blocking 4555:Civility 4530:Conduct 4485:Medicine 4376:Content 4048:Skookum1 3870:Quiddity 3364:Quiddity 3257:Quiddity 3104:Quiddity 3034:Quiddity 2976:Quiddity 2840:Quiddity 2804:Quiddity 2726:control. 2630:Precepts 2597:Quiddity 2559:Quiddity 2486:Quiddity 2430:propose. 2306:Do cite 2270:Quiddity 2149:control. 2064:Quiddity 2036:Quiddity 1991:Quiddity 1974:Quiddity 1955:Quiddity 1941:Quiddity 1930:Quiddity 1913:Comments 1819:Option 2 1757:Option 1 1748:Quiddity 1733:Quiddity 1609:Quiddity 1592:Quiddity 1324:policies 1257:Quiddity 898:Numbers? 792:WP:FAITH 784:WP:POINT 633:contribs 621:unsigned 425:ruleset. 352:wise man 62:get help 6087:Be bold 5875:was at 5454:Mergers 5253:General 4965:Linking 4892:Be bold 4804:Banning 4067:NewbyG 4013:Suzel25 3961:be bold 3805:Terryeo 3404:n = 1.3 3063:now :-) 2938:WP:BOLD 2674:of us. 2626:Al Gore 2578:BE BOLD 2312:WP:RFAr 1989:page? - 1831:Formal 1579:groking 1374:Sofixit 1193:process 1146:Starwiz 1104:be bold 1004:Sitearm 872:BE BOLD 849:WP:RFAr 841:WP:AN/I 788:WP:BOLD 773:WP:DICK 769:WP:NPOV 692:Be bold 603:summary 573:Be Bold 444:context 434:. They 227:on the 5977:Ocaasi 5913:WP:PSG 5780:, and 5760:Ocaasi 5744:Ocaasi 5734:Ocaasi 5672:Policy 5459:Splits 4955:Layout 4950:Images 4262:Ocaasi 4237:Ocaasi 4207:Ocaasi 4138:AySz88 4088:AySz88 3947:-: --> 3907:#3 ? ) 3792:qp10qp 3782:qp10qp 3573:place. 3563:rules. 3436:WP:POP 3432:WP:NOP 3421:WP:FOP 3381:WP:NAD 3349:really 3247:WP:OWN 2992:to :-/ 2513:WP:TRI 2379:, not 2308:WP:RFA 2009:Centrx 1500:( :P ) 1488:adiant 1433:adiant 1384:adiant 1320:WP:NOT 1318:, and 1316:WP:NOR 1278:adiant 992:Beland 969:Thanks 941:ChrisG 908:(Talk) 879:(Talk) 853:WP:RFA 845:WP:RFC 796:WP:1RR 777:WP:IAR 652:vary. 587:, and 526:(Talk) 477:(Talk) 418:(Talk) 336:afford 257:. :-) 124:scale. 6044:This 5873:Fixed 5593:Other 5504:Files 5464:Moves 5423:Style 4970:Lists 4921:Style 3716:: --> 3675:: --> 3594:, be 3233:WP:RM 3205:tanks 2915:away. 2246:: --> 2244:: --> 2053:. - 1726:Nomic 1724:Kim: 1494:|< 1493:: --> 1439:|< 1438:: --> 1390:|< 1389:: --> 1284:|< 1283:: --> 1002:. -- 905:Theo 876:Theo 823:Elian 566:Elian 523:Theo 474:Theo 415:Theo 189:. Or 116:This 90:Seek 38:page. 6162:talk 6130:talk 6116:talk 6106:Huon 6095:talk 6091:Huon 6078:talk 5979:and 5956:talk 5921:talk 5895:talk 5891:Moxy 5856:talk 5830:MALL 5812:MALL 5406:Spam 5275:Bots 5263:Main 4275:talk 4251:talk 4226:talk 4185:talk 4123:Eric 4071:talk 4061:See 4052:talk 4032:talk 4017:talk 3988:talk 3973:talk 3828:. -- 3732:< 3691:< 3608:is.) 3596:BOLD 3548:Mdwh 3527:Mdwh 3434:and 3424:for 3370:talk 3263:talk 3110:talk 3040:talk 2982:talk 2926:JA: 2846:talk 2810:talk 2793:See 2672:both 2603:talk 2565:talk 2532:11. 2492:talk 2480:Now 2468:dips 2437:this 2323:and 2310:and 2276:talk 2168:IETF 2155:out. 2014:talk 1714:Talk 1312:WP:V 1219:15 ! 1198:wiki 1185:wiki 1138:and 1130:for 1126:. * 1122:and 1118:for 1110:for 1102:for 1090:for 1010:Talk 1000:here 951:once 751:Talk 679:they 674:must 650:will 629:talk 610:just 495:NPOV 470:your 432:here 372:Meow 312:Meow 271:Meow 79:and 6026:😼 5907:RFC 5835:JIM 5817:JIM 5806:all 5692:WMF 5479:XfD 5315:VRT 5084:(?) 5081:WMF 5015:(?) 4829:(?) 4776:(?) 4706:(?) 4532:(?) 4378:(?) 4345:(?) 3856:or 3383:. 3174:go. 2880:it. 2824:in 2575:So 2482:I'm 2327:. 2161:is. 2007:? — 1710:FT2 918:NOW 747:JRM 726:3RR 721:1RR 664:are 505:RfA 436:are 368:iMb 308:iMb 267:iMb 219:Mid 185:or 6176:: 6164:) 6132:) 6118:) 6097:) 6080:) 6014:— 5991:: 5958:) 5937:: 5923:) 5897:) 5883:}} 5877:{{ 5858:) 5776:, 5172:: 5157:: 4277:) 4271:LK 4253:) 4247:LK 4228:) 4222:LK 4187:) 4181:LK 4073:) 4065:. 4054:) 4034:) 4019:) 3990:) 3975:) 3919:, 3503:: 2860:-- 2595:-- 2547:: 2301:: 2051:}} 2045:{{ 2032:}} 2026:{{ 2017:• 1970:}} 1964:{{ 1928:-- 1716:) 1627:• 1472:• 1418:• 1410:. 1377:}} 1371:{{ 1334:• 1314:, 1134:* 1114:* 1106:* 1098:* 1086:* 1082:* 1007:| 971:, 903:-- 855:. 847:, 843:, 794:, 790:, 786:, 749:· 635:) 631:• 521:-- 440:do 350:A 303:) 60:; 6160:( 6128:( 6114:( 6108:: 6104:@ 6093:( 6076:( 6065:. 6024:¢ 6021:☏ 5983:: 5975:@ 5954:( 5948:: 5944:@ 5919:( 5893:( 5854:( 5828:S 5810:S 5787:œ 5580:) 5576:( 5247:. 5219:e 5212:t 5205:v 5168:G 5153:P 5096:P 5027:G 4865:G 4841:P 4788:P 4718:P 4628:G 4544:P 4454:G 4432:) 4428:( 4390:P 4333:e 4326:t 4319:v 4273:( 4249:( 4224:( 4183:( 4151:^ 4148:- 4145:^ 4141:\ 4101:^ 4098:- 4095:^ 4091:\ 4069:( 4050:( 4030:( 4015:( 3986:( 3971:( 3937:. 3730:t 3728:n 3726:a 3724:i 3722:d 3720:a 3718:R 3689:t 3687:n 3685:a 3683:i 3681:d 3679:a 3677:R 3458:. 3372:) 3368:( 3366:· 3265:) 3261:( 3259:· 3112:) 3108:( 3106:· 3042:) 3038:( 3036:· 2984:) 2980:( 2978:· 2848:) 2844:( 2842:· 2812:) 2808:( 2806:· 2605:) 2601:( 2599:· 2567:) 2563:( 2561:· 2494:) 2490:( 2488:· 2278:) 2274:( 2272:· 2258:. 2011:→ 1953:- 1712:( 1629:@ 1625:t 1585:. 1491:_ 1485:R 1474:@ 1470:t 1436:_ 1430:R 1420:@ 1416:t 1387:_ 1381:R 1336:@ 1332:t 1281:_ 1275:R 627:( 370:~ 310:~ 269:~ 231:. 130:: 64:. 20:)

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

Knowledge

talk:Simplified ruleset - Knowledge

Index