Wiki143 talk:Ignore all rules

or not

can this be used to violate the three reverts edit warring rule 119.234.4.105 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The full article reads -

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Can you provide an example where violating the three-revert rule would improve or maintain Wikipedia? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Good faith reverts to remove vandalism is one example (however, since this is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a “violation”). Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow 110.168.224.246 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are pinging me here now. I'm still waiting for a sample violation that would improve or maintain Wikipedia. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

to remove vandalism possible (talk page stalker) Willbill6272 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As Blueboar says above: vandalism removal "is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a 'violation.'" - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ahem.

I have taken the extraordinary step of fully protecting this highly-visible, highly-linked page from live edit warring. Everybody likes WP:BOLD until hackles go up. We've seen bold. We've seen revert. Now shall we DISCUSS this disputed change? BusterD (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Merging proposal

Template:Atop I think we should merge this page, WP:IAR? into WP:IAR. This page is a very simple page that doesn't say much, but I think when we merge IAR? into this page, it will give readers a better understanding of what IAR is and what it is not. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is one policy that's useful to keep simple and to the point IMO. As with the spirit of the rule, it makes for a nice contrast with the rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's been proposed many times, but keeping this very simple page simple has consistently been the consensus. --Onorem (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:IAR? and WP:IAR is a textbook example of why we have Template:Supplement - that is instructional creep.Moxy🍁 22:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as per comments above. The separation is fine and simple is not always best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to the other reasons, it's strength is its brevity, focus and directness. Like the Google home page, the blankness is the most coveted place to want to put something to get noticed. Or like preferring to smoke in the no-smoking section because there are no smokers in it. :-) North8000 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  the possessive form of "it" is "its"!! consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Its all good. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  take a cold shower with your clothes on consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Nah, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 February 2025

Can you please tag this page with the following code? It is related to the discussion above this one.

{{merge from|Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means|discuss=Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Merging proposal|date=February 2025}}

Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would you put up an edit request like this for a proposal that is not going to happen? Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)