User contributions for Haukurth

Search for contributionsExpandCollapse

⧼contribs-top⧽

IP address or username:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

(newest | older 50) (100 | 500)

16 January 2008

01:1901:19, 16 January 2008 diff hist −42 Ignore all rules →See also: His edit summary seems to indicate that he left it out on purpose.
01:1001:10, 16 January 2008 diff hist −16 Ignore all rules The idea that "advanced users" don't need to follow the rules is really not a good message to be putting out. I'm also not fond of the whole mysticism angle as I think I've mentioned once or twice.

3 January 2008

13:4613:46, 3 January 2008 diff hist +52 Ignore all rules It's informative to keep this there.

4 December 2007

23:4223:42, 4 December 2007 diff hist −169 Ignore all rules And why do people keep adding "Be Timid!" warnings to this, of all pages? So what if it gets edited a lot? So what if it's in a constant state of flux?
23:3723:37, 4 December 2007 diff hist −41 Ignore all rules This is, I think, unambiguously true, though I do not personally share the estimate - at least not of the current version which I think is misleading and unhelpful.

10 September 2007

14:3114:31, 10 September 2007 diff hist +18 Ignore all rules Keep needful words

31 August 2007

16:3716:37, 31 August 2007 diff hist −507 Ignore all rules This, of all pages, is a weird place to exhort people to be cautious. Additionally, the "underlying policy" phrase smacks of a return to the "deep and subtle" mysticism.

17 August 2007

10:4510:45, 17 August 2007 diff hist +12 Ignore all rules It's a wiki, being able to work with others is imperative and this prevents this page from being misread to suggest that you should just ignore others if they get in your way.

3 August 2007

00:4600:46, 3 August 2007 diff hist +18 Ignore all rules All right, we can keep the edit to the box. But I think there is a lot of support for making it clear that IAR is not an excuse to ignore your fellow contributors.
00:3800:38, 3 August 2007 diff hist +53 Ignore all rules Back to version which mentions other people

28 July 2007

15:5915:59, 28 July 2007 diff hist +79 Ignore all rules "Be considerate of others" is a key principle here.

13 July 2007

22:1322:13, 13 July 2007 diff hist +1 Ignore all rules Made it sound like it was an either/or kind of thing

12 July 2007

21:0621:06, 12 July 2007 diff hist +89 Ignore all rules "Good sense" is subjective but "improving Wikipedia" isn't? And consideration for others should trump Wikipedia rules just about every time.
12:1212:12, 12 July 2007 diff hist +72 Ignore all rules Okay, how about: "Use your best judgment and treat your fellow contributors with respect."

29 June 2007

15:1115:11, 29 June 2007 diff hist +110 Ignore all rules Makes some of us *a lot* happier with this page and is surely only a minor annoyance to you, right? Isn't it worth it in the spirit of compromise?

27 June 2007

00:3600:36, 27 June 2007 diff hist +14 Ignore all rules Let's mark it as {{protected}}, then

25 June 2007

15:3315:33, 25 June 2007 diff hist +40 Ignore all rules Can we, if nothing else, have some words in here about consensus, other people, being nice, getting along - something like that.

24 June 2007

22:1722:17, 24 June 2007 diff hist −116 Ignore all rules Now that - at long last - someone has produced a version which actually tries to explain the idea in a clear and straightforward way, we can hopefully drop the "deep and subtle" part.

6 June 2007

19:3219:32, 6 June 2007 diff hist −94 Ignore all rules Now it's all lean

20 May 2007

02:2902:29, 20 May 2007 diff hist −1,922 Ignore all rules Back to the classic version. It's much friendlier and more helpful

19 May 2007

16:3416:34, 19 May 2007 diff hist −184 Ignore all rules Removed mysticism - WP:NOT a cult

18 May 2007

15:5015:50, 18 May 2007 diff hist +7 Ignore all rules Way to revert with a misleading edit summary, Kim. But if you want to claim this as the oldest rule then you need to actually use the original rule - which is far better than what's been used lately.
14:4314:43, 18 May 2007 diff hist −38 Ignore all rules No need for this sentence and I dispute its accuracy

9 May 2007

00:5800:58, 9 May 2007 diff hist −2 Ignore all rules I doubt this is still the same 'concept'

22 March 2007

15:0015:00, 22 March 2007 diff hist +1 m Snowball clause →See also

5 March 2007

22:2022:20, 5 March 2007 diff hist −27 Ignore all rules "Don't be a dick" is a bad way to word "be nice"

10 January 2007

14:0814:08, 10 January 2007 diff hist +34 Ignore all rules Clarified the link in the second footnote

21 November 2006

19:1719:17, 21 November 2006 diff hist +3 Ignore all rules There might be a deep and subtle difference between "deep and subtle" and "deep, subtle". Mere mortals who can hardly fathom such deep subtlety shouldn't change the wording.

3 October 2006

16:4016:40, 3 October 2006 diff hist −1 Snowball clause Nice syllogism but you can 'derive' any darned thing you want from IAR. At least one IAR-proponent is diametrically opposed to this page.

14 September 2006

11:3211:32, 14 September 2006 diff hist −33 Snowball clause ...and then customize it
11:3211:32, 14 September 2006 diff hist +205 Snowball clause Simple enough, just subst it...

10 September 2006

20:3520:35, 10 September 2006 diff hist −83 Snowball clause Okay, if you feel that's essential - but can we at least keep the 'wikilawyering' part out?
20:1120:11, 10 September 2006 diff hist −147 Snowball clause Removing some recent additions - in this state I can live with this though I'd still prefer not labelling it as a guideline, not labelling it at all would be preferable
18:2118:21, 10 September 2006 diff hist −4 Snowball clause "It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." This is just not true

1 September 2006

09:5009:50, 1 September 2006 diff hist +297 Ignore all rules Give it a chance :)

31 August 2006

12:2212:22, 31 August 2006 diff hist +63 Ignore all rules Since "IAR is policy, always has been" per Jimbo, this good old version, stable for years, is 100% official policy.

23 August 2006

22:5122:51, 23 August 2006 diff hist −102 Ignore all rules Like this
22:5022:50, 23 August 2006 diff hist +494 Ignore all rules We can customize it, though

14 August 2006

17:2317:23, 14 August 2006 diff hist +11 Ignore all rules I don't think it's safe to say. As currently phrased I don't think this is important to Wikipedia at all.
00:0100:01, 14 August 2006 diff hist +17 Ignore all rules Okay, try this

1 August 2006

19:5819:58, 1 August 2006 diff hist +13 Ignore all rules "Naturally evolving" page back to the version I like better :D See talk page.
19:0219:02, 1 August 2006 diff hist +1 Ignore all rules If you insist - but then I'd prefer "and" to "or".
13:4913:49, 1 August 2006 diff hist −1 Ignore all rules Or would you prefer 'or'?
13:4713:47, 1 August 2006 diff hist −10 Ignore all rules Not too bad - but I feel "improve or maintain" hurts the flow slightly. How about this?

31 July 2006

22:3322:33, 31 July 2006 diff hist +20 Ignore all rules Here's a new suggestion in line with the current discussion on the talk page and the origins of this page.