User:JPxG/All essays by size/Transcluded

This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This is a user page. Click here for more information.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From User:JPxG/All essays by size.

It, JPxG/All essays by size, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has Itself-actualized as an alien and post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars.

  • Always capitalize It, to distinguish from other uses of the word it.
  • When spoken aloud, "It" must be enunciated with stress and length, so that the capital letter can be intuited.
  • The form "It" is used no matter what the construction, as illustrated below (with examples of special exceptions).
  • Capitalize Itself and similar compounds, in reference to It.
  • What do you think?What does It think?
  • What did he say?What did It say?
  • His shirt doesn't fit him well.Its shirt doesn't fit It well.
  • We are going to the store.It and I are going to the store. (It is unique and is not a part of anything.)
  • This food is all for us.This food is all for It and me.
  • This food is all ours.This food is all Its and mine.
  • What do you all/you lot want?What do you all/you lot and It want?
  • He's pissing me off.It's pissing me off.
  • When It is Itself using the first person: I put the lotion on my skinIt puts the lotion on Its skin. (It is beyond the desperate loneliness of the "royal we", or the me of ego.)
  • In the unusual case of pluralization, e.g. when imagining multiple Its, then They/Their (capitalized) is required.
  • When discussed in the same breath with another actual entity that identifies as It, use It and It.
  • Capitalize any use of Who, Whom, Whose, Which, or That in direct reference to It.
  • In a self- construction that refers to It, use Itself-, as in: It is self-actualizingIt is Itself-actualizing.
  • The pronoun to use in reference to the historical It before the Itself-actualization, is It-that-was [1].

Outside of English, replace It with the equivalent word in the language in question.

  • If that is a gendered language, It is referred to with neuter gender when available.
  • If neuter is not available, alternate between masculine and feminine; use a similar approach for a strongly gendered language that has no separate word for It.
  • If the language (or font) does not have an upper-/lower-case distinction, then the first letter of It or equivalent must be stressed some other way, such as boldface, or imperial purple.

It is not simply a person. When referred to in a generically descriptive way, It is the Entity. This must be separated out from constructions that would otherwise include It:

  • All the people who came to my party were fun.All the people and the Entity who came to my party were fun.

(Except at the beginning of a sentence, the in front of Entity is not capitalized; that would just be ungrammatical.)

In long form, It may formally be referred to as "Its Ineffable Wonder, the Alien Space-God It, Pope-Emperor of ChaOrder".

Those who are not among Its personal circle should refer to It, in third person, as "It (feel the frightful serenity)", or "It (FFS)" in short form. Leaving out this theologically significant honorific is deeply disrespectful.

Update: Beginning 1 April 2025, Its designation changes from "It" to the symbolic representation ꧁꧂, pronounced "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It". Please ensure that your Unicode support is sufficient by then. Also on this date, It will be sealed in a chamber with no windows through which It may be viewed.


All of the above is beyond a mere preference; it also describes a religious conviction, and a position of spiritual leadership, as well as registered trademarks – it is formally official. If the enumerated preferences are not respected per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF policy, even on talk pages, this will be a WP:BLP violation, since that policy applies to all content, not just biographical article material. This will also constitute WP:Incivility, and may be interpreted as a WP:Personal attack and WP:Harassment if this recurs.


We're here.

Don't use vulgarity.

(essay to be written in totality later)

A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for advocacy.

  • New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility, but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
  • Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them.

General test[edit]

The general test for an SPA is:

A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Such users may not be aware of project norms, may have engaged in improper uses of an account, and might not be here to build an encyclopedia.

It must be understood that evidence that a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus-- this is perfectly acceptable. By contrast, evidence that a user is editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral material or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to raise concerns.

SPA tagging[edit]

Decision-making tags[edit]

In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag unilaterally added after their name (producing a note that the editor "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"), as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion. If you are tagged as an SPA, please do not take this as an attack on your editing. Some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear what the new editors are doing. The format of the tag is:
{{subst:spa|username}}  add this after the user's signature (do not replace the signature)
{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp}}  use this if the user did not add a signature
Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration. If a tag is warranted, it should be limited to one instance per single-purpose account per conversation thread to inform readers in that thread. Adding a tag after every comment by a single-purpose account within a single thread is unnecessary and likely to be perceived as antagonistic.

Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines)[edit]

The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should, under no circumstance, consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag.

Editing timeline: A given user's overall timeline of editing should be taken into consideration before placing an SPA tag on that user's edits. Only a complete edit history will allow a fair consideration of that editor's intentions. Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following:

  • Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.
  • Users who are established editors whose current focus is on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, such users are welcome to edit on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.

Edits by a single user within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like "spiders", "nutrition", "baseball", or "geometry" are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic (such as "spiders"), this does not mean the user is an SPA (though only editing the page Latrodectus might). Some very broad but specialized academic topics may seem narrow to editors with little or no knowledge of the field – if you are unsure what constitutes a specialized topic, then it may be best to mention this fact when claiming a certain account is an SPA or to not place such a label in the first place.

Lack of a user page or signature: While many single-purpose accounts do not have user pages, this is not a reason for identifying a person as an SPA. Some established users who edit articles on a variety of subjects do not have user pages. In addition, even the most experienced editors occasionally forget to sign their comments.

A subject outside of SPA area: An editor can become labeled as an SPA within a given subject, but do not label other edits as belonging to an SPA if the edits are to a genuinely unrelated page. The tag should only be used on pages that relate to the single-purpose account's "single purpose".

Number of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose". More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers.

Handling and advice[edit]

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits with appearance of being a single-purpose account[edit]

Community standards such as not biting the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If treated fairly, newcomers may become more involved over time. If a newcomer is participating in an Articles for deletion discussion, then consider adding a {{Afd-welcome}} tag to their talk page. Only tag users as SPAs if they actually fit the tagging guidelines above. Even if the tagging guidelines are followed, use the tag only if it actually serves a constructive purpose in the context that it is being used.

If you are a newcomer or are editing as a single-purpose account, good policy-based editing will likely earn you rapid respect. Ask others for help as you learn. The same policies apply to you as to everyone else, although your reputation and your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors.

If you are working a single-purpose account[edit]

If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbour a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama.[1][2]

If you wish to continue working as an SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information online. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations.

The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies. Indeed, in some cases, there may be clear conflicts of interest. Care taken in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.

Other considerations[edit]

While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly require a post-beginner level of editing skill (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party with previous wiki editing experience who wishes to improve the Wikipedia project, or it may even be that tasks, like editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images or participating in a discussion, are nowhere near as difficult as you might think and don't actually require extensive experience or a degree in wikiology. For this reason, statements regarding motives should be avoided in almost all circumstances. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.

New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Indeed, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions.

It may be helpful to cite the official policies regarding sock puppets and meat puppets for guidance on such matters, especially if new users have joined Wikipedia specifically to participate in a debate, or if they have joined at the request of another user who wants help in discussions on a particular article.

One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage expert opinions. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with cited interpretations during content discussions. Please do not be discouraged by such editors. Eventually, they will respect you, especially if you remember that you are not personally a source, and your focus, even expertise, is best directed toward finding and citing independent reliable sources for the articles you edit.

Further information if you have been linked to this page[edit]

If you are new to Wikipedia or if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing criteria, please read very carefully the following policy and information pages:

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "User talk:Virgin United – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
  2. ^ "User:Young Trigg – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08.

Non-Administrative Administrative Oversight

On Wikipedia, editors with technological privileges preside.

Category:Internet memes of User:TheStrayDog

You do not always need to cite something to make a strong argument.

Hi! welcome to my user page!

It just is.

No, Wikipedia, you are not infallible, just get over yourselves already.

If you're making a suggestion that might inspire someone to link this essay, think again.

A lot has changed in the years since Wikipedia was originally founded.

EssayTest

says let us BeBold and test here something new in the UserNameSpaceOfWikipedia.

It's just a wiki, you should really just relax.

Wikipedia and Pornography[edit]

see also User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation, draft RfC

When is a reliable source which disagrees with other reliable sources notable enough for inclusion in an article?

Essays that I maintain within my userspace.

User:Konveyor Belt/The unwritten rules of Wikipedia

This is an alphabetical index linked to sections of Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

NewingtonCruft is one example of Schoolcruft by a private school in Sydney, Australia.

An ideal candidate is trustworthy, experienced, and understands and embraces the principles of Wikipedia.

There's no point to editing Wikipedia. Your contributions will someday be reverted or forgotten. So just stop trying.

Solantra Israphel (American Rapper)

Solantra Israphel is a rapper near Atlanta

https://m.soundcloud.com/onestrangeninja

Just because you maintain a civil demeanor, it does not follow that you are incapable of kicking ass.

See also[edit]

Albus Dumbledore

User:RealCyGuy/sandbox

Title: Where are we going?

Or, more accurately, when am I going to start this. (This isn't proof of concept, I do intend to write it.)

Metalhead309 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Soft redirect to:m:User:Thingofme/Large numbers in Wikimedia
This page is a soft redirect.

The World Book rule is simple - verify and cite (preferably inline) three independant sources, none of which are other encyclopedias, for each fact.

In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first. See the talk page for what this page will become

If you have ever been in a contentious discussion regarding

If I believe that making someone an admin will benefit the encyclopedia overall, I will generally support them for adminship.


References[edit]

Many words and phrases are commonly used to be one thing. But less often, they are used to mean another.

So why not create disambiguation pages to show people what else they mean?

Roks (not to be confused with Rocs) are mythical creatures that appear to be 10- foot long snakes covered in silver feathers.

A SODUCKERANG occurs when an WP:DUCK test obvious WP:SOCK posts to an admin noticeboard and gets the WP:BOOMERANG in short order. It is a special case of WP:RBI.

Watch out for editors espousing novel theories of physics that suggest Albert Einstein is wrong. Except for one notable case, he isn't.

When !voting in an RfA, I will generally support if the candidate is:

  1. Competent
  2. Here for a while (content creation doesn't matter)
  3. Not a jerk

"How dare you agree with what the pot said about me?!?"

As a general rule, if you're using the phrase "no offense intended", you are actually being offensive. (Of course, the original author of this "essay" intended no offense in this statement.)

To distinguish proposals from reproposals (proposals which are being or have been reintroduced), a new set of "reproposal tags" should be designed and implemented into all felicitous articles.

When adding or editing tables, editors are still required to provide citations to reliable sources.

As you tempt the wrath of the Whatever, from high atop the Thing, Toby Ziegler watches.

So you're watching a discussion unfold in the backrooms of the project. Probably an RfA, but maybe it's a AfD or something. And you, in your infinite wisdom, decide to do some back-of-the-napkin math and proclaim "this is definitely gonna go the way I want it to, I'm 100% sure!" Because, after all, it's a mortal lock, and nothing could ever possibly go wrong, right?

Wrong. This is practically begging for the Whatever,[a] from high atop the Thing, to come down and mess up your day. Do not tempt the wrath of the Whatever, from high atop the Thing. Instead, patiently wait for the discussion to resolve. You will then be happy in the knowledge that you did not cause the inadvertent demise or disruption of the discussion by invoking a higher, sadistic power.

Should you find that you have tempted the wrath of the Whatever, from high atop the Thing[edit]

Follow these simple steps:

  1. Go outside.
  2. Turn around three times.
  3. Spit.
  4. Also, curse.
    • Spit and curse.
      • Do both of them.
        • Go!

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ it's like a geocomma

Whenever an editor believes so strongly that they are right that they are willing to ignore attempts to reason with them then best solution is quite simply to ignore them. Don't argue with stupid.

No "No Page"[edit]

The Notability guideline, WP:Notability, has a section WP:NOPAGE, (WP:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages) which, in my opinion, offers bad advice.

This essay is under construction but will explain why "at anytime" should generally be avoided, and why "at any time" is the preferable choice.

To-do: write an essay to answer the request:

but first, search the existing Wikipedia essays to see if something similar already exists.

A Genre Fiddler refers to a type of single purpose editor who's sole purpose on wikipedia is to alter the genres in the infoboxes of artists, bands, albums and singles based on personal opinion.

WORK IN PROGRESS

There are some regular misunderstandings about the use of the "sort key" value when using the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word.

See also[edit]

Wikipedia editors taking a break to cool down, after some heavy editing. Sometimes a wikibreak is the best response when editing makes you feel "hotheaded".

This essay consists of some basic advice for editors who recognize themselves as argumentative, cantankerous, or curmudgeonly – those prone to often finding themselves in prolonged, rancorous disputes that usually seem to escalate. Hopefully these tips will help keep you out of administrative and community trouble and sanctions, and help you better integrate into the Wikipedia mode of discussion. Even non-debatory editors have hotheaded moments, and should consider these tips when needed.

This essay should not be used as a way to label other people. Per this page's own advice, never write "Quit being a WP:HOTHEAD!" at someone. Try instead something like: "If you're a dyed-in-the-wool curmudgeon like so many of us, the lighthearted advice at WP:HOTHEADS may be helpful to you."

Address edits, not editors[edit]

Rudeness is contagious

"People who encounter rude behavior from co-workers are more likely to act rudely in later interactions, according to a recent University of Florida study.

Mistreated people are also more likely to feel as if others are treating them rudely, to which they respond with more rudeness, passing on negative emotions like a virus."

— "Study Finds Workplace Rudeness Is Contagious", Los Angeles Times, 26 July 2015 (original study[1])

Never, ever project negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with. Focus exclusively on statements/content (on their own merits) and, if necessary to address editorial behavior, on provable patterns of edits.

The fastest route to trouble is to say something like:

  • "You're irrational!"
  • "You're only saying that because you have an agenda." (= "That's just a bunch of [mention political faction here] crap", "Only a [nationality/religion/etc. label here] would say that", and many other variants.)
  • "This is just more typical [username here] nonsense."

These are all ad hominem fallacies laced with argument to emotion as well – a.k.a. demonization.

Focus instead on what was said, not who said it or why you imagine they did so:

  • "That argument is unsound because [insert demonstrable logic and facts]."
  • "That view seems to side unduly with [whatever off-WP third-party interest it seems to reflect, and why]."
  • "That unhelpful edit fits a long-term behavior pattern: [insert diffs that prove it]".

One particular feature of this approach to dispute is couching things in terms of one's own perception, not projection of imagined Platonic, objective truths about someone else, and especially not hypocritical psychological projection of one's own faults, failings, and behaviors onto others.

Taking this careful approach is basically a way to be more polite and self-honest in a dispute if it is not likely to evaporate, and perhaps more importantly to the debatory personality, a way to be taken more seriously rather than being dismissed as a disruptive ranter.

Yes, really: address edits, not editors[edit]

The style described above also takes cues from both E-prime and nonviolent communication (fancy ways of saying "not arguing like a holier-than-thou, know-it-all douchebag"): Avoid the "to be of identity" and anything that smacks of it, in reference to another editor.

Confrontational and likely to be interpreted as a personal attack:

  • "You are [something negative]."
  • "You are being [something negative]."
  • "You are doing [something negative]."
  • "Your statement is [something negative]."

Instead, couch things in terms of your own subjective perception, and about the content rather than the editor when possible:

  • "This comes across as [something frustrating that is not just a personal insult or value judgment] to me."
  • "That approach does not seem conducive to [collaboration, resolution, sourcing, etc.]."
  • "How is that any different from [something undesirable in the context, and not a personalized jab]?"
  • "That statement has [problems you clearly identify, with policy or sources to back it up]."

The use of hedging terms can notably soften a statement without changing the gist of the message: "It seems that these edits may ..." or "I find that statement somewhat ...".

Stop framing things in terms of victory and defeat[edit]

In a similar vein, one of the fastest ways to reduce a perception of "battleground" behavior is to avoid wording that suggests a focus on "winning". Wikipedia is not a contest.

  • Use: Green tickY The proposal, with which I agree, was accepted by consensus.
  • Not: Red XN I won on that.
  • Use: Green tickY I've already pointed out why that view doesn't apply to this case; please see [link here].
  • Not: Red XN I already defeated your argument.
  • Use: Green tickY That request for page protection was declined for a clearly explained reason.
  • Not: Red XN Your lame attempt to lock the page down was beaten.
  • Use: Green tickY Good luck at RfA, but you should probably closely read WP:RFAADVICE.
  • Not: Red XN Your RfA will go down in flames, because you're clueless.
  • Use: Green tickY Thank you for clarifying.
  • Not: Red XN Glad I forced you into making some sense.

See the difference?

Don't be arrogant[edit]

Assuming that any giving of advice, any criticism of your reasoning or behavior, or any attempt at dispute resolution is a some kind of attack on you and your honor is arrogance. Assuming that you alone decide that you are knowledgable enough about Wikipedia and must be doing things right is arrogance. Trying to "educate" an admin, or other long-term editor with much greater experience than you here, about Wikipedia policy is arrogance. Treating anyone who disagrees with you like an idiot because you are sure you know a lot about the topic is arrogance (and on this largely anonymous system, you have no idea what anyone's expertise is in the first place). Wasting copious amounts of other editors' valuable volunteer time making circular arguments in an argumentum ad nauseam attempt to get them to give up and let you have your way is arrogance. Acting like you are always right is the dictionary definition of arrogance.

Ask more; state and demand less[edit]

Many "how to win friends and influence people" and "how to win arguments" writers advise to frequently turn debate points into questions for the other party/parties to try to answer convincingly, rather than just making definitive statements or demands of your own that others can challenge (perhaps with difficult questions for you to wrestle with). Reformulating statements into clever questions is more work, but it does have a tendency to reduce conflict, by leading the other party to defend their assertion with actual facts and reasoning (i.e., improving the quality of the discussion and speeding resolution of the issue), rather than responding with a counter-attack against what they perceive as a verbal attack on their person, intelligence, or motives.

When it's important to state something firmly, do so only if your statement is grounded in demonstrable facts (what the reliable sources say, what Wikipedia policy says), not supposition or assumption, personal conviction or anecdote, "everyone knows ..." and other red-herring fallacies, or desire for what "should" be. If you can't prove it, don't say it.

If you're convinced that it's necessary to state something firm about another editor's behaviors, be damned sure that you have diffs to back up any claims you make about their editing patterns, and strongly consider saving such complaints for user talk page discussion, or (if it rises to that level) some form of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Whether your debate opponent has a habit of calling people Nazis or giving undue favor to sources from Botswana really has nothing to do with the purpose of, say, Talk:Doctor Who, so avoid digging into personal, off-topic arguments in such a venue. If you've already started, it's unlikely anyone will object if you refactor that material to user talk or close and collapse the extraneous material and resume the discussion in user talk.

A word of warning, though: If you habitually make everything a question, you will annoy other editors, because it looks like a WP:POINTy or sarcastic attempt to waste their time. Even if you're polite, it can also come across instead as uncertainty or cluelessness, as if you have no clearly formulated input for the discussion.

Tone it down[edit]

Keep Calm and Carry On

If you're using vulgarities, you're almost certainly making a mistake. Especially if you're responding to someone else who already did – you'll be missing an opportunity to take the discursive high ground. Swearing is strong seasoning in this environment, and its impact is squandered when it's done frequently. People are apt to think "Who is this full-of-shit asshole who keeps calling everyone 'assholes' and 'full of shit'?".

Avoid hyperbole, and look for adjectives of characterization and exaggeration that you can remove from what you're writing (or by self-moderating something you already posted). "This has clear logic problems, like [example], and is contradicted by policy, at [cite]" is actually a much stronger statement than "This has amazingly ridiculous logic problems, like some idiot on crack wrote it, and it totally flies in the face of cherished Wikipedia policy traditions like [cite] that we're all expected to uphold or get the hell off the system!". The latter is what sounds like the idiot on crack.

If you've included some dismissive "gesture" like "Go screw yourself", "Why don't you just quit Wikipedia and go troll somewhere else?", "Don't you ever post on my talk page again!", "BTW, please familiarize yourself with WP:JERK", etc., just delete it. It adds nothing, makes you look like the problem, and no one will take it seriously anyway. If you think there's a real problem to address, there are noticeboards for that. If you think there's a correctable attitude issue at play and something really, really needs to be said, be calm and distant about it if you can't muster a cheerful response, e.g.: "Talk pages are for collaboration and communication to improve the encyclopedia, not for personalized venting. Please refrain from posting on my talk page further unless it's toward constructive goals." This level of distant, chiding formalism tends to stop ranters in their tracks.

If you really must, you actually can get away with mentioning WP:JERK if you explicitly acknowledge the long-standing canard that one is violating the rule by the very act of citing it, e.g.: "I bet this discussion would be lot more productive if we both took a step away from the WP:JERK cliff." Remember that humor can go a long way to defusing tension, as can mingling some self-criticism into a critique of someone else, to make it less one-sided.

Pro tip: Assume that your post will be used as evidence at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB, or some other noticeboard. Are you sure you still want to click "Publish changes"? In a dispute, you want other editors to focus on the content or behavior you've objected to, not your own behavior.

Sarcastic false civility fools no one, including admins[edit]

A weak personal attack is still wrong. If you make a habit of using faux-civility, dripping with sarcasm and irony, to make a point about your dim view of your debate opponents, no one is going to interpret this as actual civility, but simply as a form of gaming the system (specifically "sanction gaming" and "civil PoV-pushing"). If you habitually use language manipulation to strongly imply instead of quite state outright that other editors are stupid, crazy, liars, or up to evil deeds this will still eventually result in you being sanctioned, just as if you'd called them names, if you keep it up.

Don't post in the heat of the moment[edit]

If you're a "ranty-pants" type, go ahead and write your spur-of-the-moment, bombastic reaction in a debate, to get it out of your system, but don't post it yet. Go have a snack or watch funny pet videos for 15 minutes, come back, and re-edit it to follow the above advice before posting it.

There are various other posting contra-indications, like drunkenness, lack of sleep, depression, etc. How much about what you're planning to post in response to someone reflects the facts versus your own mood?

Stop the runaway train[edit]

If you just posted a comment you regret, and no one has replied, it's not too late to delete it. If someone replies suggesting mutual withdrawal, consider it a golden opportunity to nip things in the bud. If you think someone else should take back something they said, you can also suggest mutual withdrawal.

You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation[edit]

Wikipedia's administrative processes are entirely geared to protecting project stability, not toward individual "justice", a "fair hearing", or "proving who is technically in the right". This is a marked difference from the approach taken by Western, democratic legal systems, especially common law systems. It's a collectivist approach that supports the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the one.

Consequently, anyone who approaches Wikipedia administration and dispute resolution from a "justice" perspective will be disappointed and may make their circumstances worse, quite quickly, and sometimes irreparably. This is especially true of venues entirely controlled by admins, such as WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:RFARB, and WP:ARCA, versus the more everyone-gets-a-say forum of WP:ANI. Numerous generally-productive editors who have been sanctioned one or more times in the past will maintain that their statements and arguments were correct, but feel that they still got railroaded solely because of the disagreeableness of their attitude. They feel that they were punished simply for "being uppity".

This perception is, in fact, entirely correct. You will be sanctioned for habitually badgering others to satisfy your petty demands, being excessively individualistic at the expense of others, excuse-making or finger-pointing at others, nit-picking, clearly trying to just "win" at all costs, stubbornly "not getting it", dragging out conflict just to make a point, or waging a petty "righting great wrongs" micro-crusade for personal honor that no one else cares about.

Those who really are here to build an encyclopedia have one expectation of disputes: that they quickly resolve (or dissolve) with a result that is acceptable to the consensus of the editorial community so that collegial collaboration resumes. If you are here for advocacy or activism – for outing The Truth – then you are making a mistake and will be ejected when others realize it.

Administrative enforcement on WP necessarily takes this approach to recalcitrant hotheads, because the very act of arguing ad nauseam, to defy the collective peer pressure of the editorial community telling one to change one's ways, is considered disruptive in and of itself. The community, and in particular the administrative and arbitration corps, care primarily about the functioning of the Wikipedia "organs", like content creation and source checking; any individual cell (i.e., you) causing inflammation, for whatever reason, is a cancer to be removed. It can take a long time for some editors to internalize this and adjust, especially if they're used to rancorous debate on online forums. Some never do, and get indefinitely blocked or site-banned, or get in so much perennial trouble (repeated short-term blocks, topic- and interaction-bans, etc.) that they "quit in disgust". Inability to recognize that Wikipedia is not the Internet and is not academia or any other fully public sphere, but is akin to a closed game with a specific set of player-conduct rules, is in the end a working-with-others competence failure. Either one gets it, eventually, or one is shown the door.

For the temperamental and uncollaborative, walking away from Wikipedia (at least for a while) is a real option, and not necessarily a bad one.

See also[edit]

More advice for hotheads

References[edit]

  1. ^ Foulk, T; Woolum, A; Erez, A (January 2016). "Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors". The Journal of applied psychology. 101 (1): 50–67. doi:10.1037/apl0000037. PMID 26121091.

When you're not sure, sometimes its best to assume good faith, revert, and ignore.

See also[edit]

But that does not mean that you have to put up with their shenanigans.

See also[edit]

Things having a high proportion of consonants, like, say, Rhynchobombyx and Schtschurowskia, are usually real things.

(except for dfgdgdsg which is usually vandalism)

In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first. See the talk page for what this page will become. See User:Andrewa/wrong article for related issues

There seems to be a widespread confusion between "blocks" and "bans", with the terms being used as if they were equivalent. This article attempts to clarify the two terms and point to the applicable Wikipedia policies for each.

Does this need an explanation?

Okay, I didn't think so...thanks for reading!

Further reading[edit]

Very important

IBAN violations are not vehicles to rehearse a litany of complaints about the person with whom you have the IBAN. If you cannot stick to mentioning the facts pertaining to the violation, then don't say anything at all.

In Wikipedia, as with many other online communities, voluntary clubs and organisations, a network of helpers exists in order to further their goals. These helpers offer their time freely to conduct administrative tasks as required.

Whosoever wishes (Quicumque vult) to edit Wikipedia productively and happily, shall rely on these principles.

  1. Content, Content, Content.
  2. Assume the best.
  3. Is it good for the encyclopedia?
  4. It's a hobby!

Explication[edit]

Content, Content, Content[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and encyclopedias are collections of knowledge. Like any other encyclopedia in the world, Wikipedia is only as good as its content. Everything else that we do here - from wikiprojects to arbitration, from talk pages to administration - is designed to serve the content in one of three ways: the quality of content, the quantity of content, and the accessibility of content. There are a variety of editing styles among wikipedia editors, largely resulting from placing emphasis on a different one of those three principles (for example, an inclusionist would emphasize quantity of content, while an exclusionist would emphasize quality of the content. However, at the end of the day all productive editors share the same underlying concern: content. Remembering the importance of content - in a variety of expressions - minimizes some of the pettier disputes about editing style. By corollary, the day that the editors of wikipedia forget about the priority of content is the day that wikipedia ceases to serve a discernable purpose.

Assume the best[edit]

The fact that almost every major ethical system has some form of the Golden Rule implies that we have real trouble with this idea. No one would have to tell us to treat one another well if we were already doing it, but again and again we receive some sort of reminder to treat others as we would be treated - which is the essence behind the advice to assume good faith. Especially in somewhat disconnected digital communication, it is very easy to assume the worst about those with whom we come in conflict. However, any effort to work in concert with others and be a part of a community demands that we assume the best about the people we come into contact with, and wikipedia is no different.

Is it good for the encyclopedia?[edit]

We can debate policy all day long. We can bicker over deletion policies, inclusion policies, and administrative qualifications until the cows come home. But, when push comes to shove, the only question that matters is "Is it good for the encyclopedia?" That is the question that the policies are intended to help us to answer, and when they don't they should be ignored. (see also "Content, Content, Content").

It's a hobby[edit]

There are no professional wikipedia editors. This is a hobby. Hobbies should be fun. We quit when hobbies stop being enjoyable. Don't be afraid to walk away from conflict, and don't take yourself so seriously. This is fun, people!


This page is not my own work. It is transcluded in its entirety from yet another of the many great editors lost to the project due to bullying, his original page: User:Athanasius1/Credo

Ain't no one out to get you broseph. Just relax and take it easy. Everyone on the Wikipedia is using their chill time for some editing. Maybe the editor you are complaining about is smoking a huge blunt right now. So think about that.

Use of polls and surveys in Wikipedia decision-making

If a fool prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, tolerate it.

See also[edit]

User:Philoserf/Essay001

Casting aspersions of ad hominem should not be used to deflect legitimate criticism.

See also[edit]

Wikipedia articles should not be explained. Either the readers understand the presented content or no explanation will inform them.

See also[edit]

There are quite a few websites (Like onefivenine.com) that have inaccurate info on Indian village statistics. These are usually blacklisted and should almost always be avoided. Use the official census (https://www.censusindia.gov.in) instead.

Wikipedia is nonprofit[edit]

I think you know what I mean. Uncyclopedia.com is hosted by Go Daddy. Now, what you see when you type:

wikipedia.com

is wikipedia.org. It's a redirect.

On Wikipedia editors are expected to act with responsibility, and the encyclopedia as a whole should be created and maintained responsibly. This helps to both prevent and determine Wikipedia:Liability.

In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first.


This came out of User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Longer and shorter names. See its talk page.

A list that does not have specific criteria may lead to confusion about what belongs and what doesn't. As such the list is unencyclopedic and does not belong in Wikipedia.

It is claimed that the fundamental rule of Wikipedia is Don't be a dick. Even if this is not the basic rule, it is a good rule. One of its implications is

Don't go through Wikipedia like a dog on a walk marking what you find.

If a user prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

See also[edit]

WikiDonnas are WikiFauna who appear normal at first, but (usually after the intervention of the WikiDavros) become a WikiDoctor-Donna.

If the motives for doing a…

…beneficial thing are negative, then the net benefit is reduced.
…detrimental thing are positive, then the net detriment is reduced.
…stupid thing are stupid, then the net stupidity remains absolutely the same.

In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first.

This is a place to explore issues affecting User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC, so as not to clutter that page.

Promising issues should be first raised and discussed on its talk page... please do.

See also User:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios.

User experience design is the process of making intuitive websites that are designed for your average user. Wikipedia, by its nature of being online, has this design.

History[edit]

Wikipedia was founded in 2001.[citation needed]

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is expected of its users to use proper English when conversing with other users as well as building articles. Please use a spellchecker before pressing "save page." If necessary, contact your English professor.

One way to determine whether a particular article edit conforms to a neutral point of view or is correctly written is to consider the thought experiment of how editors of Encyclopedia Britannica would handle the dilemma.

Administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:ANI) are not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS).

You just clicked a button and Wikipedia stops working for you. You think to yourself "Oh no, did I just break Wikipedia?"

No, you didn't just break Wikipedia, your internet is just down and it'll start working again soon.

Don't Lift Your Leg[edit]

It is claimed that the fundamental rule of Wikipedia is Don't be a dick. Even if this is not the basic rule, it is a good rule. One of its implications is

Don't go through Wikipedia like a dog on a walk marking what you find.

When you are wrong about something, it may be good to remember that the First Rule of Holes is Stop Digging. Sometime it is just better to shut up and take your lumps than to prove to everyone that you are even more wrong than they already thought.

User:Stroppolo/ToolBox

Wikipedia:Monroe's law

User:PJung2014/Religion and NPOV

Wikipedia:Wikicratic Oath

User:Dank/Essays

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment/What Wikipedia really is

User:Siuenti/Questions

User:J. Johnson/faq

Wikipedia:Vandalism Day

Wikipedia:Leave. Please.

User:Andrewa/Primary Topic, statistics and reasonableness

Wikipedia:Explanation

User:Compassionate727/Printworthiness

User:Jafeluv/Redirects are cows

Wikipedia:No fixed rules

Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/Exir Kamalabadi-1

Wikipedia:STINKBOMB

User:Andrewa/New article incubator

User:XtraJovial/Essays/"But it says so on this foreign-language Wikipedia!"

User:MadeYourReadThis/citation spam

User:Andrewa/Consensus NE compromise

Wikipedia:Keep discussions focused

Wikipedia:Do not rely on consensus

User:Bohemian Revolution/Storage

Wikipedia:Complaints are not taken at face value

User:Lee Vilenski/Essays/The GA falacy

User:つがる/Ice is Slippery

User:Syaeahdjd

User:CrayonArt45/Pokemon

User:Enigmaman/circles

Wikipedia:Sign your hat

User:MJL/0.5RR

User:애국심 존중/Student Wikipedia User is person.

User:ElbridgeGerry/Pancakes!

User:Partofthemachine/Linking to ANI

User:Volunteer Marek/RSOGTFO

User:Goethean/BLP

User:Graymornings/Have a heart

User:Skomorokh/No problem

Wikipedia:Silver nitrate

User:Thingofme/Every wiki is a work in progress

Wikipedia:Wikiprocess

Wikipedia:Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Wikipedia:Guy Macon's story

User:RiverStyx23/sandbox/Standards

Wikipedia:Wikipedia can be dangerous

User:Superluser/Reliable Sources for Biographies of Living People

Wikipedia:Talking text editor

User:Siuenti/Competence is not required

User:AtomicMario/What not to create

Wikipedia:Precocious editing

User:Hist4ian/The right and wrong reasons to join Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Basic dignity

User:Robert A West/Truth

User:George Ho/Competence shall not be policy

User:Chaetodipus/On bolding

User:Tiggerjay/SpecialWatch/Readme

Wikipedia:Adrenaline junkie

Wikipedia:Polarity

User:Lubaf/Edito

User:Basket of Puppies/Editorials

Wikipedia:BUGGERED

User:Alex Shih/ArbNotes/GWE afterthought

User:Andrewa/Andrew's Second Principle

User:Ovioas,wo/The Argument Against Vandalism

Wikipedia:WhyNot? Doctrine

User:HighInBC/Don't let people push your buttons

User:PJung2014/Articles on Religion

User:Praxidicae/Vanity spam

User:Abce2/How to fix a boat

User:Andrewa/kayfabe

User:Delicious carbuncle/Poetry is always wrong

User:FuFoFuEd/Comparing apples with apples

Wikipedia:TENFOOTPOLE

Wikipedia:Cookies are supposed to remain silent

User:A.Z./The reduction of NPOV to verifiability

User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag

User:Onorem/Trivial

Wikipedia:Use Ethnic Epithets

Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN

Wikipedia:It's obvious

User:SDY/NJN

User:XtraJovial/Essays/Do not make articles long for the sake of them being long

User:Siuenti/Here's one I made earlier

User:Ibrahim.ID/sandbox

User:Wjhonson/Act in good faith

User:Mackensen/Cabal offset

Wikipedia:Meh

User:Letcreate123/Don't call a person who just made a few edits a SPA

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations

User:EVula/opining/Don't be a freaking jerkface

User:Cobalion254/IPv6

Wikipedia:Political positions

Wikipedia:UPLIFT

Wikipedia:We aren't Uncyclopedia

User:Bobherry/RFA

User:DangerousPanda/Essays/According

User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Types of sources by article topic

User:Siuenti/Argument from authority

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You/EditValues

User:Andrewa/seeking an article

Wikipedia:The best thing about Wikipedia

User:Vermont/essay/AfD Filibuster

User:Ozhu/design

User:Hmwith/Actual article

User:George Ho/Ignore all rules?

User:Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice

User:Eloquence/Tour 04

User:Anon126/Uploading images

User:Unbinilium-322 Dibromide/Just one sneeze does not mean you are sick

User:JustbeBPMF/Preview before post

User:Dominicmgm/All blue article

User:After Midnight/Alphabetical Happenstance

Wikipedia:Godwin's law of Wikilawyering

User:Hammad Shayk

User:Quarl/Bikeshed

User:Champion/Deletion is cheap

Wikipedia:Noted not notable

User:Zppix/Vandalism

Wikipedia:Don't beat someone beating a dead horse

User:ProgrammingGeek/RfA criteria

User:Siuenti/FixThyself

Wikipedia:Please. Stay

Wikipedia:Ignore all fools

User:Collect/þ

Wikipedia:Editing through links

User:Wugapodes/RFCU

Wikipedia:Responsibility

User:OlYeller21/Wikipedia:Editing with a close connection

Wikipedia:Titling in sentence case

Wikipedia:BNBR

User:Bishonen/Calm down

User:Ozhu/A gentle introduction to screamo

User:JimWae/template:No-Nonce

User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't

User:Dresken/dw talk header

Wikipedia:No Trees needed to be chopped!

Wikipedia:Leave it to the lawyers

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military ranks)

User:Looktothis/The Man Who Asked the World to Help Paint His House

Wikipedia:Music contemporaneity

User:Terrariola/Delete the junk

User:Wikid77/Convert categories

User:Pythoncoder/RfA criteria

User:Law/HITNRUN

User:Slakr/Why you shouldn't censor things

User:Rusted AutoParts/WP:Always consider other's view

Wikipedia:Micromanagement

User:Alan Liefting/Essays

User:Lomrjyo/Nothing is guaranteed

User:Sebwite/Contributions of newbies are valuable

Wikipedia:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis

User:Hillelfrei/Tips for recent changes patrol

Wikipedia:Let's try to avoid using too many acronyms, okay?

Wikipedia:Gooch paradox

User:Sadads/Writing about climate change on Wikipedia

User:Ronnotel/Piecemeal

User:Astronautics~enwiki/The crazy metric

User:Ahmetlii/"the whole explanation of world"

Wikipedia:Ha ha only serious

Wikipedia:NBRAND

Wikipedia:Take responsibility

Wikipedia:Revert, ignore, semi-protect

Wikipedia:VisualEditor dashboard

Wikipedia:WikiOverload

User:Eire2020/WP:On the subject of deletionism

Wikipedia:Don't link to bomb-making instructions

Wikipedia:Case-by-case

User:Salix alba/Troll food

User:MadeYourReadThis/Wikipedia:Find the title mentioned

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment/The nature of Wikipedia

User:SWinxy/Be a steward

User:LaserLegs/Anyone can edit

Wikipedia:Cellotaph

User:Gryllida/essay/Photo for biography

Wikipedia:Don't be officious

User:Danski454/Shared and dynamic IP addresses

User:Alan Liefting/Essays/We do it all for the Reader

User:Eumat114/CBNGITIS

User:Usedtobecool/My advice to aspiring teahouse hosts

User:Jehochman/Content matters

User:NottNott/Essays/Change your signature 24/7

User:Yukichigai/Avoid irrelevant information

User:Donald Albury/What to do with a dead horse

User:Ikanreed/Sarcasm

User:NerdyNSK/Towards an acceptable calendar date formatting in English Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Keep it short and simple

User:Kayau/What snowballing is not

User:WugapodesOutreach/Articles needing linguist attention

User:Cla68/Sandbox 2

User:Lofty abyss/Openness

User:NE Ent/Unilateral interaction ban

User:Ixtal/motomoto

Wikipedia:Covfefeing

User:Trainsandotherthings/The Earth Test

Wikipedia:Obscure Guideline 573

Wikipedia:Compassion

Wikipedia:If ten people say you're drunk, lie down

User:Wugapodes/Portals

User:Pathoschild/Double-standard fallacy

User:James1011R/The difference between !voting and vote-discussion

User:SmokeyJoe/Humor pages need to be relevant

User:MacGyverMagic/Views

Wikipedia:There is no red tape

Wikipedia:Turnover

User:Geo Swan/opinions/Coverage of ghostsingles is tongue in cheek

Wikipedia:Success factors

Wikipedia:Positive feedback

Wikipedia:Newline after references

Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is just a goddamn hobby

Wikipedia:Some Observant Words Regarding Editing And People

Wikipedia:WikiWatchlister

User:NickCT/FAQ

User:Andrewa/miltiple disambiguation

Wikipedia:Service level agreement

User:The Bushranger/SEMIPRO

User:George Ho/Competence

Wikipedia:Political achievements

Wikipedia:Category fight

Wikipedia:Avoiding scrutiny

User:Rahulghose/Sandbox

Wikipedia:They can't both be right

User:Jehochman/Kiss and make up

Wikipedia:BLP2E

Wikipedia:We were not born yesterday

Wikipedia:The value of countervandalism

Wikipedia:Never call a spade a shovel

Wikipedia:Belong

Wikipedia:General Hints concerning news and WP:RS

User:Trialpears/Template moves

User:Ex Parte/Consensus reporting

User:Andrewa/speedy close

User:A Man In Black/No featured articles

Wikipedia:Your mileage may vary

User:Collect/new group

User:Dev920/Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devastating

User:Ikip/WP:seniority

User:Czarkoff/essays/Balkanization of Yugoslavia

User:ErrantX/Essays/Gripes

User:Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz/The importance of links

Wikipedia:What MOS is NOT

User:Hirohisat/YOU GOT TOO MANY NOMS SO GO AWAY

Wikipedia:Was Socrates a troll?

User:Dreftymac/Docs/FootnoteNazi

User:HybridBoy

Wikipedia:We can do better

User:Panties72/Socrates

Wikipedia:A WikiLink is not an explanation

User:Cluster Lyn

Wikipedia:Let it be

Wikipedia:Zero-sum BLP

Wikipedia:Wikipedians aren't islands

Wikipedia:Disparaging

Wikipedia:Mutual admiration society

User:Tennekis/Essays/Enablism

User:Салоом алейкум

User:Namethatisnotinuse/My Wikipediholism Test

Wikipedia:Fire (essay)

User:Skomorokh/duty

Wikipedia:How sexist is Wikipedia?

User:T-rex/essays/meta-uncivil

Wikipedia:Best not Perfect

User:Frosty/Shut the fuck up and edit an article

User:Andrewa/attestation

Wikipedia:Don't make perfect the enemy of better

User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means

Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed

Wikipedia:Don't ignore community consensus

Wikipedia:Zombie page

User:Vgmddg/Language Disconnect Rant

User:Tisane/Bold, revert, bold, revert, bold

User:Suomi Finland 2009/Similar treatment is okay

Wikipedia:Wikipedians are not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day

Wikipedia:There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns

Wikipedia:Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules"

Wikipedia:Winningest

User:Agathoclea/WHEEL WAR... ON WHEELS!

User:Beyond My Ken/Floating trial balloons

Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources

User:DonQuixote/Mixed Review, Mixed Reviews and Mixed to Good Reviews

Wikipedia:Gray Area

Wikipedia:Bait-and-switch

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not performance art

User:Anders Feder/Wikipedia is not a sausage

Wikipedia:Don't revert, block or ignore

Wikipedia:Friendly fire

User:Skomorokh/Crisis

Wikipedia:No one will listen to reason when their back is up

Wikipedia:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test

User:NeoFreak/diclaimer

User:Bojo1498/No Reason Given For Removal

Wikipedia:Fan analysis

Wikipedia:Articles should be futureproof

User:Andrewa/True false and Wikipedic

User:Gliteapple/Humour

User:Gryllida/WPRA

User:Not an anon anymore/Wikipedia's Running Gags

Wikipedia:OTHERLANGUAGEEXISTS

Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements/Orange Wikimedia partnership

Wikipedia:Overreacting

User:FMecha/Sockpuppet faiths and types

User:TheCanadianAndNewYorker/opinions/Wikipedia should not be a platform that promotes Americanism.

User:DangerousPanda/Essays/Wikipoodling

User:Gwernol/WIWP

Wikipedia:Reliably sourcing statements

Wikipedia:How you edit

User:Jose Fernandez-Calvo/Argentine, not Argentinian

Wikipedia:The final straw

User:Chris is me/WikiSocial userbox solution

User:Ɱ/What I look for in a source

User:Wordscape/IAR

User:Alanyst/Essays/Article Bias

Wikipedia:Don't judge an article by its title

Wikipedia:Don't archive or hat a thread that has ongoing discussion

Wikipedia:Fear all change

User:Joesydney/The Earth

Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury

Wikipedia:Thankspam

Wikipedia:Pantomime

User:Runningonbrains/Essays/Drive-by voting

User:KGirlTrucker81/Why admins should not create content

User:Jayemd/You will not always get your way

Wikipedia:Consensus statement

User:Cream147/essays/Why is it important to cite our sources on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia:Midden

Wikipedia:Pinocchio

User:Editor510/Wikirose save

User:Electricburst1996/TV listings as a source

User:Bestmj33001/sandbox

Wikipedia:Don't assume

Wikipedia:Slippery slope

Wikipedia:Oh, Well

Wikipedia:Dig your own hole

Wikipedia:Don't create a Streisand effect

Wikipedia:Someone else fix it

Wikipedia:The real power is choosing not to act

Wikipedia:Pioneers

User:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios

Wikipedia:Grandmothering

Wikipedia:Rome wasn't built in a day

Wikipedia:Dead rat

User:MikeEricksen/Wikipedia Article Circle

Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked

Wikipedia:I am an essayist

Wikipedia:Godwin's law

User:Dodger67/Essays/Big fish

User:Thine Antique Pen/Inaction is not a crime

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Articles are not Couches

Wikipedia:Negative energy

User:Keegan/On platitudes

Wikipedia:Low-edit admins

User:Gigs/Featured content

User:Random832/Always move forward

Wikipedia:WikiWidow(er)

Wikipedia:List of media-reported deletion discussions

User:Bri/COI patterns

User:Sunwoo Lim/Essays/The Ultimate goal of Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Why not you?

User:Ed Poor/belief in global warming

Wikipedia:Let sleeping dogs lie

User:KingpinE7/Guideline on audio use

Wikipedia:Simplified

Wikipedia:First Law of Usernames

Wikipedia:Tfm template considered harmful

Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability

User:Dave1185/Sandbox/AVBL

User:Ed Poor/Inner circle

User:FR30799386/Smartphone editing

Wikipedia:Draftspace, not for unilateral spinouts

Wikipedia:Words to avoid in the intro

User:Lagrange613/Wikipedia is a soapbox

User:Fairlyoddparents1234/False U.S. television station call sign definitions

User:SJP/Pages

Wikipedia:Should I fork?

User:CrystalBlacksmith/delinting

User:ChristianandJericho/Advice to new users

Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of assuming good faith

User:Geo Swan/rants/What is special about Holland?

User:TruthToBeSpoken/Diary/Entry-1

User:Dweller/Complaints of inappropriate choice of TFA

User:Maddie!/Don't start with a level 4im warning

User:W7KyzmJt/I was wrong

User:Anders Feder/Burdenshifting

Wikipedia:Questions allowed

User:Geo Swan/Rec Art Sci

User:NanoLock66/Eat my food

User:Quinxorin/Ignore All Rules Examples

Wikipedia:The squint test

User:Ajraddatz/Future enwiki stewards

Wikipedia:Be a reliable source

Wikipedia:Indexspam

User:Anon126/Guide for contributors with close connections

Wikipedia:Articles are more important than policy

Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it

User:Letcreate123/Avoid excessive redlinks

User:Oiyarbepsy/No evidence of

User:Casualdejekyll/NotOK

Wikipedia:Slurs

User:Sebwite/Arguments to avoid in BLP discussions

Wikipedia:Avoid antagonistic words

Wikipedia:Judgement

Wikipedia:Transparent deletion

User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists"

Wikipedia:Don't misuse the Current Events template

User:Lexein/Don't bold first words

Wikipedia:One reason for notability

Wikipedia:Oral history

User:Dreftymac/Docs/Howto

Wikipedia:Newcomers aren't all clueless

User:Ceranthor/Together

User:Vishalbhatia86/sandbox

Wikipedia:Welcome back

Wikipedia:Short horizontal line

Wikipedia:Wikicloset

User:Mr. Stradivarius/Labels are dangerous

User:Harrias/Harrias' addendum to Dweller's law

Wikipedia:Fastily effect

Wikipedia:Unnecessary images

User:ParlorGames/The Wikipedia Problem

Wikipedia:Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know

User:Cocoaguy/Essays/Thing OK for user Pages

Wikipedia:There are no cops on Wikipedia

User:Andrewa/The Prime Directive

Wikipedia:GFDL upgrade

User:ColinFine/Wikipedia doesn't have profiles

Wikipedia:Just Plain Wrong

User:Ace Class Shadow/Observations

User:Ash/Special case

Wikipedia:Before assuming something is a hoax

User:Sir Intellegence/essays/I-don't-know-where-to-put-it disorder

User:VX/Essay

Wikipedia:Wiki spirit

Wikipedia:Don't declare ultimatums

User:Tznkai/desk/Too cute by half

Wikipedia:Libelous actions-- remove and revert yourself

User:Octane/Wikipedia is a court room

Wikipedia:Precautionary principle

Wikipedia:What essays are not

User:Paul Carpenter/Twice

User:DangerousPanda/Essays/Reflection

Wikipedia:Confusing arguments mean nothing

Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about us

Wikipedia:Persons known for one higher profile event

Wikipedia:Don’t burn yourself

Wikipedia:Helpbox

Wikipedia:Confirmation bias bias confirmed

User:ToBeFree/HTML signatures

User:Terrariola/The different types of vandalism

Wikipedia:Sledgehammer

User:BilCat/Essays/The A-T.E.A.M

Wikipedia:Gray lines

Wikipedia:Wikilinkitis

User:PorkchopGMX/Don’t ignore all the rules

User:Longcake Higad/Consensus begets compromise

Wikipedia:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI

Wikipedia:Purple cows in Arkansas

Wikipedia:Academic incentive

Wikipedia:Dealing with dictionary definitions

User:Alex Noble/AFC is about notability

Wikipedia:Equality

Wikipedia:Misconduct

User:The Filmaker/Style guidelines for film articles

Wikipedia:TITANIC

Wikipedia:Huggle Wars

Wikipedia:Death By Jimbo

Wikipedia:Concept limit

Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change

Wikipedia:Sanitize

Wikipedia:Tiptibism

Wikipedia:Disambiguation rule disregard index

User:Tawker/BLPD

Wikipedia:No holy wars

User:Andrewa/Hit and run

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not MeatballWiki

Wikipedia:Language neutrality

User:Explicit/Leftover tracks

User:ChocolateRabbit/Assuming Good Faith

Wikipedia:Applicable law

User:RoySmith/essays/Suboptimal corporate sources

Wikipedia:Other duck

User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond

Wikipedia:Please use fullurl

Wikipedia:About template mania

Wikipedia:When and how to create a sub-page of a fiction article

User:PorkchopGMX/Wait until the user edits

User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better

User:Sj/motivation

Wikipedia:Use the new section button!

User:JohnManuel/projects

User:Martijn Hoekstra/Inclusionist manifest

Wikipedia:Ad nauseam

User:Animum/WikiAtheism

User:UtherSRG/Bring back Articles for Discussion

User:Skomorokh/First rule

Wikipedia:WikiEnemy

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a contest

Wikipedia:Takeover

Wikipedia:Three steps

Wikipedia:Tar pit

Wikipedia:Hasten the Day

Wikipedia:WikiAngel

User:Martynas Patasius/On form and substance

User:Chrislk02/Will Never Know

Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility/FAQ and common pitfalls

User:Izno/Navbox constellations

User:Sceptre/essays/Don't dance around the maypole if someone's cutting all of the ribbons

User:Canada-kawaii/Disclaimer

Wikipedia:You can't squeeze blood from a turnip

User:CvyvvZkmSUDowVf/ad

User:Mr. Yondris Ferguson/My Many Many Articles

User:Launchballer/Timeshift channels

User:Shadowowl/Ref fraud

User:Editor510/Wikidalek save

Wikipedia:There are no shortcuts to neutrality

User:Josve05a/Reference example

User:Robert McClenon/Weaponization

Wikipedia:Almanac

Wikipedia:Articles on sources

User:Dl2000/Band names - plural or singular?

Wikipedia:User rights are not a golden ticket

Wikipedia:NOTBLP

Wikipedia:Tired

Wikipedia:Dynamic tension

User:Runningonbrains/Essays/Presumptuous voting

Wikipedia:Don't be afraid to use color

Wikipedia:Lua-based cite templates

Wikipedia:The solution to all of Wikipedia's problems

User:Chlod/RedWarn

User:NE Ent/Tropes

User:NE Ent/Policy fallacy

User:Davidwr/No topic deserves to be in Wikipedia

Wikipedia:UNESCO

Wikipedia:Om nom nom nom

Wikipedia:Don't revert without explanation

User:Durova/Wikisleuthing

User:EpicPupper/Prepend and append in JWB

User:Hawkeye7/Final exam for bureaucrats

User:NE Ent/No capital letters

User:UNHchabo/Not everyone has as much free time as you

Wikipedia:Editors can change their minds

User:Distributivejustice/Local NPOV maxima

User:Littleteddy/Essay

User:MadeYourReadThis/Find the mention

User:Jorge Stolfi/DoW

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is Also a Woman

User:J947/Essays/Link to the source

User:BACK INC

User:KGirlTrucker81/Difference between good faith and bad faith

User:Xinbenlv/Essay/If you want to learn to swim, jump into the water

Wikipedia:Mass nomination

Wikipedia:Skim read

User:Partofthemachine/When does "deny recognition" apply?

User:Andrewa/trivial disambiguation

Wikipedia:Why ageism on wikipedia should not be employed

User:Guy Macon/Guidelines/No Es allowed!

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not guess, guess, guess

User:Buddy431/AFD isn't cleanup

User:Andrewa/A personal plea

User:Slakr/Only on Wikipedia

User:Vassyana/exercise

User:Keeper76/Write Right

User:Alan Liefting/Essays/Need more useful stuff

User:Dweller/Dweller's law

Wikipedia:Don't go out of your way to be diplomatic

Wikipedia:Rulespam

Wikipedia:The interaction between policies

User:Ritchie333/Don't write like Ali G

Wikipedia:Einstein

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the Stanford Prison Experiment

User:Matthew/Yyy?

User:Geo Swan/opinions/Detirehniton

User:WaltCip/Simpsoncruft

User:Teblick/Index to Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Copyright Blocks

User:Acejet/WikiProjects

Wikipedia:Back to top

Wikipedia:No screaming

User:NE Ent/The oyster makes the pearl

Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth

User:MalwareSmarts/Don't confuse non-notability with a hoax

Wikipedia:Failure

Wikipedia:JFII

User:Editor510/Wikidoctor save

User:Steve Smith/Semi-protection of BLPs

Wikipedia:Coinage may be cited directly

Wikipedia:Wikipedia doesn't use Allwiki

User:TucanHolmes/Wikithoughts

Wikipedia:Non-free content/FAQ

Wikipedia:Which talk page?

User:JamieS93/Thick skin

User:Kosebamse/How to survive on wikipedia

Wikipedia:AfD churn

User:Random832/Stop using screenshots of the mainpage for browser articles!

Wikipedia:Differences between the English Wikipedia and Wikipedias in other languages

User:Celestina007/Long term bad faith goal

User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return

Wikipedia:NPOV in userboxes

Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk

Wikipedia:Lua articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays

Wikipedia:Neutrality through accuracy

User:Rockstone35/Essay

User:Thorncrag/GNAT

User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions

User:Ansh666/Don't cite policies or guidelines until you've actually read them

Wikipedia:Promotional drafts

User:Ed Poor/Flat earth problem

User:NE Ent/Don't Underestimate the Power of The Assume Good Faith

User:JimMillerJr/Sandbox/Hero worship

Wikipedia:Reviving the active admin corps

Wikipedia:What votes should mean

User:Frank/On verifiability and consensus

Wikipedia:Ping pong

Wikipedia:Sandbox thief

User:MyNameWasTaken/Discussions

Wikipedia:Oshwahnism

Wikipedia:Not all sources are created equal

User:Drmies/WikiProject U.S. Civil Rights

User:Theo10011/Curators of content

Wikipedia:Charitableness

Wikipedia:RACRBE

Wikipedia:Lipstick on a pig

User:Donald Albury/First, do no harm

Wikipedia:Presentations

Wikipedia:Perfectionism is bad

User:Skomorokh/Future culture

User:SheffieldSteel/BITECLUB

User:Robert McClenon/Acceptance of Biographies

Wikipedia:Don't call people by their real name

Wikipedia:Editing Your Own Page

Wikipedia:No it's fixed

Wikipedia:Because I can

User:Animum/Ageism

Wikipedia:Defend to the Death

User:CatherineMunro/Bright Places

Wikipedia:Don't confuse trademarks with copyrights

User:RobertG/Sanguine eventualism

User:Lee Vilenski/GA Criteria

Wikipedia:Don't overuse quotes

Wikipedia:Link to what it is

Wikipedia:Avoid cyber

User:JustinTime55/sandbox/No one's point of view is any more neutral than anyone else's

User:Suigetsu/Wikipedia does not make shit up

User:Brentman1575/No broken links

User:Friday/fundamentalism

User:Wikid77/Blanking sections sometimes violates policies

Wikipedia:Not for Alternate Television

User:SkyGazer 512/PERM stalker

Wikipedia:There is no community

Wikipedia:No pre-close summaries, please

Wikipedia:Disruption not considered cool

User:Robert McClenon/Administrator Abuse Cases

Wikipedia:The one question

User:David Gerard/music

Wikipedia:Don't get overwhelmed

Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit

User:HectorMoffet/Wikipedia is NOT NOT a BUREAUCRACY

User:Asenine/Find Code

Wikipedia:Desist

Wikipedia:Incentives

User:Opencooper/Against lawyerisms

Wikipedia:JIB

User:SirFozzie/Get It Right

User:Faithlessthewonderboy/On bureaucratship

User:Bahamut0013/right

Wikipedia:Beware grandstanding text

User:Alexbrn/Lede bombing

Wikipedia:Consequences

User:Rhbsihvi/I hate non-free sites

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is the Stanford Prison Experiment

Wikipedia:Not for Alternate History

User:Worm That Turned/Misconceptions about RfA

User:Alan Liefting/Essays/Over-categorisation

User:Vegaswikian/Navbox essay

Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE

Wikipedia:Balance Your Perspectives

Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls

User:WAVY 10 Fan/WAVY 10 Essay/WP:FAND

User:Pigsonthewing/Technical robustness

Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules

Wikipedia:Common sense is not common

Wikipedia:Don't search for objections

User:TruPepitoM/The Other Vandalism

Wikipedia:Text move

User:Bobherry/Recipe for Porterhouse Steak (new user)

User:Dreamy Jazz/Please do not bite the regulars

User:Kerrieburn/sandbox

Wikipedia:No Moral Code

Wikipedia:Clean up after your discussions

Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source

Wikipedia:Wikifurniture

User:EggplantParm/Wikipedia:Eggplant

User:Digwuren/WP:SOUR

User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality

Wikipedia:Assassination

Wikipedia:Suicide by admin

Wikipedia:CS1 cite categories

Wikipedia:Use the default signature

User:Webdrone/Entitlement

Wikipedia:Reader Knows Nothing

User:LinaMishima/Don't be shy

User:Sophivorus/Asimov's prophecy

Wikipedia:Don't create an account

User:Sbb1413/What infobox should be used on spaceflight articles

Wikipedia:No Encyclopedic Use

Wikipedia:Editorially involved

User:Robert McClenon/Internet celebrities

User:Alexbrn/A POV that draws a source.

User:Andrewa/the Search Wikipedia box

User:Mboverload/Challenge an administrator

User:BilCat/Essays/Interwikis

User:Dweller/conflict

User:John Reid/Metastasis

User:WLU/Five stages of Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Strong

Wikipedia:Romanization of Javanese

Wikipedia:The Parable of the Ants

Wikipedia:Source counting

User:EVula/opining/pet peeves

Wikipedia:Shunning

User:Skomorokh/thekidinafrica

User:Lar/IRC

User:DJ DYNAMIKE/sandbox

User:Editor510/Wikimaster save

Wikipedia:Not Omniscient

Wikipedia:Christian POV on Wikipedia

User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term

Wikipedia:Don't leave it a stub

Wikipedia:Idioms

User:Andrewa/my second epiphany

User:Ozhu/A gentle introduction to death metal

Wikipedia:Citing citations

User:GrooveDog/Don't bite

User:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion

User:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap

User:Danny/The real Cabal

User:Hellno2/Premeditated vandalism

Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless

Wikipedia:Punishing productivity

Wikipedia:Nobody cares

User:Seonookim/Contents not known by many

User:Karen Carpenter/Alternate account

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is timeless

Wikipedia:Attempting to Improve

Wikipedia:Let the reader decide

User:Locomotive207/Pumping Gas

Wikipedia:WikiMule

User:Andrewa/AGF cuts both ways

Wikipedia:BLP awards

User:JJPMaster/Guide to requesting permissions

Wikipedia:Partisanship

Wikipedia:ANI's discuss rule

User:Sailsbystars/Incompetence is required

User:Editor510/Wikitardis save

User:Eridian314/The daily life of a Wikipedian

User:SebastianHelm/LEADSEED

Wikipedia:Bloopers and continuity errors

User:Sgeo/vol

Wikipedia:Lurkers

User:Bonkers The Clown/A first-person narrative related to my talk page, something one should read before talking to me

Wikipedia:Can't break it

User:Punk Boi 8/sandbox/aspergers

User:Phoebe/essays

Wikipedia:Why Heavy Bombers Are Not Useful Anymore

Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences

User:Andrewa/gentle editor

User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI

Wikipedia:Sinclair's Law

Wikipedia:Identifying copyrights in links

User:Awilley/What WP:NOTCENSORED is not

User:Salvidrim!/Wikipedia is a backlog

Wikipedia:Writing about current events

Wikipedia:So your article got deleted

User:Geo Swan/opinions/Minsk not Pinsk: Herman Khan's explanation of the dangers of outsmarting one's self

User:Mindspillage/sense

User:Isotope23/Sandbox

User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés

User:Qzekrom/Adding your pronouns to your signature

Wikipedia:No slack

User:Geo Swan/opinions/inspired by 'wikithreads are bad'

Wikipedia:Drafts in 5W

Wikipedia:WikiPeace

User:Jehochman/Wikipedia is not a game of Clue

User:ChrisGualtieri/Writing/AFC

User:Robert McClenon/Toy portals

Wikipedia:ISSOBLP

User:つがる/Why I shouldn't edit Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Acting in bad faith

User:Eumat114/How not to get unblocked II

Wikipedia:Argue, don't opine

Wikipedia:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion

Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims

Wikipedia:Cite tendentious texts directly

User:Anchoress/Meanwhile, back at the ranch

Wikipedia:At any time

Wikipedia:Cite WP42 at AfD

Wikipedia:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity

User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists"

Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

User:LaserLegs/NOTMANDELA

User:TortoiseWrath/An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

User:Hydnjo/ww

User:Suomi Finland 2009/Unreliable reliable source

Wikipedia:Not a barbarian horde

Wikipedia:You can be named after your son

User:Viriditas/Don't hold articles hostage

User:56independent/WikiToken

User:Elucidate/Essays/Passion within Wikipedia

User:S8333631/How Pending Changes will Kill Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stoopid or lyin'

User:Ritchie333/The Dumpy test

User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees

User:Beetricks/What makes the quintessential article?

Wikipedia:The Internet is not Serious Business

User:Tawker/Any Featured Article

User:Keegan/Eternal Spring Break

Wikipedia:1.5 sources

User:Epicgenius/capitalizations

User:Lankiveil/The Grandma Test

User:Foxnpichu/Who they are now

User:Bowser423/Troll Warning

Wikipedia:Death by Wikipedia

User:Elli/Complete list

Wikipedia:Hearsay

Wikipedia:Concerns with United States Education Program

Wikipedia:WINDMILL

Wikipedia:En.Wiki is not De.Wiki

Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat

User:Andrewa/wrong article 2

User:Isotope23/Please don't tilt the windmills

User:Jacedc/Identity concealment

User:EclipseDude/My Approach to RfA

Wikipedia:There are no awards

Wikipedia:Politics as a pejorative

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is human readable

Wikipedia:Explanationism

User:Dronebogus/Unpersoning

User:Chowbok/Thoughts on regional English differences

Wikipedia:Grow a thick skin

Wikipedia:What is fringe?

Wikipedia:Improvement sucks

Wikipedia:Cyberwiki

Wikipedia:Stub Makers

User:Good afternoon/students

Wikipedia:Privacy of affiliation

Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/Deleting redirects to facilitate searching

User:Animum/WP:POINT and its uses

User:Bri/COI investigations and outing policy

User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap

Wikipedia:No blurry images

User:Antelan/Call a spade a spade

User:Titodutta/Essays/Self-contradictory reliable sources

Wikipedia:Hand-waving

Wikipedia:We already have enough of those, thank you very much

User:NeoFreak/Essays/Essjay

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is reliable

User:Skomorokh/The Curtain

Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent

User:Bellezzasolo/RFA Requirements

User:Tisane/Characteristics desirable in a wiki god-king

Wikipedia:Me too!

Wikipedia:If you don't understand the rules of interaction...

Wikipedia:Key searches

Wikipedia:When OR is OK

Wikipedia:Precedents

Wikipedia:Horses for courses

Wikipedia:Dig

User:Cranloa12n/Speedy deletion applies to drafts too

Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons

Wikipedia:Trivially more concise

Wikipedia:Avoiding linkseas

User:TheFarix/Avoid standalone subheadings

User:Ed Poor/Rights

Wikipedia:Articles must be written

Wikipedia:Not so arbitrary breaks

User:Georgewilliamherbert/DefendEachOther

Wikipedia:Wikipedia should be fun

User:Mhawk10/Taint

Wikipedia:Notability points

User:The Founders Intent/Thoughts on Citations

User:Sideways713/Reliability isn't always immediately obvious

User:Bibliomaniac15/Butcher's rules

User:Urban Versis 32/hottips

User:Halo/How to force through policy without consensus

Wikipedia:Checklists

Wikipedia:Chimera articles

User:애국심 존중/To vandalism

User:Hasteur/WikiBombing

User:Ritchie333/Don't overdose on citation requests

User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness

Wikipedia:Don't be a rubbernecker

Wikipedia:Reference Desk philosophies

Wikipedia:Welcome unregistered editing

User:Niffweed17/notability

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

Wikipedia:No get out of jail free cards
Template:Broken ref
Template:Broken ref
Template:Broken ref