🖐 microsoft excel 2010 - Ignore multiple "number stored as text" errors at once - Super User

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🔥

Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

The National Electrical Code is the bedrock of the electrical construction business. Do you know all the ins and outs of the Code? NECA and Electrical Contractor magazine are pleased to present their daily online feature, “Code Question of the Day,” Sponsored by Eaton.

Ark admin commands: console inputs and Ark cheats for Survival Evolved | PCGamesN
Valid for casinos
Ark admin commands: console inputs and Ark cheats for Survival Evolved | PCGamesN
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

ARKaholic.com is the first, and the largest, English-language ARK: Survival Evolved news blog and forum. We collect, analyse, summarise and disseminate information about the game, while giving users a place to discuss it, and anything else they want, on our forums.

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

It is a normal hygienic procedure to clean our ears once every few days. However, not all of us know that ear wax can also indicate the state of our health. With the help of a Q-tip, you can check.

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6 - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
All I want it to ignore a call : iphone
Note: Codes that are striked through were ignore all the codes of the day for 2018 and no longer apply.
Chart A: CMS-designated CPT® Procedures for Reporting Post-op Visits 99024 10040 11442 12034 15120 17282 23120 27134 28308 33207 36589 44143 49650 63047 65855 67840 10060 11443 12041 15240 17283 23412 27235 28470 33208 36590 44145 50360 63056 66170 67900 10061 11601 12042 15260 19120 23430 27236 28510 33228 36819 44160 50590 63081 66179 67904 10120 11602 12051 15732 19125 23472 27244 28810 33249 36821 44204 52601 63650 66180 67917 10140 11603 12052 15734 19301 23500 27245 28820 33263 36830 44205 52648 63685 66711 67924 10160 11604 13101 15823 19303 23600 27446 28825 33264 36832 44207 53850 64555 66761 68760 10180 11606 13121 17000 19307 23615 27447 29822 33282 37607 44970 54161 64561 66821 68761 11200 11621 13131 17004 19357 23650 27486 29823 33405 37609 46221 55866 64581 66982 68801 11400 11622 13132 17110 20670 25447 27487 29824 33426 37765 46500 57240 64590 66984 68810 11401 11623 13151 17111 20680 25600 27506 29827 33430 37766 46930 57288 64612 67036 68840 11402 11640 13152 17260 20926 25605 27590 29828 33533 38500 47562 58571 64615 67040 69420 11403 11641 13160 17261 22513 25607 27786 29848 33860 38525 47563 58661 64616 67041 69433 11404 11642 14020 17262 22514 25609 27814 29876 34802 38571 47600 60240 64617 67042 69436 11406 11643 14021 17263 22551 26055 27880 29879 34825 38724 49422 60500 64632 67108 11420 11644 14040 17270 22558 26160 28122 29880 35301 40808 49440 61312 64633 67113 11421 11646 14041 17271 22600 26600 28124 29881 36470 43281 49505 61510 64635 67145 11422 11750 14060 17272 22612 26720 28232 30140 36471 43644 49507 62264 64640 67210 11423 11765 14061 17273 22630 27125 28270 30520 36558 44005 49560 63030 64718 67228 11440 12031 14301 17280 22633 27130 28285 how to hack a coin slot machine 36561 44120 49561 ignore all the codes of the day 64721 67255 11441 12032 15100 17281 22830 27132 28296 32663 36581 44140 49585 63045 65756 67800 Source: CMS MLN Connects® National Provider Call, Global Surgery: Required Data Reporting for Post-operative Care Call.
April 25, 2017 Understand the Purpose of 99024 CPT® 99024 can airport codes of all the airports in the world consider a Medicare bundled code with zero relative value units RVUs and no fee on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule MPFSso you may wonder why CMS is continue reading in collecting this data.
In fact, a Medicare bundled code is reimbursed by Medicare, but not at the time the service is performed.
Thorough post-op care reduces the risk of complications of surgery including painhelps to manage side effects of treatment, and supports recovery.
Post-op Care Documentation Responsibilities The responsibility for post-op care falls primarily to the person who is reimbursed for the surgery, usually the surgeon.
In hospitals, anesthesiologists sometimes may assume these duties when post-op specialty care is required or preferred for best outcomes.
In the outpatient setting, sometimes post-op care is performed by physician assistants incident-to the physician service although, the American College of Surgeons seems to discourage this practice.
In 2012, the Office of Inspector General OIG published Musculoskeletal Global Surgery Fees Often Did Not Reflect the Number of Evaluation and Management Services Provided.
In effect, this would reduce the payment for surgeries.
One reason for their decision to gather more data was that CMS realized not all surgeons who perform post-op visits report 99024.
If CMS is to use reported data to determine the fee schedule, then accurate data is essential: Surgeons must report all post-op care they provide using 99024.
Resources CMS MLN Connects® National Provider Of all time money, Global Surgery: Required Data Reporting for Post-operative Care Call.
April 25, 2017: www.
Meredith is a member of the Holyoke, Mass.
You can also without commenting.
Currently you have JavaScript disabled.
In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.
As a contributor you will produce quality content for the business of healthcare, taking the Knowledge Center forward with your knowhow and expertise.
Earn CEUs and the respect of your peers.

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

The latest Tweets from it's me (@ignore_all): "Emma : haters gonna hate keep making your dolars 😍"

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
linux - Crontab Day of the Week syntax - Stack Overflow
©1996-2019 Ziff Davis, LLC.
IGN® is among the federally registered trademarks of IGN Entertainment, Inc.
The following list of are designed specifically for PC and will NOT work on any other platform.
If you've discovered for that you'd like to add to the page, or have a correction, please.
Looking for for the other platforms?
Once opened, the will appear as a thin box https://basedgosh.info/all/airport-codes-of-all-the-airports-in-the-world.html the top of the screen.
Into that, you can type any of the below or on other pages.
To close thesimply press the same keys or buttons.
Some require you to first this: testingcheats true Note that "true" above can be replaced with the word "on" as well.
When is enabled, other can also be toggled.
To turn offtype this into the : testingcheats false Note that "false" can be replaced with "off.
To execute a shift-click on consoles, hold Circle and press X on PlayStation 4 or hold B and press A on Xbox One.
Then you can press and hold SHIFT while clicking on the objects listed below to produce a menu that lets you select the corresponding effect.
With testingcheatsenabled on, shift+click on the Grim Reaper before he leaves, and click Add to.
To ignore all the codes of the day it, you must first open the.
Into the box, type the following line including punctuation: bb.
You can close the by pressing the same combination of keys or buttons as you did to open it.
MoveObjects used to be used in the Sims franchise to shift household objects when Sims were stuck.
The cheat is no longer necessary for this; even without cheats or mods, you can move objects at any time even if a Sim is interacting with them, and the Sim will terminate their actions and reset themselves to a nearby tile.
However, MoveObjects in Sims 4 has additional features.
With the cheat enabled, objects can be moved vertically or onto surfaces they should not be able to be placed.
You can place tables onto beds, or toilets onto pools!
The cheat can be used instead to design houses in unique ways.

Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

We offer day-long consultations to help you understand what is needed to create a great web product and how to evaluate and hire a team. Ready to build a team? We can advise and assist with hiring, "project liftoff", and guiding the team towards development processes that will help them succeed.

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6 - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
Need excel sumproduct formula to ignore "Div/0" error.
This list of Ark console commands and cheats will help Ark admin commands are the secret to making the world of Ark is less terrifying place.
With all those dinosaurs running around unchecked, you may be finding that your quest to chop down trees is being too often interrupted by velociraptors.
If this is the case, then perhaps you need ignore all the codes of the day make some adjustment to your game with some Ark admin commands.
You can boost your experience points, instantly tame a dinosaur, add an item to your inventory, or even destroy every dinosaur in the land, simply by using a code word.
How do you enter Ark: Survival Evolved admin commands?
This can be done by pressing the TAB key.
In front of the line will be a semi-colon .
Delete this, save the.
Be sure to use these before attempting to use other commands.
Enable Cheats enablecheats Enables server administrator commands for the player.
Password required will be the server password.
Add Experience Points admincheat addexperience 0 Adds a number of experience points to the player, or to be shared with the tribe.
Replace with how much XP required, and set to 1 for player only, or 0 to share with tribe.
Add to Whitelist admincheat AllowPlayerToJoinNoCheck Adds a player to the server whitelist.
Remove from Whitelist admincheat DisallowPlayerToJoinNoCheck Removes a player from the server whitelist.
Add to Banned List admincheat Ban Adds a player to the server banned list.
Remove from Banned List admincheat Unban Removes a player from the click the following article banned list.
Broadcast Message admincheat Broadcast Broadcast a message to all players on the server.
Destroy All Creatures admincheat DestroyAll Destroys all creatures of the specified type.
Destroy All Dinosaurs admincheat destroyallenemies Destroys all dinosaurs living on the map.
New dinosaurs can still spawn.
Ignorant Enemies admincheat EnemyInvisible true false All creatures on the map will ignore the player, even when attacked.
Sleep admincheat ExecSetSleeping true false Puts the player character to sleep or wakes them up.
Fly admincheat fly Allows the player to move in any direction without being held down by gravity.
Ghost Mode admincheat ghost Allows player to walk through walls and terrain.
ItemID will be a number specific to the item, quantity and quality will also be numeric values.
Give Resources admincheat giveresources Adds 50 units of each resource to your inventory.
Self Damage admincheat HurtMe Damages the player character by specified amount.
Infinite Stats admincheat infinitestats Provides the player with infinite food, water, stamina, and carrying capacity, Torpor is kept at zero.
Kick Player admincheat KickPlayer Disconnects a specified player from the server.
Stop How to hack a coin slot machine admincheat PlayersOnly Stops all creature movement and prevents crafting.
Players can still move.
Move Player admincheat SetPlayerPos Instantly moves the player character to specified coordinates.
Time Speed admincheat slomo Sets the speed of the passage of time on the server.
Summon Creature admincheat summon Spawns a specified creature in front of player.
Slingshot Teleport admincheat teleport Teleports the player in the direction they are facing until they hit an object.
Unlimited Ammo admincheat ToggleInfiniteAmmo Provides unlimited ammunition for all firearms.
Walk admincheat walk Activated walk, which is the default form of movement.
Will deactivate fly mode.
Unlock Recipes admincheat giveengrams Unlocks all crafting recipes for the player character.
FPS Counter stat fps Displays a frames-per-second counter on-screen.
Server Admin Menu ShowMyAdminManager Displays the menu for server admin how to hack a coin slot machine.

🎰 Twitter

Software - MORE
Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

ARKaholic.com is the first, and the largest, English-language ARK: Survival Evolved news blog and forum. We collect, analyse, summarise and disseminate information about the game, while giving users a place to discuss it, and anything else they want, on our forums.

Git - git-status Documentation
Valid for casinos
Charlie Trout's Code Question of the Day
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Free PSN Codes are here! Want a working free PSN code? Give PSNZone a chance to prove how you can get working PSN codes for free from our generator. We have pictures of real PSN cards available to everyone!

Don’t Ignore 99024; Reporting Is Now a Requirement - AAPC Knowledge Center
Valid for casinos
And if you could ignore all phone calls and emails too. : postmates
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Using "dirty" ignores all changes to the work tree of submodules, only changes to the commits stored in the superproject are shown (this was the behavior before 1.7.0). Using "all" hides all changes to submodules (and suppresses the output of submodule summaries when the config option status.submoduleSummary is set).--ignored[=]

Valid for casinos
ARK Survival Evolved Command Codes & Cheats
ignore all the codes of the day

🍒 Twitter

Software - MORE
Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Ignore all rules is one of the oldest rules on Wikipedia, written by Larry Sanger in 2001. The original wording was a bit different from today's version. It said: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."

Advertising Chart: Why customers ignore some newspaper and magazine ads | MarketingSherpa
Valid for casinos
Advertising Chart: Why customers ignore some newspaper and magazine ads | MarketingSherpa
ignore all the codes of the day

💰 Twitter

Software - MORE
Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Free PSN Codes are here! Want a working free PSN code? Give PSNZone a chance to prove how you can get working PSN codes for free from our generator. We have pictures of real PSN cards available to everyone!

Need excel sumproduct formula to ignore "Div/0" error.
Valid for casinos
Error 403 (Forbidden)
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Where can you sink your teeth into a chargrilled New York Strip, sip a Patron Margarita, and Whack-a-Mole at the same time? Only at Dave & Buster’s! Dave & Buster’s is the perfect location for kids’ birthday parties, corporate events, school fundraisers, and more … especially when you save with Dave & Buster’s coupons.

ARK Survival Evolved Command Codes & Cheats
Valid for casinos
Ignore date and consider month and year to match | The basedgosh.info Forums
SUMMARY: Print ads in newspapers and magazines are the most trusted advertising channel when consumers want to make a purchase decision, according to MarketingSherpa research.
So, print can be a valuable tool in the marketing toolbox, even for digital marketers since they can use it to drive consumers to an online conversion objective.
As seen in the MarketingSherpa Chart of the Week newsletter.
A few weeks ago, I read more on stage at MarketingSherpa Summit 2017 interviewing Jonathan Levey, Senior Digital Marketing Manager, Flexjet, about his effort to create a mobile app that drove a 488% increase in leads.
While we were discussing one of the newer marketing channels — a mobile app — he mentioned one of the oldest channels — print advertising — as part of his marketing mix to drive mobile app adoption.
While it was hard for his team to definitively attribute app installs or ROI to print advertising, there was a lift in site visits and installs after the ads ran in Robb Report and Jetset Magazine.
So, whether you work for a traditional brick-and-mortar or B2B company engaged heavily ignore all the codes of the day print advertising or work for a more digital-oriented brand interested in driving online or mobile behavior, our latest research might be helpful to you.
Select all that apply.
As with other channels, clutter is a major factor… The top reason consumers said they ignore print ads is because they see print ads too frequently.
This is not unique to print advertising, of course.
The is because they get too many emails in general.
If one in five Americans see print ads too frequently, how can you to stick out from the clutter?
Ignoring print ads sometimes might not seem as bad as it sounds At first glance, this news could be disconcerting, especially for a digital marketer who is a relative novice at using print.
And you ignore it every day.
However, the day your refrigerator breaks, you read every word of that ad.
After all, we also discovered that.
I notice them, but if they aren't applicable to something I need at the moment, I just move on.
So, the print ad should focus on keeping here engaged with your brand until they are ready to purchase.
In that case, find proxy actions the customer can take short of purchase — using a custom URL for each ad so you can track response.
Coupons are great for advertising products!
You should treat the proxy action as a product in itself, with ignore all the codes of the day related but standalone value proposition from your product that must have its own appeal.
I usually do read ads in magazines if they appeal to me.
Print, by its very nature, will always have a limited inventory while digital can be endless.
Due to the complexities of digital ad buying, many brands may have no idea how to hack a coin slot machine their how to hack a coin slot machine buy is supporting.
Print ads tend to run alongside much more respected content.
Enter your email below to receive MarketingSherpa news, updates, and promotions: Note: Already a subscriber?
Want to add a subscription?
Increase Mobile Conversion Rates These five please click for source micro classes each under 12 minutes apply 25 years of research to help you maximize the impact of your messages in a mobile environment.
Test Discovery Tool Show business how to hack a coin slot machine all the results of your testing efforts with this free tool.
Newsletters Receive the latest case studies and data on email, lead gen, and social media along with MarketingSherpa updates and promotions.
Contact Customer Service at © 2000-2019 MarketingSherpa LLC, ISSN 1559-5137 Editorial HQ: MarketingSherpa LLC 4315 Pablo Oaks Court, Jacksonville, FL 32224 The views and opinions expressed in the articles of this website are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect in any way the views of MarketingSherpa, its affiliates, or its employees.

Free Spins
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

this script group all application, if you want you can expand it. single click you can: *accept/ignore all mafia wars gift. *accept/ignore all farmville gift. *accept/ignore suggest friend, you can choose groups/message. *accept/ignore request friend, you can choose groups *ignore application request. BE ADVISED!

linux - Crontab Day of the Week syntax - Stack Overflow
Valid for casinos
microsoft excel 2010 - Ignore multiple "number stored as text" errors at once - Super User
ignore all the codes of the day

🖐 Twitter

Software - MORE
Free Spins
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

With print, if customers ignore your ad every day until they’re ready to make a purchase, and then it influences a purchase decision, that lack of “engagement” may not be as important. After all, we also discovered that print ads in newspapers and magazines were the most trusted advertising channel when consumers were making a purchase.

Git - git-status Documentation
Valid for casinos
And if you could ignore all phone calls and emails too. : postmates
This subreddit is not affiliated with Apple.
Community Developer Accounts Improbable! come vincere alle slot machines gallina commit not ask developers for developer account credentials.
Anything relating to sharing of account details will be removed.
Flairs To add a FLAIR to your username please use a ignore all the codes of the day browser.
Select 'edit' under 'show my flair on this subreddit' in the sidebar.
All models of iPhone are displayed there.
Providing promo codes is great, it will certainly help your shameless self-promotion karma.
Is there seriously no way to get around it other then hanging up on them?
I google the number.
Then I block that number and add it to this web page spam contact.
Also caused voicemail issue in my case.
Just easier for me to add it to a list and never have to worry about it.
Also keeps me up to date with the type of numbers scammers and solicitors are using.
I don't think it quite works, but it does use their database to check submitted numbers against a spam.
Does Hiya block those?
I used to get them daily.
All I want to block is calls from numbers with the same area code as myself since I have no business with these numbers.
I used to get about 5 a day or more, like you.
Edit — it allows you to enter any of the numbers in the How to hack a coin slot machine NXX- format, and it will block all numbers that follow those digits, with the exception to numbers in your contacts list.
For example, if your number was 555-555-1234, you enter 555-555 and it will block all numbers that start with 555-555.
But it also allows you to enter 555-55555-5555-etc.
Neighbor scams started using the first five instead of six digits once their calls started getting blocked automatically.
This app gives you that customizability to ensure anything that can be spoofed will be blocked.
Hell, you could theoretically block any ignore all the codes of the day from an entire area code, or multiple area codes if you want.
I recommend just starting with: Your area code and first two digits as yours Your area code and first three digits as yours Hope this helps!
For your circumstances, Hiya, Trucaller, etc, should work better than nothing for sure.
Once a number is burned and marked as spam, it gets added to their constantly-updated block lists.
© 2019 reddit inc.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

this script group all application, if you want you can expand it. single click you can: *accept/ignore all mafia wars gift. *accept/ignore all farmville gift. *accept/ignore suggest friend, you can choose groups/message. *accept/ignore request friend, you can choose groups *ignore application request. BE ADVISED!

ARK Survival Evolved Command Codes & Cheats
Valid for casinos
Charlie Trout's Code Question of the Day
Paramore: Decode [OFFICIAL VIDEO]

Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Using "dirty" ignores all changes to the work tree of submodules, only changes to the commits stored in the superproject are shown (this was the behavior before 1.7.0). Using "all" hides all changes to submodules (and suppresses the output of submodule summaries when the config option status.submoduleSummary is set).--ignored[=]

ARK Survival Evolved Command Codes & Cheats
Valid for casinos
And if you could ignore all phone calls and emails too. : postmates
ignore all the codes of the day

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

You may also ignore all errors until after you have completed your document and check the entire document at once. The Proofing group on the Review tab offers the option for Spelling and Grammar checking.

Valid for casinos
Don’t Ignore 99024; Reporting Is Now a Requirement - AAPC Knowledge Center
This is an of past discussions.
Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the.
If you follow this policy, you are ignoring all policies.
Insert Twilight Zone theme here.
Excellent point, were the "if" absent.
But the policy doesn't say you must ignore all rules, just that you can ignore any rule that is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia.
A good way to figure out what this guideline means is to look at.
It seems to me the several important exceptions to this ought to be cited.
Copyright rules will overturn the action of anyone ignoring them.
Revert three times and you may well get blocked for your trouble.
It's a two-edged sword.
Someone could say "My bot didn't get approved yet, but as that rule is hindering me from helping wikipedia, I should start using my bot in full anyway.
Ignoring all rules is not new to society; in the 1780s, it had come to realization that the the had been using is terribly ineffective.
Rather than using the existing facilities to improve conditions, they ignored all rules and established the to change how the government worked.
Had they stuck to using the rules and guidelines of the time, it is likely they would not have gotten anywhere.
If it is preventingit may be necessary, to circumvent the traditional policies and guidelines.
It is just my opinion as a history geek that the Constitutional Convention which established the modern United States government is a great example of IAR.
Who objects to me adding this into the article?
In addition, not to be pedantic, but this is an essay not an article.
I've seen people get themselves in a twist by not understanding that distinction before.
I'm afraid that by limiting the length of this essay to that one sentence, people are not understanding and maybe blindly objecting to the existence of this policy to begin with.
Also, I call it an article the way a body of text can be called an article.
I'm not quite sure where you could add it to be honest.
They always amount to rules and conditions for IAR, which is ironic.
Ultimately, the only limitation on IAR is.
I think it's best described in as a corrollary.
Yeah, if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them, but don't be a dick about it.
That's the bottom line.
You can do just about everything without being a dick about it.
It's a matter of keeping things classy.
Once you start treading into that realm of dick-dom, you look really un-classy, and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.
Mostly by newbies, but some people have been here forever still misunderstand it.
But if a policy is being widely misunderstood, logically you should add something to clarify it so people don't always have the same incorrect knee jerk reaction to reading the policy.
But clarifying it is always resisted tooth and nail.
I think that's a bad thing.
I will AFD this policy because I think this rule encourages actions that are dispruptive.
Using IAR as a first resort is unacceptable and should be a blockable offense in my opinion if it was done maliciously.
IARing when discussion can occur is what causes problems like the Daniel Brandt deletion.
As you've been here a year longer than I have, I'm surprised that you believed otherwise.
Unacceptable as a first resort?
We aren't supposed to waste time with pointless endeavors purely for the sake of following the rules.
If a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we simply ignore it straight away.
This is not going to happen.
That doesn't mean everyone who cites it is doing so correctly, and we should still deal with people who disrupt Wikipedia, claiming IAR as justification.
There's an RFAr opened on this so it might happen.
The fact is, whether this page exists or not, people will ignore rules to screw the encyclopedia up, and people will ignore rules to benefit the encyclopedia.
This page really should stay.
Its existance does not change the fact that people will not be allowed to use this page to mess up the encyclopedia.
I wouldn't let them.
Please note that I am not commenting on whether what Yanksox did was appropriate or not, I was simply using his case an example -- 16:04, 24 February 2007 UTC Oh dear.
Every good system needs some latitude, and yes, it's disruptive, but not as disruptive as it would be if this were not here.
Not only will any MFD have not a snowball's chance in hell of suceeding, but even if it did by some miracle happen, Jimbo, who has personally endorsed this, would just recreate it and chew out whoever deleted this.
In every instance I personally have seen this policy used, it has been abused - usually by new or burned-out sysops or over-eager editors to bypass the exercise in frustration that is the dispute resolution process at wikipedia.
IAR is inherently incivil and any one who finds themselves citing it on a regular basis is probably lazy and should have their edits closely scrutinized.
Even moreso if they are an admin.
Jimbo created this policy loophole which is undermining wikipedia, and he should correct it.
That's the point I think.
I don't specifically think "I'm ", I think "This is a good idea, even if doesn't totally agree".
You'll never notice all the good applications of the rule because you agree with them.
You probably were not even questioned about it, because you were adhering to other policies.
I think this is the problem.
I've recently been seeing this recurring theme of people appearing on IRC or ANI asking for admin attention and then some unilateral half-cocked action is taken in the name of IAR, when the proper recourse was a cool down block or semi-protection or Gods forbid, dispute resolution.
When the admin who evoked IAR is questioned, they get indignant and arrogant.
People who correctly apply may cite it occasionally, but they needn't do so in every instance.
What's important is that they know of it and understand it.
As Deskana noted above, instead of citingthe individuals who abuse it would simply say, "I feel like it" if the page didn't exist.
It is, however, common for people to mistakenly believe that they need to follow every rule to the letter at all times even when it makes absolutely no sense to dopurely for the sake of following the rules.
That's when this page's existence is essential and that's when I find myself citing it.
Certainly, controversial applications of which may constitute abuse should be discussed, but discussing each and every uncontroversial application would defeat the page's purpose.
We don't abolish because some people misinterpret it to mean "include no opinions in articles," and we don't abolish because some people misinterpret it to mean "do whatever you want.
Such arrogant actions would hopefully be considered active indifference to policy, and incivil.
My main contention, is that IAR should never be used to circumvent dispute resolution in the long term, and that there should be a lower burden of oversight by the nature of the arbitrarity and vagueness of IAR.
Obviously if there is any dispute, one or more parties are going to disagree on the application of IAR when it impacts their position.
If this is an IP vandal or in the midst of a protracted edit-war, that's one thing.
However, if current policy is so severely lacking that a special incident arises which justifies invoking IAR, at the very least it should be invoked in the edit summary and documented on the talk page or ANI, not hidden away or cited retroactively as blanket justification for bad behaviour by an admin who is too busy or uninterested to follow-through with proper procedure.
Citing the policy as a license to do as one pleases is no different than saying "I feel like it," and this is not tolerated by the community.
Even on this page, admins have stated that it's just easier to invoke IAR rather than engage in discussion or dispute resolution, and I feel this is violating the spirit of IAR.
But as I noted, lengthy policies are no less likely to be misconstrued.
Trolls will be trolls.
They will do the exact same thing with IAR or without IAR.
This policy exists to prevent rulecreep and bearuocracy.
It is impossible, outright impossible, to creat a perfect set of rules — law and order rely upon the good character of those who are bound to it.
If so, when and how?
When the rules prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
By setting aside the rules that prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
By adding riders to the statement, we're saying "Yes, you can ignore all rules, but you can't do this and you can't do that and necessary all online slots free bonus no deposit hope can only do this if you do this first and the moon is in proper alignment with and.
At least one person has already disagreed with me, as I've been reverted on this once.
So before we get into an edit war, I just wanted to get my position out there.
There are already riders in the "see also" section which is sufficient.
One major part of IAR is that no should be required to read all the rules to even determine if trying all policy avenues have failed.
No reasonable person needs to read any rules whatsoever to have an idea of how to help.
As noted above, we aren't supposed to waste time with pointless endeavors purely for the sake of following the rules.
If a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we simply ignore it straight away.
So should editors just cite IAR whenever this happens because discussion is "pointless"?
IAR, contains its own, single, general all-purpose rule: encyclopedia.
I don't think any single editor can be the shining avatar of "What is best for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a collaborative team effort.
No one editor is "What is best for Wikipedia".
It's like the recent Man of the Year in Time Magazine.
Everyone is what's best for Wikipedia, since it's a big team of editors that works together, and makes decisions by a rough consensus.
As for those admins who "indicate an intent to short-circuit 'pointless' dispute resolution and discussion", don't forget that just about anything an admin does can be undone by another.
Therefore, if one steps out of line, another will be there to make things right again.
But at the same time, don't we know the sort of thing WWW has in mind?
Without getting into specifics, is it fair to say the drama really tends to surround certain kinds of admin actions?
Is it fair to say undoing an admin action you don't quite agree with is a far more aggressive move than reverting a bold edit you don't quite agree with?
Still, I don't think the answer to these cases is restricting the use of IAR.
Even if some admins cause some hand-wringing, it hardly brings everything to a halt.
Most everyone else carries on just fine.
I also think IAR is totally sound for all non-admins as written yes, laziness and unilateralness and all.
That to me is sufficient reason not to mess with it.
Maybe it's just that admin actions, and undoing admin actions, need to be less of a Big Deal.
However, it should be noted that it was also Jimbo who just de-admined someone on the spot following an invocation of IAR.
There are caveats to this policy.
Leaving them unstated is a bad idea IMO.
Yes, many people 'get it' without being told explicitly.
In short, you can use IAR only in so far as doing so doesn't violate the other pillars.
IAR can't allow you to include copyright violations in Wikipedia, it can't allow you to use Wikipedia as a blog instead of an encyclopedia, it can't allow you to post personal info about another user or threaten to kill them, and it can't allow you to ignore consensus to get your own way.
You can ignore the normal rules and procedures aka 'policies' and 'guidelines' for how things are done around here, but not what Wikipedia IS and the way users are expected to treat each other and work together.
If you're not trying to imply that, then I apologise, I misunderstood what you wrote.
It's appropriate to ignore rules when they prevent the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia.
But on the other hand, WP:SNOW has plenty of documentation about not using it to justify circumventing discussion to make controversial action, and yet people frequently cite WP:SNOW as justification for just that, sometimes flippantly.
I think at least a sentence of explanation would help IAR, many people's initial reaction totally misunderstands the policy, and one little sentence could clear a lot of that up.
But I suspect some people will perpetually resist the idea.
That's why it's great as-is, it's empowering.
I know nothing about the recent case alluded to above, but should there be an admin who imagines he can use IAR as a blunt object to crowbar whatever he wants into place, then maybe desysoping is just the cluebat that he would need.
Such behavior would a good indication that his dispute resolution skills and maybe a reality barometer or two had gone missing.
I believe the consensus ammendment needs to be included in this policy for it to be truly taken seriously.
I fail to see why people have such a problem with this rule, which goes to the essence of what wiki editing is.
WP:IAR has outlived its usefulness.
The issues we've seen with the Brandt deletion, with Brian Peppers, with the Essjay stuff, this is all "valid" IAR stuff, all controversial, and causing major rifts in the community.
While Jimbo still appears to approve of it, that really shouldn't matter anymore - this is becoming part of the major problem that Wikipedia is having concerning abusiveness and usefulness.
I think it's time to have a serious discussion as to whether this is still a useful policy, or if it's time to move on.
As such I think it's fine, though not essential.
Some people see the page as some sort of fundamental underlying philosophical wiki principle.
I don't agree with that and I don't think it is useful as such.
If a newbie comes along and starts making POV edits or edit warring, they get warned, same as anyone else.
Perhaps blocking admins show some lenience, but it's well within rights to do so, with or without this.
I suppose the greater question is that, in light of recent and long-term happenings, is this providing anything useful other than an excuse to do controversial things?
Lately I don't see that so much.
It's hard to accurately estimate the harm this page does vs.
My guess is that both are small.
You don't actually get to ignore all rules and few people will really think you can, even with this page being "official paradox" or whatever.
And even if we didn't have this page people still wouldn't behave like legalistic androids, like some IAR proponents seem to think.
Or, rather, those few who do have a bit of an android in them will not be "cured" by reading this page.
You are hardly the first person to feel this way.
The IAR advocates have this page watch-listed and far outnumber those who see the policy as detrimental.
If you really want to affect change you might want to leave a note on ANI, CN and perhaps to create a broader base of discussion rather than just having to read the same old tired pro-IAR arguments which any detractor of the policy are immediately met with.
And if the current system is kept - using WP:IAR to force your own opinion down everyone's throat and then block or threaten anyone who disagrees with you - then yes, the conflict will be averted, but at the cost of grudges and discouragement of editing left and right.
The page isn't the problem, it's the people who abuse it.
Many times when it is invoked controversially is when the person quoting IAR neglects the provision that when invoking IAR it is because a strict interpretation of the rules prevents improvement of the project.
Because most of the policies are set up to promote the improvement of the project and are constantly updated, it should be very rare that IAR should ever be invoked.
You're mistaken in your belief that the cited examples were "valid" applications of.
Those were instances in which the policy was abused just as any policy can be abused.
When someone defies consensus or bases a decision upon a rationale that defies the project's fundamental principles, this doesn't serve to improve or maintain Wikipedia.
I'd like to see it in practice in less-controversial situations than the recent ones, but can't think of any from my own experience.
I'm sure I've speedied certain stuff that wasn't appropriate for the encyclopedia but didn't fit neatly into CSD.
Nobody's ever complained though.
That's the point, I think.
Don't look for people jumping up and down shouting "Look at me, I'm ignoring the rules!
People who are using common sense to do the right thing aren't going to get noticed as IAR practitioners.
Common sense isn't to ignore the rules - that's part of the problem.
Perhaps you have some examples since last time?
And you're really overreacting.
You seem quite frustrated that someone may have ignored rules to better the encyclopedia.
Please don't be so dismissive of those who disagree with you.
I'm simply skeptical that such a situation exists - certainly, no one's been able to demonstrate it.
This is because the CSD criteria are so specific that there should be a very rare, if at all, occurance where someone should be able to speedy delete something citing IAR.
The example of ignoring blocking someone in a 3RR is a better example.
If someone's invocation of IAR causes a large amount of community strife, it's probably a good indication that it was an improper invocation of IAR, and that the action should have been more carefully considered.
It's the same with all the recent "crises".
People are using IAR as a reason to say "I will do what I think is right, regardless of what other's think".
And sometimes it gets support.
People seem to agree with stuff which has already been done, far more readily than stuff that is simply proposed that is to say, had someone proposed the changes to the Brandt article it would have almost certainly been shot down; however, after it was done it received support.
What governs Wikipedia: policy, process or consensus?
A new page was created, very stubby, was proposed for AFD, with some support and some opposition.
Was greatly expanded, and was also proposed for DYK.
There was a clear consensus to keep the page by now.
So we speedy closed.
We didn't invoke IAR by name, but it's what we did.
Regards, 21:02, 7 March 2007 UTC Shouldn't have been speedy closed.
It certainly didn't reach any speedy keep criteria by your description.
It come from people applying common sense rather than rigidly following the letter of the rules.
Which was entirely proper.
First, people were speedy closing discussions, despite our not having speedy keep criteria thus applying IAR.
Then, someone decided to write down what was already commonly being done, and that's an example of descriptive guideline writing.
After they'd been written down for a while, some rule-struck people got the idea that you can't speedy keep except in those narrowly defined cases.
Now, people are asking that any new speedy keep criteria be proposed, like a bill, debated and voted on before being used, which is not how we got the speedy-keep criteria that we have now.
Historically, that is not the model of how we develop guidelines here.
It's a much more organic process than that.
The position that Wikipedia should turn into a rules-game is a minority view, and while I respect that you've got the best motivations, and that your position is neither inconsistent nor obviously wrong, I think you're tilting at windmills.
I wish you were seeing that the pro-IAR position is also neither inconsistent nor obviously wrong, but is in fact a model for how a system can actually function effectively.
I get the impression you're very closed to the idea that a philosophy different from yours might actually work.
I am believing that this, as a policy, is detrimental to the project, and Friday's POV on the situation is actively harmfur to the position.
IAR does not allow us to function properly - in fact, in almost every use, it keeps us from functioning at all.
If someone can be bothered to actually demonstrate otherwiise, I'm very open to a separate philosophy.
Seeing as how I'm treated when I point out the flaws, it seems it's not my problem right now, is it.
Perhaps it's a leap to go from wanting to scrap IAR to believing that Wikipedia should be rule-bound.
Is that not a fair inference?
If you don't like IAR, doesn't that mean that you believe rules should be followed, even in situations where one might be inclined to shortcut?
I also hope you realize that your statement that IAR, in almost every use "keeps us from functioning at all", is not at all obvious, and that people with valid perspectives might see just the opposite.
I think it's fair to say that IAR has produced mixed results, with a lot of variance from case to case.
If I cite an example of IAR being used well, and you just reply that the action was inappropriate, we've just begged the question, right?
Or are you saying that it should have been linked from the main page while still tagged for deletion?
How would either have benefited the project?
I don't know what the article is.
Assuming that Ben's account is accurate, how would the project have benefited from bureaucratic adherence to the rules?
Evidently, your stance is that the rules should be blindly followed to the letter purely for the sake of following them.
Fortunately, we have a policy that states otherwise.
That's problem number one.
Second, the poorly sourced article was speedy kept - a big problem.
The article is still poorly sourced, and the implication is that we did a good thing by speedy keeping a poorly sourced article because it was going to be on the main page.
It ran for more than 5 days.
Now, if it were kept because it was going on the main page, as opposed to being deleted because it wasn't properly sourced and I'm not making any major judgement on thatthat's a non-beneficial problem and should not have occurred.
I'm not crazy about pointing to current situations, since almost nobody wants a pointless ruleslawyering fight over nothing.
But let's look at history then.
The CSD have only recently come to include "groups" with no assertion of significance, in addition to people.
However, people were very routinely speedy deleting groups before this time.
Example article might be "Timmy and Bobby are the two awesomest kids at Unencyclopedic High School.
I remember pointing out that such an article could be split into two articles, one about each awesome kid, and then individually the split articles were speediable under the letter of the rules.
However, we don't require admins to jump through such ridiculous hoops in order to go about their business.
This example is, to me, a good illustration about why we go by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the rules.
We rely on human judgment- the project can't work without it.
However, I think that getting some timely feedback from the mob ANI or someplace is a good safety measure when invoking IAR.
Currently there is no oversight, since IAR is usually cited retroactively when someone is questioned about something they did.
This gives the appearance of impropriety or unilateral actions on the part of admins attempting to undermine procedure and sometimes this is actually what is occurring.
So concerning your actions, I think that you could have left a note at ANI for feedback prior to acting.
If the instance is so clear cut, having more eyes on it will reinforce the correct actions needed to be taken because others will no doubt agree with your actions.
It also extinguishes all appearance of impropriety and unilateralism.
The oversight is the same thing we use everywhere: other editors.
Some folks here keep making it sound like calls of "IAR!!
Only a fool would provide such a flimsy justification.
What it means is, when there's disagreement, frame your argument in terms of which course all codes by state action is best, not which is the most rigid application of the rules.
If was altered to then I think it would be much less problematic.
This is not meant to be obvious.
A thorough understanding of IAR is one of those things that separates seasoned editors from newbies.
I thought the language about "deep and subtle meaning" was meant to convey this- if you disagree with IAR, it's because you haven't adequately contemplated its meaning.
Maybe the essay is more clearly understandable.
We should have simple, clear and obvious rules.
This project is meant to be ultimately accessable to the whole of humanity, including people from other cultures than yours who may, in your opinion, not be able to "adequately contemplate the meaning" of something you find profound and meaningful.
If there is a "deep and subtle meaning", then it seems to be being missed by many.
The simplicity of this page leaves it very open to misinterpretation.
Surely you're not referring to the deletion of articles about groups of awesome kids?
Deletions don't happen in a bubble, after all, and such abuse has further repurcussions.
The elimination of that article, alone, with nothing else being influenced, may have been a benefit, but it doesn't work that way in practice.
It's why CSD is strict, and expected to be interpreted strictly.
Are you saying that using a loophole is disruptive?
Such loopholes only exist when we follow the letter rather than the spirit of the rule.
What exactly are you objecting to, the deletion of junk articles?
Such loopholes exist only for disruptive people who feel the rules don't apply to them.
You know exactly what I'm objecting to, and I don't appreciate your implications.
By saying you're against gaming the system, you're saying we need to interpret rules reasonably according to their spirit, rather than rigidly following the letter of the law.
If you feel the need to game the system to make a situation fit the rules, you're being disruptive.
It'd be like me making a series of edits to a page, and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it no longer meets a threshold for inclusion.
No loopholes, it's simply disruptive.
If you need a charter to break ther rules, you simply shouldn't be in a position to govern when the rules apply.
If the spirit doesn't fit the letter, the letter should change or the spirit was incorrect.
Not difficult at all.
Not that I can IAR for verifiability or BLP.
What about negative material about a living person that is a absolutely true, but b fails to reach the absurd standard at BLP.
I would never suggest ignoring those two rules, but since people think that IAR is a good thing, how could anyone check this out oppose them?
Deliberately and unilaterally defying the spirit rather than merely the wording of a consensus-backed policy doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia.
That's exactly what occurs with every use.
It appears no matter what I say, you won't be convinced by my arguments, so I intend to stop.
But please consider this: Even if you did manage to convince us all that IAR should be deleted, do you think Jimbo would let that happen?
When you realize that the "rules" come about as a description of what people actually do, IAR becomes easier to swallow.
The extension of the CSD to include groups came about because people were already doing it, and it was the right thing to do, and people generally agreed on this.
But here at Wikipedia, the rules aren't magical.
They came from humans, and they have human limitations.
They don't always cover every case.
If you wish to have a religious belief in the rules, this is your choice I suppose, but you should realize that this is a fringe view, not based in rationality, and not based on what's actually best for the project.
I've explained why you're incorrect on this before, and I think I'll stop with you now since you've gone into your condescending tone again.
If IAR goes away, we are at the mercy of the strict interpretation of the rules.
If we have a problem in one situation with a rule, without IAR we will have to make another rule.
When that stops working, we have to make yet another rule.
Removing IAR is based upon the incorrect notion that a perfect beaurocracy can be created.
We must not look to the rules to save us.
Rules are not the solution, they are the problem.
Second, let us also remember, that IAR is not nor has it ever been interpreted as a blank check to do whatever one pleases without respect for the rest of the community.
If someone wishes to invoke IAR, he has to produce a strong, accepted argument as to why the particular rule should not be invoked.
The three situations mentioned at the top of this valid invocations of IAR because they did not improve wikipedia and violated other parts of the.
Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
It just means that doing what's best for the project is a higher priority than making sure we follow the letter of the law.
Anyone who prioritizes differently will have a hard time here at Wikipedia.
Think of it as an iceberg.
The bit above the water is covered by rules that work well.
The bit under the water isn't, and usually that's not a problem because we don't go there.
But there are bits that at the waterline, and there, on the edges, the rules don't always make sense.
That's when IAR is needed.
Over time, the rules grow and mature, and IAR should become less common, but it won't become less necessary.
If I was to rewrite IAR from scratch, it would probably look something like this.
The reasons we write them down are that 1 not everybody always has all the facts necessary to know what's sensible, and, 2 there are multiple ways that some things can be done and we've found that things work better when we all agree to use the same one.
If you never read the rules but always use common sense and courtesy, you will usually find yourself doing what the rules would tell you to do anyway.
However, there are very occasionally situations where the letter of the rules does not apply or should not be applied.
In such cases, act sensibly and consult with others; they're just rules.
And every extra rule we add creates opportunities for the rules to contradict each other.
So good rules are good, but they're just rules.
Regards, 21:36, 8 March 2007 UTC Again, can I ask for a specific example where using IAR has been used usefully?
While many seem to feel it is a useful concept and, when I first read it, I instinctively felt it wasupon further consideration it hardly ever seems to be used uncontroversially.
To do so would be a huge time-waster, because it would cause arguments over procedure even if everyone agrees that the right thing was done.
The entire point is that we shouldn't be spending time arguing about the procedure if we think the right thing was done.
I can only suggest that people who don't agree with IAR read the top of the page and think about it for a couple years.
If I don't understand IAR, then providing examples would the best action you could take.
Let's be clear: I'm not saying that IAR is necessarily a bad idea, I simply want to see some definite examples where it was used to improve the encyclopaedia.
Vague statements that I don't "understand" IAR are not useful.
Once you realize this, you'll see that denying IAR is essentially saying that our procedures and guidelines can no longer evolve according to our need.
CSD come about because people noticed patterns in the types of things that turned out to be uncontroversially deletable-on-sight.
Those deletions that are now specifically allowed were originally "out of process".
The written policy follows practice, not the other way around.
However, when you ignore the rules, it is frequently because you spot a flaw in existing policies and guidelines.
Are there cases where you want to ignore the rules, yet still see the rules as correct?
Exceptions may occur, and we need editors to use reasonable judgment to know when.
Perhaps this is a religious issue, but IMO Wikipedia isn't meant to have firm rules.
We don't need them.
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult - I'd love to see a situation where ignoring the rules didn't warrant trying to change them - I simply haven't seen one.
That's easily the most unhelpful comment I have seen.
Perhaps a year ago, I discovered that there were a large numbers of cocktails articles, well over 100, which consisted of nothing but a recipe, which violates.
These articles needed to be transwikied to Wikibooks bartending area, and then removed from wikipedia.
However, the transwiki process is long and tedious, and doing 100+ of them by hand would be a horribly long job.
I found that, at this time, there was no one around and active who had a transwiki bot, and requests for assistance found no help, so I decided to do it by hand.
I left out probably half the steps in the Transwiki process, those steps which, after looking into it, I decided were not completely necessary.
End result: Wikibooks bartending guide has the recipes, while Wikipedia no longer does.
None of this has been properly noted in the various transwiki logs, in violation of the transwiki rules.
In most cases, people should follow all of the transwiki steps, but due to the way I handled it, I was able to get away with not doing so.
Successful usage of IAR.
For one, did they need to be transwikied?
Furthermore, since you didn't bother with the logs, how is anyone to know what you did with them?
Could they have been expanded?
Could they be used here?
Who knows, because you simply decided that it wasn't useful here.
I don't consider that successful at all, I actually find this isntance to be abhorrent.
Recipes do not belong on Wikipedia, ignore all the codes of the day />Recipes do belong on Wikibooks, in the cookbook or in this case in the Bartending area.
Therefore, transwikiing is appropriate.
I notified the appropriate parties on Wikibooks of what I was doing, so they were aware of what they were receiving.
Could these 100+ articles one day be expanded into full articles?
They're all still here, as redirects towaiting until the day when someone might be able to write a full article about them.
Without the recipes, the articles would have been entirely empty, so there is nothing controversial about redirecting an empty article to a main article on the same topic.
As to how anyone is to know what I did with them, the same way as anyone is to know what has been done to the hundreds of thousands of other unkeepable articles on Wikipedia which have become redirects.
But the bigger picture here is that we had an entire category of articles, the Cocktails category, in which at least half the articles were not articles at all and violated Wikipedia policy.
The existence of all these recipe articles encouraged the addition of many more recipes, as they led to the assumption that wikipedia is an appropriate place to post recipes.
By moving all these to the appropriate wiki, and out of Wikipedia, I cleaned up the category, leaving it with actual encyclopedia articles.
Those of us who want Wikipedia to be an encylopedia can see the clear value in that.
IAR comes into play because I never would have done this if I had to actually follow all the steps in the transwiki process.
The whole thing would have taken me so long that I simply wouldn't have been willing to do it, and the cleanup wouldn't have happened.
No one does now, because you decided doing what you felt was right was the better route than trying to gain consensus or see if anyone can do anything with it.
Perhaps waiting for someone to do it properly would have been the better route, considering the amount of content you decided to remove.
As to waiting for someone to do it properly.
As someone who has since the above incident ended up becoming the sole caretaker of the wikipedia transwiki log, I can tell you that nobody reads the damn thing, there is zero chance that anyone would look at it and say, "hey, what's this, all these cocktails articles being moved at once, I should look into this".
I could safely post my social security number, address, and credit card numbers into the transwiki log with no fear of identity theft.
You instead decided to just transwiki something on your own, perhaps something that shou;dn't have been transwikied to begin with.
We don't know if your scenario would bear out.
There is no need to gain consensus before transwikiing articles.
I think you may not fully understand the transwiki process and system here.
This would not be unusual, 99+% of wikipedia editors, including most admins, know little or nothing about it.
To transwiki basically just means to copy an article from one wiki to another.
It seems that you don't like what I did, since it ended in the removal of wikipedia content, but you're not quite sure why you don't like it.
I could have turned those 100 articles into redirects without copying them over to wikibooks first, and then I would have been entirely within the rules and no invocation of IAR would have been necessary.
It was not the removal of the content from wikipedia that was against the rules at all, it was the way I did the transwikiing.
You're arguing against the wrong part of what I did if you're hoping to debate against IAR here.
I understand the process fine, and I understand that the way you avoided it was not a good one.
And yes, I copied the history over to the new article's talk page on wikibooks for each article.
Perhaps you will never accept IAR because you fail to see that "the perfect is the enemy of the good".
Do you prefer that something which needs doing not be done at all, rather than have it done imperfectly?
You think that we need to demonstrate consensus before turning pages into redirects?
That isn't even in the rules.
You complained that Xyzzyplugh didn't try to "gain consensus.
What are you missing here?
You think that we need to demonstrate consensus before turning pages into redirects?
Where is it for you?
I asked if you believed that demonstrating consensus was a prerequisite.
You claimed that this isn't what you said.
At the same time, you once again complained that Xyzzyplugh proceeded without first gaining consensus.
When anyone requests a citation or diffs of "ideal" examples of IAR usage there is an almost immediate ad hominem arrogance exhibited on the part of the defenders of IAR.
If someone doesn't have the stomach or constitution for discussion, maybe it's time to quit editing for awhile.
At the very least this is a sign of burnout or cowboyism.
IAR does not nullify the other pillars of wikipedia.
See Badlydrawnjeff's response to cited by Ben Aveling.
I have specific instances in mind, but I don't care to initiate a pointless argument with someone who believes that our ability to improve or maintain Wikipedia should be click the following article by procedural technicalities.
I'm sorry, this is a total cop-out on your part.
Don't presume to know my motivations or beliefs.
I am not trying to hinder Wikipedia, I'm trying to help resolve very real problems which seem to be dismissed outright by those who use this policy the most.
I've discussed these issues in the past, and someone always argues that the rules should have been followed purely for the sake of following them.
Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with this, and I don't wish to draw attention to pages that someone might then seek to edit thereby harming Wikipedia because the rules weren't followed to the letter.
Again, Ben Aveling already cited a above.
Why don't you address that?
There has to be instances where there are actual diffs involved, otherwise IAR is just another useless policy.
We are running into a very basic breakdown in critical thinking and logic if IAR cannot be defined and is only cited retroactively to justify questionable actions.
You've rejected the example because you believe that following written rules to the letter is more important than improving the encyclopedia.
I rest my case.
It's much easier to dismiss people improperly, though.
Ben cited an instance in which ignoring the rules worked to Wikipedia's benefit, and your response is "yeah, but you ignored the rules" scare quotes.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to satisfy someone who believes that the rules should be followed purely for the sake of following the rules.
It's illogical to follow the rules for the sake of following the rules.
What do you call this?
It's laziness to use "because the rules say so" scare quotes as a reason to do something or not do something a certain way.
To what are you referring?
Do you believe that my assessment of your previous reply was inaccurate?
You've cited no reason other than "because the rules say so" why this application of which served to improve the encyclopedia was improper.
You haven't explained how that application of was detrimental.
Your sole objection is that the rules which otherwise would have prevented the improvement of Wikipedia were ignored which, of course, is what the policy prescribes.
Your continued misrespresentation of my position is already tiring.
I'm referring to Ben's example.
You've cited no harm that arose or benefit that would have been gained if the rules had been followed.
Your argument against this application of is that rules were ignored.
And no, that's still not my argument - I haven't made one yet because I only recently learned what the article was.
Specifically, it's from before.
It's a subtle difference, but I think important.
Changing it to "Ignore a rule" doesn't quite carry the same punch.
I was suggesting lessening its punch.
Where there is strong community support or minimally, a lack of objectionsit is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process.
Those who should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions.
If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.
Passed 11 to 0 at 20:31, 8 March 2007 UTC There is a finding of fact that one administrator who deleted the Daniel Brandt article "did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules.
As much as the arbcom has good intentions here, it doesn't do to put "the definitive" interpretation on this rule.
The arbcom, after all, is a part of the rule structure.
Think back to the earliest history of Wikipedia: there was an extreme reluctance to launch any sort of rule set.
This principle is the inheritance of that tradition, a constant warning that we should not become too bureaucratised.
What I'm saying is that while the arbcom is quite legit to use this definition, it can't be compartmentalised to any more abstract a principle than.
And now ArbCom has done the same.
Need I remind anyone that there is nothing whatsoever about the rule that guarantees there will not be any consequences for one's actions while ignoring all rules.
But that makes no sense as a policy.
If you're not being athen your chances of being punished for ignoring rules is nil.
Tack one so much as one clause to IAR, however, and you violate the principle itself.
The trouble is that many people are emotionally attached to a sort of bracing "spirit of Wikipedia" feeling they get when contemplating the brevity of IAR.
But in practice, every single time someone invokes IAR againstit works out badly.
So it is possible to improve Wikipedia against consensus.
But one should not.
It may make the encyclopaedia more informative, or reduce misinformation, or reduce non-notable junk.
But it is always a bad idea.
Even if the isolated action otherwise would make sense, the change probably won't stick.
Either way, the resultant controversy would far outweigh any potential benefit.
There is no net gain to circumventing consensus, so doing so does not improve or maintain Wikipedia and is not a valid invocation of IAR.
They are responsible for damaging Wikipedia with their wrong edits, not the original correct editor.
And of course, all of this assumes that the individual in question actually is right.
But consensus is not infallible, merely the best we have.
However, as for the resultant controversy, that's less clear.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first, and a community of editors second.
An editor could improve the encyclopaedia, albeit only temporarily, even if it damages the community.
It diverts attention from other endeavors that actually would improve the encyclopedia.
So what happens when someone circumvents a bad consensus?
This might even weaken the consensus-defying editor's cause.
Each edit gets reverted, but at least click at this page article is correct half the time, at least until the editor hits 3RR and in practice, edit wars are sometimes much slower.
Of course the ensuing discussion distracts editors, but actually that's equally likely to happen when the dissenter simply raises the issue and doesn't edit the article.
Regarding your first point, I'm actually stunned; you seem to be arguing that a revert war can be beneficial because it means that "the article is correct half the time"and I don't even know how to respond to that.
And bear in mind that an editor may do so to improve Wikipedia in good faith in those cases when it's not obvious that a big distracting edit war is the result of their defying consensus.
I remain taken aback by your belief that revert wars can be good.
That has no bearing on the situation's reality.
Let us say that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the world is flat, while you as a dissenter believe the earth is round, and discussion of the matter proved fruitless.
Given Wikipedia's primary purpose as an encyclopaedia, does it not improve Wikipedia to make the edit anyway, so that it's correct at least part of the time?
Or is Wikipedia damaged by this overall, due to, what, lack of consistency?
It seems to me revert wars are considered bad because they make the page inconsistent, which suggests, embarrassingly, that Wikipedia is unstable.
In this particular made-up case at least, I think the inconsistency actually improves Wikipedia over a consistent but inaccurate page.
Better to be uncertain than to be certainly wrong.
When a page is protected to halt an edit war thereby preventing anyone from editing itdo you not agree that this is harmful?
But an inaccurate page is worse.
What's the purpose of this whole Wikipedia thing, after all?
A stable, accurate page reached after a brief period of inaccuracy is vastly preferable to a page that's accurate half of the time but never is stabilized because people continually revert to their preferred versions instead of working to resolve the conflict.
Let's take a step back, shall we?
As an example, you invented a hypothetical dispute as to whether the planet Earth is flat or round.
Such an issue is resolved not by determining a direct consensus among Wikipedians, but by citing reliable sources and fairly presenting all significant viewpoints on the subject.
Therefore, a dispute if one were to arise probably would stem from accusations of and the like, not from anything as simple and straightforward as your example.
But a stable, inaccurate page is not.
For the reader, that's the worst thing a page can be.
Ah, but it is determined by consensus.
A consensus may emerge over whether the reliable sources really do say that, and which sources are reliable and so forth.
If the reliable sources say the earth is round, but a consensus of editors believes that the reliable sources say the earth is flat, then there is a consensus that the earth is flat.
Such a situation is avoided via discussion not by continually reverting back and forth and hoping that more people will see the "right" version.
Instead of focusing on hypothetical scenarios, could you cite an actual instance in which something along the lines of the above occurred?
If I thought I'd found one, you'd be unlikely to believe that it was wrong, since you or any given person would be more likely to share the consensus belief than the minority belief.
Can you cite an actual instance in which this occurred?
On the other hand, it might not have been an invasion of his privacy, and we have nothing but consensus to determine which.
Brandt far more attention than he otherwise would have received.
Discussion above shows people would rather be irresponsible than responsible, so this will stay as is.
Occasionally, he makes policy decisions against consensus or without waiting for consensus.
Is he wrong to do that?
It's just that, at some point, this person has to live with the idea that others may have a case, or that the issue at hand is not that urgent or important to Wikipedia, let alone to life.
What this point is, well, that will depend on the merits of the case.
If something was really that important, and prevailing opinion was really just plain wrong, then I'd like to think that yes, I would, actually, persist in defiance, and accept the controversy and the consequences.
Rather, it is good judgement that lets you decide where the line is.
Patience and a sense of perspective is critical.
In my opinion, these sorts of shit-storms are the result of nothing more than a loss of perspective on the part of the participants.
I submit that Wikipedia got along just fine during these supposed times of trouble, and that most didn't notice, and of those that noticed, most didn't care.
We have an encyclopedia to write.
I also submit that similar shit-storms occur in all sorts of internet-based communities, even those which are not founded on Ignore All Rules.
With a healthy sense of perspective, you won't go wrong with IAR.
Without it, you will run into all sorts of needless conflict even click to see more we did strike down or dilute IAR.
While it may be tempting to give advice in this regard, it is, of course, difficult to properly enjoin patience and perspective, and even more difficult to characterise in general terms where the line is.
Any attempt to legislate these things should be done with extreme caution.
Regards, -- 14:56, 16 March 2007 UTC Deep and subtle?
On the other hand, "deep meaning" is kind of funny :- -- 10:33, 22 March 2007 UTC Humbly Recently I have had cause to reflect on this rule.
I have been involved in an interesting case the article entitled.
The way IAR is worded, enforcing it's letter and not it's spirit.
I am told that it does not mean that.
Well then precisely what does it mean?
Tell me if this sounds right.
Ignore all rules means: To create new rules and practices on a case by case basis when and as needed, to use discretion.
Example legislators make a law for manditory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.
However the courts being a separate and equal branch of government decide that in certain cases those rules are in appropiate like sending a guy to jail for life under a three strikes law for petty theft.
In a sense IAR and common sense seem to be here to allow for flexibility.
I was so hoping for clarity here.
Mostly what IAR means is that the purpose here is to create an encyclopedia: you do not need to spend time poring over rule minutiae in order to justify an action, and if some "policy" page happens to say something at the moment that is in fact contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, then it is not binding.
Nevertheless, the policy pages do generally contain the collective wisdom of other editors gained from experience in various circumstances and if there is a dispute over some issue then it should be reasonably discussed.
It seems apparent that there is more than enough consensus that you can't just "Per IAR" somthing as a defense for a change in an edit summary.
Should there be some comment somewhere on this page stating that?
Some months after I humorously proposed that, I rejected it because other people were taking it seriously.
The intent behind the rule initially was that people should not worry about getting formatting right and getting every single detail of policy under their belts before they started contributing.
It's OK if you don't bold the subject of the article.
Someone else will fix it, and you will learn simply by being corrected.
That is all I meant by "ignore all rules.
That is not a license to be a jerk, and I do not see how it could be interpreted as such.
People debate it on the talk page as if it's a rule that allows you to do anything, but very rarely have I seen someone actually use it to be a dick or to blatantly break rules.
The existance or lack thereof of this page will never stop people from being dicks if they really want to be.
That's an inconvenience, the effect of losing this page could be much worse than that.
IAR is absolutely a charter for people to abuse the processes laid out to suit their needs, nothing more and nothing less.
By now, you're equally aware of the fact that most of us strongly disagree with you.
Continually citing our disagreement as evidence that "people would rather be irresponsible than responsible" or that we haven't "paid attention" is insulting and unhelpful.
I've been waiting quite a while, though.
It was regarding the deletion of groups.
We're all well aware of you anti-IAR stance, please don't argue in EVERY single thread on the talk page.
That includes pointing out flaws in arguments.
You ask people to cite examples of situations in which ignoring a rule benefited and didn't harm the project, we comply, and then you respond by asserting that the act of ignoring a rule was harmful because a rule was ignored.
But I guess if you keep trotting that falsehood out, it will eventually gain acceptance, right?
It may well just be a miscommunication, but in that case you should look for a different way to explain yourself, because you're frequently misunderstood in exactly the same way.
Please read what I have to say if you need to pass judgement on it.
This is a consistent problem with you, especially, Friday.
You never explained why the way the CSK were evolved was disruptive; you've just asserted that it was.
Don't you understand that bare assertions that you already know we disagree with don't constitue a productive argument?
You've never provided evidence that there's anything wrong with all free slots for way IAR has been used to develop policy; you just keep asserting without evidence that you think it's bad.
When are you going to communicate with us, rather than just repeat yourself with nothing backing you up?
I can certainly understand David Levy and Deskana's frustration with your broken-record-like opposition.
I appreciate that you must find it frustrating, too, but at some point you've either got to provide an argument with actual content, or else drop it.
Consensus by brute force may not be consensus at all.
The consistant categorizations of my arguments as "bare," or "based only because the rules aren't followed" are either misunderstood, patently false, or outright designed to discredit me.
I'm rather fed up with the constant mischaracterization of my argument, so perhaps when they come around to actually making an effort to understand, the record can stop playing.
Your reasoning isJeff.
You're literally arguing that ignoring rules is disruptive because ignoring rules is disruptive and claiming that anyone who disagrees hasn't made "an effort to understand".
When there's an expectation for CSD to be interpreted strictly, it's disruptive to unilaterally extend it to things that don't fit the policy.
This is the same argument I've been making - it's not "because it's disruptive," it's "disruptive because.
Most of the community disagrees with your assertions that an "an expectation for CSD to be interpreted strictly" and an expectation that AfD discussions always "stay open for five days" no matter what exist.
Your arguments rely upon presumptions that are not widely held.
You're entitled to your opinions, but it's rather annoying when you claim that anyone who disagrees with you "would rather be irresponsible than responsible," hasn't "paid attention," or refuses to make "an effort to understand.
The community does not disagree with my assertions, so your entire premise is false.
I didn't change your message's indentation.
I merely corrected your error of inserting your follow-up to Deskana's post above mine posted approximately seven minutes earlier instead of below it.
I've done so again.
It certainly appears as though most of the community disagrees with your assertions.
Please cite evidence to the contrary.
I request again that you do not move my comment.
As for the second, I suggest reading the talk pages and archives of WP:CSD, and the routine times that improperly closed AfDs are overturned at AfD on process grounds.
It'll take a while, so be patient, there's plenty to read.
More importantly, it removes the charter for that disruptive activity.
It's the only justification availabie.
Such closings do not improve or maintain Wikipedia.
There is no valid justification, and that's why they're overturned.
I know you don't understand this page, which is why I have to keep beating this dead horse.
No, you are not "preserving the threading.
I responded to Deskana before you did, so my post belongs above yours not below it.
This represents the chronology, while the indentation represents the threading with both of our messages on the same level.
The MediaWiki diff makes it appear as though I'm moving see more message down, but I'm actually moving mine back to its original position where it was before you inexplicably decided to move it down by inserting your response above it instead of below it.
Do you see how I added this reply below the pre-existing messages instead of inserting it directly below the post to which I'm replying?
That's the correct format.
Yes, improper AfD closings are routinely overturned.
This means that was not followed.
AfD closings to which was correctly applied are routinely endorsed, and this fact is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote the above.
Meanwhile, there's no such thing as a proper IAR AfD closing, because IAR AfD closings are disruptive for the reasons I noted above.
I again implore you to read.
You continually moved my message to an incorrect location and falsely claimed that I was doing exactly that to your message when I was simply moving mine back to its original position.
There was nothing "stupid" about my efforts to restore the proper threading and educate you on the subject.
No matter how many times you issue such a proclamation, your personal opinion that following an official policy is "disruptive" doesn't negate the fact that it's an official policy.
You again tried to claim false motives in my moving of my comment back to why I was responding to, which is par for this course.
Meanwhile this official policy encourages disruptiveness, and probably shouldn't be a policy per common sense, but disruptive admins need a charter, so it stays.
Have anything constructive to add, or will you move on, now?
At no point did I claim that your interference with the proper threading was deliberate.
I'm certain that it was due to an honest misunderstanding on your part which is why I posted a lengthy explanation of the correct format.
Once again, you're citing your opinion as fact and as.
I and most users disagree with your assertion that this policy is disruptive.
Consensus by brute force may not be consensus at all.
The consistant categorizations of my arguments as "bare," or "based only because the rules aren't followed" are either misunderstood, patently false, or outright designed to discredit me.
I'm rather fed up with the constant mischaracterization of my argument, so perhaps when they come around to actually making an effort to understand, the record can stop playing.
Jeff, I'm not trying to discredit you, because I consider you to be an excellent contributor to the Wiki who has consistently and thoughtfully argued for what he believes to be right.
I have no desire to discredit you or to misrepresent your arguments.
Please consider that the misunderstandings may run in both directions.
On point, I'll say this.
You mention "expectations" in the thread above, when saying that early closings are disruptive because there is an expectation that discussions will remain open for a certain time.
At least, I think you said that.
If not, please correct me.
Speaking only for myself, when I first came to Wikipedia, the policy and guideline pages I read, and the behavior I observed, did not lead me to develop that expectation.
I thought that the pages in the Wikipedia namespace made it clear that Wikipedia is not a rules-game, and that I should expect to see corners being cut and rules being bent regularly, and that it's ok as long as we're able to talk about our actions and the reasons behind them.
I also developed the expectation that our guidelines were grown organically through a descriptive process, in which people did things that made sense to them, and good practices were eventually written down for the benefit of others.
I developed the expectation that our here and guidelines weren't to be taken as "rules", but more as documents of good ideas that have worked in the past, and which may or may not continue to work.
It seems to me that the expectations you developed about how Wikipedia works are different from what I've just described.
Is that fair to say?
I'm glad there's something we can both agree to, even if it's just that we have different expectations.
I'm not sure where I got the expectations I did; I think it was some combination of reading policy pages and watching people do things.
Probably the same place where you acquired your expectations.
It wouldn't be the first case where two people look at the same thing and see really different things.
You say the zebra is white with black stripes, and I say it's black with white stripes; which of us is right?
It strikes me that the question of whether or not most people expect AfDs to run for a full 5 days is an empirical question that we could work towards answering.
Otherwise, I predict that this page will continue to go 'round in circles with "this policy is disruptive," "no it's not," "yes it is,".
I ask, because as I recall you had a problem with this close.
Yes, I am aware of the Daniel Brandt ArbCom case.
It serves a purpose just as serve in U.
Constitution and in Canada constitution.
Suppose IAR were abolished.
Would it have any impact on common practice?
See some of the above discussions for examples.
Regards, 11:43, 17 April 2007 UTC So why not, instead of saying "ignore all rules", say "respect all rules", and have a rule stating Wikipedia's mission Wikipedia's spirit, in your words?
People would no longer have an excuse when they decide to do something against the community's wishes.
It would be a net benefit.
After all, IAR is itself a rule, so ignoring it means respecting the rules minus and minus makes plus, right?
However, talking in double negatives is more confusing than talking straight, so i propose changing this policy's title to "Respect the rules".
But, actually, "Respect the rules" is redundant, because rules are meant to be respected, that's why they're called rules.
So i revise my suggestion, and suggest that this IAR policy be abolished, because it only serves to confuse editors, in the best case, and in the worst case encourages them to disregard the policies.
I agree with the rest, though.
This is an undesirable barrier towards entry.
Cut Newbies Some Slack.
But i also think it very desirable that people have a peek at the policies before they begin editing.
This can spare administrators a lot of time cleaning up mess which could have easily been avoided in the first place.
That's the right direction: instead of giving the middle finger to the policies, restructuring and rewording them, so there are only a small handful of them, and that they are easy to understand and follow.
My ideal is the Creative Commons licenses: they can be summarized by three or four short phrases, which anyone with some common sense can immediately understand, remember and follow.
At any rate, no, as an essential part of the wiki philosophy people should be able to "jump in" without worries.
This is precisely why Wikipedia is so popular.
more info, 22:09, 17 April 2007 UTC Our rules are legion and take hour upon hour to learn, much less every nook and cranny.
The destruction of would be the loss of a fundamental reminder of the spirit of the law: We and the rules are both here to make a good encyclopedia.
Wikipedia could gain a bit by reducing the amount of disruptive discussion, but it would lose fivefold or tenfold by empowering those who are ready to belabor every last single detail of the rules to support their position - in other words, it would give more power to those who shout the loudest and the longest, which is a danger in any virtual environment.
With the number of edits and users increasing daily and by proxy the number of vandals and vandalismslow processes need to sometimes be ignored to keep Wikipedia as good as it can be.
There is little doubt that vandals work faster than a bureaucracy, so without IAR, eventually the vandals would win.
Wikipedia's spirit is not that all's fair game.
Wikipedia is not an aimless endeavor devoid of goals and principles.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
This should be a policy,and we should all respect all policies, including this one.
Newbies are best served by the "Assume good faith" policy, and initiatives such as the adoption project, and the welcoming committee.
What they need least is to be told there are no rules, only to find out the hard way that there are in fact rules, which are very important to the community.
Particularly confusing is the fact, that this "Ignore All Rules" edict is itself a rule!
What are newbies, or indeed any other person of sound mind, to make of this?
Mind, this "policy" was meant as a joke, as explicitly admitted by its creator himself.
And as for vandals, acts of vandalism go against Wikipedia's policies and if all administrators stick firmly to the policies, they should have no problem dealing with vandlas.
Sometimes you need to ignore the rules to make Wikipedia better.
Furthermore, yeah, it was meant as a joke by Sanger, but Sanger's gone and Jimbo made it a policy.
Let's not focus on what it was but rather what it is.
Sometimes I respectfully ignore them.
I wonder if we've really thought through what rules we would use to enact and repeal other rules after we got rid of this, and specifically, what rules we would use to repeal this one?
Clearly we couldn't make a move which would be immediately invalid under the new, legalistic order of things.
Cheers, -- 19:13, 17 April 2007 UTC So IAR is meant to provide people who don't care to follow policy, and who are not even acting in good faith, a license to do what they like?
Seems to me, those who are really concerned about vandals, and we all are, should be the most outspoken critics of IAR, which could be aptly retitled "The Vandal's Protection Policy".
Getting rid of this wouldn't change that!
Anyone who thinks vandalising is improving the encyclopedia should be blocked for being so stupid anyway.
They clearly don't have a clue how to edit appropriately.
Based on the above comments i'd suggest "Act in good faith", but that's already taken.
It certainly doesn't seem like the intent of this was to run roughshod over community consensus and process, but that's exactly what happens.
The first thing that happens when IAR is invoked is that whoever is around has a quick discussion over whether the benefit of the action taken outweigh the cost.
IAR is about putting the good of the community over a literal blind adherence to the letter of rules which can never cover every situation.
Please provide an example of IAR leading to an outcome that goes against community consensus.
Certainly, not every action taken under IAR meets community consensus, that's OK, those actions get reverted.
What would you propose instead?
I can't see that working, not least because we never agree on what the rules mean, or even what the rules are.
Regards, 22:07, 17 April 2007 UTC As the rules are formed and instituted via community consensus, IAR is de facto an outcome that goes against community consensus, and it's not always reverted when people complain.
What would I propose instead?
Simply junking this - remove the charter, and if a sitaution really arises where IARing was a good idea, the community would be lenient.
It hasn't happened yet, though, so.
I don't quite understand what you mean by that.
Could you please explain?
You've just said that we should get rid of the IAR policy not rule but that people should continue to do what IAR says they should do?
That is, follow the rules when they make sense, ignore them in the rare occasion when they don't.
Regards, 23:10, 17 April 2007 UTC This policy, or at least its current formulation is confusing.
I believe there is no argument about that, since the evidence, manifested in this talk page, is overwhelming.
I hope, also, there is a general agreement, that "confusability" is not a desirable attribute in a policy or a system of policies.
This problem needs to be addressed.
Those who favor the policy, seem to agree, that policies should most of the time be adhered to, and when they are not, it should be under constricted circumstances.
Let's try then to capture these circumstances, and replace this policy with a straigt-forward one with a matching title.
And if the matter was not urgent, then it could and should have been discussed on the problematic policy page, attempting to gain support for an amendment.
So why won't we substitute the confusing and danger-prone "Ignore all rules" by an emergency policy to the effect that in cases of emergency, experienced editors are allowed to make judgment calls which go against the policies, if they are acting in good faith to protect Wikipedia's mission, to be a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit.
Their actions may be later challenged, but if the case is in the gray-area, and if they are editors of high standing in the community, then they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
Could you please elaborate somewhat and explain the circumstances of the deletion, why you decided deletion was called for, and why you think your action violated policy and which policy?
It was tagged as fair use on the image description page.
I'll explain what i understand.
Please correct me if i'm wrong.
At some point of time a user removed a picture from the page citing concerns over copyright infringement.
Later another user restored it, claiming the picture was in fact thoroughly kosher.
You then deleted the picture from commons, because.
These links might help you:and then and deleted it.
Saying it wasn't used because of a potential copyright problem then asserting that we can use it as fair use on the image page doesn't make sense to me.
I deleted it to not only avoid a potential copyright problem, but also to protect intellectual property.
You suspected it might cause copyright problems because the article quoted someone as saying there are copyright issues with this picture.
So you went on to delete the picture from the database altogether.
Why do you have recourse to IAR to justify your actions?
They seem quite supported by.
More importantly, one doesn't need to get an explicit approval for one's actions from a policy, as long as they are not obviously violating any policy.
Even if they are violating policy, it's really no such big a deal if it happens only on occasion: at worst some other editor will slap you on the wrist and ask you to be more careful next time.
And actually, you're citing IAR.
You're saying it's alright to ignore policy in certain conditions- that's what IAR is about.
Pedantic notes: The image wasn't on commons, it was on enwiki.
Also, the image isn't deleted from the database, it still exists, it is just not visible to anyone who is not an administrator -- 23:47, 17 April 2007 UTC Well then what stopped you from putting it through?
My problem with the IAR policy is that it's confusing evidently and dangerous.
I have no problem with the notion, that sometimes editors may violate the policies for good reason, except that i'd like this to be told straight rather then obliquely as in the IAR policy.
I also think that "good reason" should not be a matter of personal taste, but instead, at least remotely, guided by Wikipedia's mission to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and by concensus; if someone acts in a way which is detrimental to this mission and also does not enjoys concensus, this someone should be stood corrected, not be legitimized by the IAR policy.
What constitutes "good reason" should be stated in policy and it probably already is.
I won't bear any grudge should you do so.
I bet it gets you nowhere.
There is usually, but not always, a CSD that would "justify" the deletion, but I don't care.
One of these days, it's likely to get you in trouble.
When there's reasonable disagreement, I'm generally happy to send it to AFD instead.
I'm not following the "letter of the law", I'm just being reasonable and cooperative.
I get more concerned when the opportunity arises where you're not willing to reverse yourself.
In terms of an uncontroversial, proper outcome, though, no, I've never found one.
I've asked for them for over a year, though, and no one's delivered.
You're welcome to report it as improper deletion and see what becomes of it.
Should you do so and I get moaned about it, then I guess it'd just further re-enforce your case.
But I think you realise that won't happen, so you don't want to report it lest you be proved wrong?
Eventually someone noticed that certain types of AfDs got closed early often enough, and uncontroversially enough, that we might as well write it down, and thus a guideline organically arose.
Sounds like a proper outcome to me, except that it was phrased prescriptively instead of descriptively when they wrote it down.
Another example: I delete pages constantly while processing.
I'm sure lots of them fall under housekeeping, which I think is G6, but I never worry about that sort of thing.
I just worry about completing page moves and history merges correctly and efficiently, which must be what the "rules" tell me to do, but I don't read them.
When it's clearly time for me to delete a page, I delete it.
Is that not an "uncontroversial, proper outcome"?
As for the second, if it falls under housekeeping, good.
Before I start digging though: if you say that's not a proper use of IAR, then I have to ask, what are your criteria for an example of the policy used properly?
If you get to declare examples "improper", then what's your standard, or have you defined it out of existence?
By the way, I occasionally speedy-rename please click for source category because I don't feel like dealing with CfD bureaucracy - can I call that "housekeeping", too?
IAR is at least 2 things:1 a statement about all safe codes for dishonored producing a quality encyclopedia is more important than following a set of rules.
IAR is also 2 a recognition that no ruleset can ever be link the written "rules" aren't meant to cover every case.
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
No further edits should be made to this page.
If so, feel free to suggest an alternative name.
Even the supporters of this policy agree that the title does not reflect the policy's intention.
Possible alternative: "Act in good faith" to complement "Assume good faith".
If the title is taken earnestly, then, strictly speaking, it's paradoxical, hence meaningless, but practically speaking it may give green light to vandals, power-hungry administrators, and in general anyone who doesn't care to follow the policies and who is not even acting in good faith because that would be covered by the "Assume good faith" policy.
However, if this title is not to be taken in earnest, than it's just plain confusing.
Alternative name: "Act in good faith" to complement: "Assume good faith".
I don't remember agreeing that.
To my dismay it seems i misunderstood some opinions, and people link think the title accurately reflects the intention.
If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.
Sorry, I don't get it.
Polls aren't the best way of determining consensus if there's not been much discussion on the matter anyway.
Secondly, having only been on Wikipedia for a few months, I'm not sure Itayb really knows whats best for the page, due to inexperience.
Thirdly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the name of the page anyway.
Sorry, "Act in Good faith," though true, has little to nothing to do with the point behind IAR.
And per all the other objections as well.
To be blunt, those who get scared by a policy called "ignore all rules" don't understand that rules are not the core concern of a wiki such as this.
And they never have been.
Being paradoxical is on purpose.
Wikipedia processes and procedures are supposed to be thoughtful and not bright-line tests.
The opposers care about this policy, because they think policies do matter, and they want their actions backed-up by policy.
What makes you think that without this "policy" people will not employ good judgment in exercising the other policies, particularly in the face of "Assume good faith"?
And how can this policy be of any use anyhow, since whenever it is played, the other party can counter the move using this very policy.
This is an invitation to edit war.
It does not supercede the other pillars, including the code of conduct, which forbids edit warring.
Second, it has been long established that you cannot "play" or "Invoke" IAR.
IAR isn't a rule, it's the anti-rule, the spirit which drives what rules are for on wikipedia.
People, any people at all, who "play" IAR in that manner don't understand the point of the rule, and frankly, are too rule-minded to ever be helpful in understanding how rules should and should not be applied on wikipedia.
At least one editor who tried "playing" IAR in that sense was blocked on the spot.
It's closer to Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia than it is to WP:A or somthing like that.
You can't "counter a move" by using WP:IAR.
There are plenty of Wikipedians who "get" IAR and understand a that rules are not the point here, and b that rules-lawyering indicates that you're playing entirely the wrong game.
Those who try to lawyer the rules and "win" by "countering moves" demonstrate that they don't understand the nature of rules at Wikipedia.
Someone who thinks IAR is a trump card is precisely the person who shouldn't be using it.
When they try, it generally doesn't work for them, either.
That is, if, in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, you have to continually invoke and ignore some rule, maybe that rule needs to be rethought or revised or changed so that it does not block encyclopedic improvement.
Furthermore, reminds us why we are here.
We aren't here to follow rules, we aren't here to create a community, we aren't here to argue - we're here to write an encyclopedia, and all else is secondary.
It's almost as close to a core principle as you get.
There is no self-contradiction either.
You are perfectly free to ignore the fact that you may ignore all rules if you wish; follow the rules slavishly if that's what you wish to do, because unless you find yourself unable to improve wikipedia without breaking one which is pretty unlikely IMOyou will not be breaking this "rule".
Or, looked at another way, "If ignoring all rules prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, don't ignore them.
No to a name change of because we need to be able to do something when the "rule" is wrong.
At the same time, I will admit that the major use of is by well-intentioned people with strong opinions to "Ignore all reasonable measures of consensus"--as exemplified by the recent huge policy upheaval in gutting Verifiability, ReliableSource, and NoOriginalResearch to get.
However, the fix for that problem is for the Wikipedia community to get better at distinguishing between 1 compared to 2 "Ignore all reasonable measures of consensus.
Wikipedia is not a system of law, and the rules shouldn't be as rigid and inflexible as laws in real life.
Even in real life we have to "ignore" a enacted law provision.
I'm just in favor of expressing it straight rather than as "ignore all rules".
The only Wikipedians who should be held to the letter of the rules on Wikipedia are those with administrator privileges.
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page.
No further edits should be made to this page.
Policies are not intended to dictate every move you make.
You don't need to justify all your actions by citing from a policy.
Most of the edits and other stuff you can do in Wikipedia are probably not even covered by any existing policy.
This doesn't mean you can't do it.
On the contrary, if no policy explicitly forbids your actions, they are perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, you should strive to get acquainted with the policies as time goes by.
If you hide behind IAR to avoid having to read, understand and be guided by the policies, you're acting against wide consensus, and this is wrong.
That's particularly wrong if you're an administrator.
Normally, you don't need to be bothered with policies until someone else challenges one of your actions, citing from a policy.
Such an occasion is an excellent opportunity for you to turn to the relevant section of the relevant policy page and get to grips with it.
If you're actions are, in fact, obviously against the policy, ask your challenger for pardon, and make a mental note of this policy point, so you won't make the same mistake twice.
If you find the policy is on your side, why that's even better, isn't it?
If you think the policy is wrong, by all means, try to amend it by raising your proposed change in the policy's talk page and trying to gain consensus for it.
If you succeed, that's great; but if you don't, it means many people disagree with your proposal, and think the policy is good just as it is, and you should respect it.
Finally, bureaucracy is not evil.
It means you're accountable for your actions with respect to the community.
Red tape makes it harder for bad people to act badly.
The problem is that it also makes it harder for good people to act well.
If you realize the harm bad people can cause, and the way Red Tape helps to check their bad behavior and to hold them accountable for it, you'll probably look much more fondly on the tape, and like it despite its flaws.
This is an encyclopedia, and all a person needs is a sane, rather common-sense idea of what an encyclopedia is.
Policy pages are collective wisdom written down, learned from prior experience.
They are not law and someone citing them is not citing a statute or a court case, and someone who reads them is not keeping track of "policy points", they are just keeping track of good ideas—or sometimes ignoring bad ideas.
It's right there, too, on.
Wikipedia ain't a bureaucracy.
A couple more, there must be something about copyright.
Anyway, those aren't things you can ignore for long.
Those are things that define our project here: we're using cooperative, consensus-based editing on a wiki to build a free neutral encyclopedia of verifiable, peviously published facts.
Practically each word in that sentence is a policy, and IAR doesn't mean you can ignore those.
It means you're allowed some newbie slack if you didn't know about NOR for example, but once somebody tells you, you don't get to ignore it anymore.
Now, there are a myriad guidelines, conventions, processes, procedures, forms to fill out, requests to file in triplicate, etc.
Most of that can be ignored.
That doesn't mean not to do it.
It means that if you don't know it exists, don't worry about it, but if somebody stops you and tells you about it, listen to them, because you're following WP:CIVIL.
If they tell you about a rule, and it makes sense, follow it.
It's all part of how the wiki works.
That does not equate to disregarding their principles, but few people need to read whatever says to know ignore all the codes of the day to interact with other people.
CIVIL is a blatant example, but the other ones are unnecessary too, and most encyclopedia editors do not read any of these and do just fine.
Wouldn't it be much clearer, particularly to newbies, but also to everyone else?
Suppose we called this policy: "Relax" rather than "Ignore all rules".
Wouldn't it be more adequate?
I think Friday summed it up better than I did in the section above.
Centrx, you're right that the specific text of the big policies doesn't matter much, but my point was precisely what you said: that you can't disregard the principles behind them.
There's a difference between ignoring the policy pages and ignoring the actual policies.
I didn't mean to suggest that anybody needs to read the policies, just that we all have to abide by the principles that the pages aim to reflect.
Sorry if the indent made it seem I was talking about you; that wasn't the intent.
Aside from that, it is a fundamental issue that we can't plausibly expect users to read all the rules before doing anything.
Jimmy's highly respected opinion is not an infinitely rigorous preservative.
As far as i know, all policies are per tradition instated by a Jimbo fiat.
It does not and should not prevent them from changing and evolving.
In the second half of its life, it appears to have been edited around 700 times, with a net result of … a gnat's crotchet more than nothing.
Please, people, go and write the encyclopedia and stop worrying "the rules" being ignored.
It must be coming up on 6 years at this point.
Perhaps making an essay might be useful to explain IAR etiquette to people?
But that isn't always the case, so I don't agree that it should be added to this page.
Mostly the rules are just common sense.
On the other paw, "I didn't realise there was a reason for that rule" can be acceptable, sometimes important things aren't obvious.
That's why we have rules, but it's also why we have to accept that they will be broken - and it's only something to get upset about if it keeps happening.
Basically, we don't want people following rules because the rules exist, we want them following rules because the rules make sense.
In its original formulation, IAR simply encouraged rank how to hack a coin slot machine file Wikipedians to ignore rulecruft.
The only people who should be held to a higher standard of care in re the observation and enforcement of Wikipedia's rules are those with administrator privileges who all too often are a de facto law unto themselves.
Such an assertion is inscrutable to the unititiated, and leaves them uninformed and bewildered.
A poll is not going to produce any results; it does not convince anyone and it constrains ideas into Yay or Nay classifications.
Separately, these proposals are long-winded and show little understanding of either this page or how Wikipedia works in general; I would create a short ancillary page explaining the issue, except that probably no one would read it and these naive objections would still come up.
Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise.
My statements are not "interpretations" of some policy law.
It is just a page that has some explanation that would be helpful for the "uninformed and bewildered uninitiated" and the "rank and file", whoever that is supposed to be.
Anyway, these vote proposals and long-winded speeches remain unproductive.
Although it appears Centrx ignored that rule ;though he probably violated one qualifier to IAR, namely.
That said, I personally dislike polls especially three-pronged pollsand would like for this to end.
Let's discuss, not vote, per.
I hereby move to end this poll and continue the discussion, as there will likely be better outcomes.
If it's a situation where it would be civil to say so out loud, then.
If it's a situation where it would be gratuitous to do so, then I think you can guess what to do there as well.
That's my answer to 1.
For 2, of course newbies are treated differently from administrators.
That's not a rule; it's just life.
Admins are assumed to know a lot more about Wikipedia, just from having dealt with it, and are accordingly assumed to be much better at both following and breaking the so-called "rules".
It's not like it isn't explained in excruciating detail on the talk page every few months.
Once you start trying to expand this policy - gah!
That way lies madness.
That it's dangerous in that it grant editors a carte blanche to do whatever they like.
The corollary does not resolve the confusion.
The problem is not so much that IAR directly debilitates my ability to edit; rather it grants power to other editors, particularly to administrators, to act in a way that prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
So even if i ignore the IAR, others still use it, and by doing so they prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
That isn't what it says.
Let's explore this a bit.
Users have expressed opposition codes of all airports in world restrict the ways and circumstances under which they may violate policy.
Two users expressed disagreement with this proposition.
Yet another user had made an assertion before that "I for one, have willfully and knowingly ignored rules without discussion and i've never been censured for it.
Other editors have given examples of how they knowingly hadn't followed policy, even though there was no compelling reason not to follow policy.
Can you begin to see my concern?
The policy already stipulates that it's appropriate for users to ignore rules for the purpose of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia," not to "to do whatever they like.
Like any policy, certainly is open to abuse.
You need to understand that citing the policy as justification to do whatever one pleases is just that — abuse.
If you believe that users have abused the policy, feel free to take it up with them or with the community.
It might appear that contradicts the usefulness of Wikipedia policy.
But, as I see it, the good pieces of Wikipedia policy are summaries of the cooperative approaches that sometimes have produced consensus among editors, such as on the good Wikipedia pages like and.
However, existing Wikipedia policy text is very murky and self-contradictory, so that policy cannot be taken as a "rule.
That is, suggests that what counts is developing a consensus on the page, and this consensus will not be found in an existing set of "rules.
The problems with global warming are a direct result of ignoring rules such as consensus and NPOV.
A healthy dose of following the rules would solve the issue, not somehow further ignoring them.
It seems to me that there is a huge divide over what the standard for inclusion on the page is.
In the following, I am the controversy and not using necessarily the terminology that the combatants use.
The scientists seem to be excluding from the page those ReliableSources that do not themselves use the standard "Verifiability, not truth" in their own work.
The other editors seem to be inserting material that is merely "Attributable, not truth.
IAR is a rule, right?
So ignoring IAR should be inherent in its own policy.
So why qualify IAR with IAR when we don't say "If prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"?
There's no need to make an exception of the exception.
Christ, that corrolary could go on forever.
I think rednblu's summary above is spot on.
I was, of course, joking in my earlier comment.
Most of that can be ignored.
That doesn't mean not to do it.
It means that if you don't know it exists, don't worry about it, but if somebody stops you and tells you about it, listen to them, because you're following WP:CIVIL.
If they tell you about a rule, and it makes sense, follow it.
IAR is perfect as is.
Perhaps we need a commentary to explain this to those that don't get it, but for the vast majority of us, there's no problem understanding this page.
IAR means that the rules are not the final word on any subject and do not apply if they are found to be not useful in certain situations.
However, it has to be phrased as simply as possible, because there are those out there that just have to have rules to wikilawyer by which are final and absolute, and this page functions as somthing of a saying, "We're not giving you firm rules!
If you think IAR needs to be spelled out in any more detail, then you don't understand IAR.
As if IAr is the only thing that keeps our rules from not being firm.
Even phrasing it the way you did is incorrect.
IAR doesn't prevent rules from getting firm, IAR is the unfirmness of our rules.
The fact that consensus can change and that our rules change with discussion is how the rules aren't firm, it has nothing to do with IAR.
We shouldn't keep bastardizing IAR willingly to make it fit what we want it to be.
I mean, how do you know that changing through discussion is the only way the rules aren't firm?
How do you know IAR doesn't play a role?
A lot of people seem to think it does - how does one decide that you're right and they're wrong, unless one already agrees with you?
Has the IAR policy ever been explicitly invoked?
This is not a kind of rule that can be "invoked," It's a principle of editing and where your priorities are at.
Anyone who instead just says "IAR!
I wouldn't encourage people to use the term this way anyway.
Better to just state in plain English why you did what you did.
There are many other circumstances, including those applying to ordinary editors.
For instance, it's quite in order for an editor to completely ignore the manual of style in making an edit.
The assumption is that wikignomes who care about that sort of thing will fix the article, and indeed this is what happens.
I was actually referring to in the poll above.
WP:SNOW remains controversial, and ArbCom has called it dangerous.
It's still an example of an application of IAR responding to the question askedwhich is more than you've given.
Instead of just being negative, why not try to be positive about something, even if you don't like it?
It worries me when people joke like on the WP:SNOW discussion that we should have a {{butjeffhatesit}} tag.
Yeah, it's a joke, but it has some serious truth to it.
Let's be positive here.
Wikipedia is a community project, not that of one loud editor.
Nor for that matter does the arbitration committee, which has correctly declared a certain misuse of the to be harmful.
Correct application of the clause, incidentally, requires not only long experience of correctly applying Ignore all rules successfully, but also brass balls.
WP:SNOW is a very tangible, easily-understood example.
Furthermore, I don't like people being condescending yet adding very little to the discussion.
Come to think of it, just go tohave it show you a few hundred or thousand pages at a time, and just search for the word "Noticeboard".
You'll get a lot of hits on Admins and B'crats noticeboards, to places where IAR came up in conversation.
I just read a few, and they're convincing me that a lot of people here are on the same wavelength about how IAR works.
Maybe we've all just had too much kool-aid, but I think we might actually be onto something.
I may have some work to do if I can find the time.
As for the noticeboard link, redirecting was an editorial decision, so no problem.
As for your "whatlinkshwere," I sure hope my linking of it in conversation is not an implication of my approval.
I'm not saying that my examples indicate approval or anything, just that "whatlinkshere" is a good place to look for examples.
I was trying to be helpful, not to advocate for my "side", ok?
I also wasn't asking whether the particular noticeboard link was a problem - nobody ended up ignoring rules there.
I was just showing an example of admins talking about it with apparent understanding.
I just mean that, in the history of the noticeboard, there are examples of people talking about IAR, whether or not they "invoke" it, and apparently being on the same wavelength about it.
In other words, nobody freaks out, and rules are either ignored or not, with a mutual understanding of what's going on and how appropriate that is.
Have I answered what you were asking?
It's unfortunate that non-admins can't see the contents of deleted pages, but I wonder whether you'd think differently on at least some of them if the page contents were more visible.
I don't think I'm really jumping to any conclusions here.
Your userpage seems to say no.
So what's the point of the argument if arguing with you is and will always be just pissing into the wind?
I'm sure Ican eventually convince people this is bad policy, though.
Like, what if doing that was a foundational principle of their project, written into the rules?
Within those rules, they'd be entirely right to do just what you said, right?
Then, wouldn't it actually be good practice?
Those people should be ejected from their positions of power.
It has nothing to do with my standards and everything to do with basic respect and trust.
I'm just trying to figure out how deeply this disagreement runs.
I'm surprised by the idea that, if people invent a game, and decide to play it a certain way, then you'll just arrive and tell them they're doing it wrong, because you have some a priori idea of what their rules have to be like, to be consistent with respect and trust.
Apparently the idea of people agreeing to IAR, and yet to respect and trust each other, is just impossible?
Keep in mind - the use of IAR does not at all jive with the policy's intent, as we well know.
That might be a first, with regard to this issue at least.
I'm kind of amazed that you find people who've started a project, and invented a set of rules, and agreed to work by it, and you just join the project and tell them they're doing it wrong, that their rules are wrong, even though they invented it.
You just assume it actually runs by some other rules, that you have in mind, and act accordingly.
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that.
As far as the use of IAR "not jiving with the policy's intent", I don't agree that that's something "we well know".
My experience tells me the opposite.
How would an outsider, listening to both of us, determine that you're right, and not I?
If an outsider somehow thinks it's closer, I really have to question their comprehension ability.
I'm not sure how to address your middle paragraph, because it doesn't seem to be relevant to anyone's discussion here.
You talk about Sanger's intent, but I would say that Sanger and Wikipedia have drifted away from each other, and IAR has taken on a life of its own.
The intent behind IAR is no longer what Sanger had in mind, but it's rather what we as a community have grown into.
Because, you're doing a good job of it.
I think the situation which most frequently arises, and where IAR is most appropriate, is when one writes articles.
There are a whole load of rules and guidelines telling us about the standards and styles we should follow, and if we read that we would never get around to writing anything.
On administerial or similar actions, I don't go as far as Jeff does in saying that it's never appropriate to use IAR, although I think that reasonable objections should not be answered with "read IAR, this was common sense, so shut up.
I speedy closed as a redirect even though I wasn't an admin, with the rationale that everybody, including the nominator agreed, and that it was reasonable to let the readers get to the proper article at once.
And for that matter, if anyone disagreed, there is no trouble reverting the redirect and writing a full article instead of the stub that used to be there.
Basically, if it will not upset anybody, it is OK, barely, to not be tied up by the rules.
It is OK to cross the road outside a pedestrian crossing if there are no cars around who you annoy.
It is not quite as OK to do this suggest all slots casino claim bonus have peak traffic.
I have another scenario which I saw about a year ago, but can't find right now.
The next day an article pops up from the same contributor aboutwhich is identical, word for word, in all respects except that the name and career has been changed to policeman, and the wife's name is "Mindy" instead of "Cindy".
Now one could argue that these changes make the article substantially dissimilar from the first one, making G4 inapplicable, but is it reasonable that we need to spend time on yet another AFD debate to get rid of Fred the Brilliant Policeman?
Can it be deleted as vandalism even though the rules say that hoaxes are not generally speedy deletable?
Assume here that will contest any prod, thereby ruling out that option.
Another example: I encourage admins to reverse my admin actions if they disagree strongly enough to do so.
The rules suggest that this should not be done without prior consultation, but I think this is the wrong attitude to take and smacks of.
Instead of fighting to change the rules, I just do what I think is best.
Maybe in time, the prevailing attitude about admin reversals will change, maybe it won't.
But I don't have to wait for this- I can just go my own way as long as I'm not being disruptive.
Another example is the "speedy redirect" outcome of an AFD.
If redirection is the obvious answer, why wait?
Time spent at AFD is not time spent improving articles.
The rules don't specifically mention speedy redirect, but you could consider it a speedy keep with a redirect done afterwards, which would be allowed by the rules.
But, we don't make editors jump through silly hoops just to observe the letter of ignore all the codes of the day law, so it's ok to make the AFD close and the redirect in a single edit rather than two as a strict reading of the rules might require.
If you seek to apply the rules very rigidly, you'll find all kinds of silly loopholes like this.
But, because we're more interested in improving the encyclopedia than in playing lawyer, we don't worry about it much.
I'm not at all convinced.
An obvious and silly example would be an article like "Bill and Bob are the two coolest kids in town.
A strict reading of the rules might also have disqualified this from speedy deletion because it's about more than one kid.
Until recently, it was only people with no assertion of significance and groups were not explicitly mentioned.
But, there's no credible way I can think of to argue that deletion of this kind of crap doesn't improve the encyclopedia.
If deleting this improves it today, it also improved it in the past before the speedy deletion rules specifically mentioned groups.
IAR is a recognition that the rules don't get updated fast enough to cover everything.
IAR is also a realization that you don't have to wait for the rules to catch up with you before acting.

Free Spins
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Sum / Average ignore negative values with Kutools for Excel. Kutools for Excel’s Select Specific Cells feature can help you to select all non-negative numbers at once, and get the calculations, such as sum, average, count at the status bar.

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6 - Wikipedia
Valid for casinos
Ignore date and consider month and year to match | The basedgosh.info Forums
This site uses cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads.
By continuing to browse this site, you agree to this use.
Hi there, It is required to retrieve the records where ONLY Start Month, Year AND End Month, Year are passed.
Trying below SQL to get these with no success.
All it goes is 'Jan, Feb, March' for Year 2009 AND ignore all the codes of the day />It should return Jan 2009, Feb 2009, Mar 2009, Apr 2009, May 2009, June 2009.
Month registrationdate BETWEEN 01 AND 01 AND Year registrationdate BETWEEN 2009 AND 2010 With above ignore all the codes of the day ,all it gets is Jan 2009 and JAN 2010 records.
It should retrieve all records Starting from Jan 2009 until Jan 2010 that include Feb 2009, Mar 2009, Apr 2009, May 2009.
I think you need to use codes as below in sp and according comming month you need to set that months max date as if 2 then feb or some more caluculation in its Leap Year.
Hi Rajneesh I checked the query written by me,and its working fine for me.
Please let me know what the problem you got when you try to execute this query.
There are two bugs in query as: Nishantg Select MONTH registrationdate AS MName AND Year registrationdate as YName From Visit web page Table should be Select Article source registrationdate AS MName, Year registrationdate as YName From Your Table can you add and between selected columns??

Free Spins
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Expired and Not Verified Saddleback Leather Promo Codes & Offers These offers have not been verified to work. They are either expired or are not currently valid.

Don’t Ignore 99024; Reporting Is Now a Requirement - AAPC Knowledge Center
Valid for casinos
All I want it to ignore a call : iphone
We're taking a whole new approach.
By checking this box, I have read and agree to the and and casino all this money download Forward Publishing LLC to charge my card today for the subscription fee and in the future for renewal fees.
This site is ignore all the codes of the day with 256-bit SSL encryption.
Your information is safe.
The executive order signed by Trump directed the federal government to ensure colleges and universities are upholding the First Amendment while receiving federal funding.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a press release praising the executive order, even ignore all the codes of the day the organization did seem skeptical of how the order could accomplish its goals.
Any principled and effective defense of freedom of expression must protect student and faculty expressive rights without regard to viewpoint.
The free speech codes Trump referred to seem to only apply to conservative students and, in rare cases, communist students.
At Kellogg Community College, conservative activists were that prevented them from recruiting members to a right-leaning club, Young Americans for Liberty.
As their speech was being restricted, liberal students were allowed to avoid the alleged rules at the same time.

Free Spins
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

I think you need to use codes as below in sp and according comming month you need to set that months max date as if 2 then feb or some more caluculation in its Leap Year. then make full date for start and end as

Error 403 (Forbidden)
Valid for casinos
ignore all the codes of the day