Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Shortcuts WP:WIARMWP:WIARM WP:IAR?WP:IAR? WP:IARMEANSWP:IARMEANS...
Click to read more »merge back into the obvious parent WP:IAR (ha, good luck!), or with WP:WIARM (which is more likely to gain consensus). --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:16, 23...
Click to read more »may not completely pass WP:GUIDE, is the sensible thing to do, and per WP:WIARM, "The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps [thee spirit...
Click to read more »application of policy, this article should be deleted. According to WP:WIARM, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore...
Click to read more »drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Per WP:WIARM, it's not about whether following the rule isn't improving Wikipedia, it's...
Click to read more »had best get rid of it. >Radiant< 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: WP:WIARM and WP:ATT are good examples of pages for which this is appropriate, even...
Click to read more »when expanding the article. References can come in at a later time. See WP:WIARM. Cocoma (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: But I don't think that...
Click to read more »enforce the policy, why have it? As for invoking WP:IAR, I defer to WP:WIARM. Course homepages do not an encyclopedia make. -Gretyl 00:02, 31 August...
Click to read more »it's clearly not part of our pithiest policy. Neither the supplement WP:WIARM, nor the essay WP:UIAR, nor any other page, as far as I know, limits the...
Click to read more »think. Oneismany (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Outside the box per WP:WIARM. Merging 9/11 and the theories article would be very, very bloated (to begin...
Click to read more »of anarchy, read WP:WIARM for more details. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Comment As noted by Angelo above, in WP:WIARM," The spirit of the...
Click to read more »simply making notes in edit summaries may be all that's needed. See WP:WIARM. But in the case of a "stuck" dispute, and especially in the case of edit...
Click to read more »"policy", but I haven't quite seen it yet? I'm quite willing to accede to WP:WIARM based reasoning. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC) If you...
Click to read more »is only about improving the encyclopedia; I would suggest a review of WP:WIARM. I can see the arguments for blanking, and I can see arguments against,...
Click to read more »5 July 2007 (UTC) WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. WP:WIARM. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Please review points 2, 3, 4 and 6 under...
Click to read more »list" aspect of WP:NOT#DICT. If you don't believe me, I urge you to read WP:WIARM and consider both the purpose and function the future, cleaned up version...
Click to read more »side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) While I agree with WIARM and IAR and BOLD, I do not particularly like being called part of a mob...
Click to read more »source of encouragement discourages boldness? How is WP:IAR negated by WP:WIARM, when the latter explicitly exists to clarify the purpose of the former...
Click to read more »requires that the Consensus be kept. I think the user should be refered to WP:WIARM. Od Mishehu 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I sincerely apologize for my comment(s)...
Click to read more »their conduct and commentary, think again. As well, IAR is policy, but WIARM is just an essay. And, quite frankly, if I was trying to dodge the subject...
Click to read more »Zenwhat's recent contributions at Wikipedia Talk:IAR and Wikipedia Talk:WIARM since Miszabot'a recent archive? Scroll down some, it's hard to miss Zenwhat...
Click to read more »misuse of WP:IGNORE in doing so (not to mention some incivility). Indeed, WP:WIARM makes it clear that he was out of line (as does WP:CIVIL). Now this new...
Click to read more »whole other issue. Policy is meant to describe current practices (see WP:WIARM) and if we are going to describe what we do, we should use accurate terminology;...
Click to read more »Woolf College within the broader context of the University of Kent. WP:WIARM - "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose...
Click to read more »place for varying reasons. Granted, we have WP:IAR, but we also have WP:WIARM as an explanation to it. This is one of these things that we can't ignore...
Click to read more »19 June 2008 (UTC) It wouldn't be a policy, though. It'd be more like WP:WIARM if anything. Furthermore, I can't see the need. For one, when certain people...
Click to read more »followed in such a way that negatively impacts the reader. To quote WP:WIARM: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense...
Click to read more »situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." WP:WIARM: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." WP:LIVE: "Editors...
Click to read more »05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) You know... I'm the guy who originally wrote WP:WIARM. I'm not gonna cite policy at you, and I won't be impressed by policy citations...
Click to read more »WP:POVFORK to justify their claims or opinions, i request please see WP:WIARM. It is a very helpful page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020...
Click to read more »opinion of IAR and when do you believe it should be exercised? A.1) WP:WIARM refers. 2) WP:CCC refers. In the early days IAR had a lot more value. These...
Click to read more »of anarchy, read WP:WIARM for more details. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Comment As noted by Angelo above, in WP:WIARM," The spirit of the...
Click to read more »guideline (if only for some undetermined amount of time). To quote from WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how...
Click to read more »defense for this article, then I see this as a clear case to advocate WP:WIARM if that single notability issue is the sole pillar of this article's defense...
Click to read more »list" aspect of WP:NOT#DICT. If you don't believe me, I urge you to read WP:WIARM and consider both the purpose and function the future, cleaned up version...
Click to read more »5 July 2007 (UTC) WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. WP:WIARM. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Please review points 2, 3, 4 and 6 under...
Click to read more »encyclopedia here. All the rules and guidelines are secondary to that. (Read WP:WIARM if you are interested -- and after all IAR is a policy.) -- Ekjon Lok (talk)...
Click to read more »drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Per WP:WIARM, it's not about whether following the rule isn't improving Wikipedia, it's...
Click to read more »when expanding the article. References can come in at a later time. See WP:WIARM. Cocoma (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: But I don't think that...
Click to read more »is only about improving the encyclopedia; I would suggest a review of WP:WIARM. I can see the arguments for blanking, and I can see arguments against,...
Click to read more »data in the table, so that per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary and WP:WIARM it would be excused: from WP:OR as a summary supported by references to...
Click to read more »may not completely pass WP:GUIDE, is the sensible thing to do, and per WP:WIARM, "The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps [thee spirit...
Click to read more »guideline (if only for some undetermined amount of time). To quote from WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how...
Click to read more »place for varying reasons. Granted, we have WP:IAR, but we also have WP:WIARM as an explanation to it. This is one of these things that we can't ignore...
Click to read more »wouldn't do so myself. But looking at it, I just see fit to apply WP:IAR or WP:WIARM for there is really only hours left before we will see. And from all the...
Click to read more »WP:POVFORK to justify their claims or opinions, i request please see WP:WIARM. It is a very helpful page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020...
Click to read more »wouldn't do so myself. But looking at it, I just see fit to apply WP:IAR or WP:WIARM for there is really only hours left before we will see. And from all the...
Click to read more »application of policy, this article should be deleted. According to WP:WIARM, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore...
Click to read more »role of SysOps is "policemen." Later, he tried to add this image to WP:WIARM. It wasn't kept up, per consensus. However, somebody added an inflammatory...
Click to read more »defense for this article, then I see this as a clear case to advocate WP:WIARM if that single notability issue is the sole pillar of this article's defense...
Click to read more »situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." WP:WIARM: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." WP:LIVE: "Editors...
Click to read more »runs contrary to our guidelines. Sure, WP:IAR exists, but there's also WP:WIARM, which essentially states that "breaking" the rules must be for a cause...
Click to read more »determining consensus today. IAR already has some limits, as shown at WP:WIARM and WP:DGFA. Noroton 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Those are both essays and...
Click to read more »policy. Oh, and just so you know, WP:IAR does apply here. It even says in WP:WIARM that IAR can be used if there is an actual explanation that can justify...
Click to read more »opportunities of the situation, is mastery. —George Pólya, quoted from WP:WIARM. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Original section title...
Click to read more »encyclopedia here. All the rules and guidelines are secondary to that. (Read WP:WIARM if you are interested -- and after all IAR is a policy.) -- Ekjon Lok (talk)...
Click to read more »a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors", WP:WIARM. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) The above is an archive of...
Click to read more »It's my understanding of how Wikipedia works (which is expressed in WP:WIARM) that the rules and guidelines aren't to be followed blindly but be used...
Click to read more »the common goal of building an encyclopedia. Please read WP:IAR and WP:WIARM; Wikipedia has never been a rules game. When you say "if you are not held...
Click to read more »that's where some of the discussion at "what ignore all rules means" (at WP:WIARM ) is about kim_: Sniperz11, we just discussed that you can wait forever...
Click to read more »a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors", WP:WIARM. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) The above is an archive of...
Click to read more »respect to their prominence in an impartial tone." Anyway, according to WP:WIARM, if a statement conflict factually with other sources (regardless if it...
Click to read more »scrutiny and legimate critique. WP is not about mindlessly applying policy WP:WIARM, it is about sourced information. We are debating a source here. --THE FOUNDERS...
Click to read more »It's my understanding of how Wikipedia works (which is expressed in WP:WIARM) that the rules and guidelines aren't to be followed blindly but be used...
Click to read more »policy. Oh, and just so you know, WP:IAR does apply here. It even says in WP:WIARM that IAR can be used if there is an actual explanation that can justify...
Click to read more »only a benefit to readers. Let's make this a better Wikipedia hence WP:WIARM things should develop and grow, rather than keep arguments from the past...
Click to read more »conflicting views on the term "conspiracy theory" in a concise manner. I think WP:WIARM (and WP:COMMON by extension) applies here, too. It's an out-of-the-box thought...
Click to read more »determining consensus today. IAR already has some limits, as shown at WP:WIARM and WP:DGFA. Noroton 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Those are both essays and...
Click to read more »editors so WP:IAR should only be invoked in extraordinary circumstances. WP:WIARM is a helpful essay in illuminating what IAR means and what it doesn’t mean...
Click to read more »Woolf College within the broader context of the University of Kent. WP:WIARM - "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose...
Click to read more »followed in such a way that negatively impacts the reader. To quote WP:WIARM: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense...
Click to read more »