Wikipedia talk:Rules

Add topic
Active discussions

Plese— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B136:27B6:C5DA:F098:F22A:92AA (talkcontribs) 22:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Users firstEdit

Yes, it's laughable that this will all fit on a single page. However, hopefully we will not get to the point the WikiEN mailing list got to in October where one user's accusations and the debates about him personally took up literally days of some of the most valuable contributors' time. If anyone demands this kind of attention on the Simple English Wikipedia, we should certainly ban him, or harass him off. Sheer volume and governance time spent on someone should be a good reason to get rid of them. We don't need to be fair or even nice. We need to serve the Simple English Users, and fuck everything and everyone else who doesn't make that a priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:27, 7 October 2003 (UTC)

We are not aiming to harass anyone off anywhere. That attitude is not appropriate. Please just focus on the articles rather than using this as a place to worry about issues that may or may not be affecting the English Wikipedia. Policy can be made later when it's needed, Angela.
I think what is "not appropriate" is that some deeply damaged or paid-to-provoke people will exploit the stupidity or tolerance of others to literally destroy the project and ruin everyone's hard work. If a few rude words here and there can get rid of those who make that their goal, well, I intend to do what is required, and to hell with any GodKing who "doesn't get it". It's not as if trying to work within a process is worth my time, given how many people have been abused trying to do so. Like poor Martin who tried to follow procedures again and again for months, being constantly and deliberately undermined and sabotaged - that just isn't going to be allowed to happen here. Any rules we have had better be strict, fair, and really followed, and have nothing to do with "community", only "content" and keeping those who contribute it, coming back. Not driving them away by giving obviously biased idiots second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh chances. While driving away literally dozens of fully qualified scholars who cite their sources when necessary, and can tell what's obvious from what isn't.
I am really not interested in someone putting some concept of "appropriateness" ahead of the content quality. There's no excuse, given the Simple English Users who will be deprived if this project goes the way the Full English Wikipedia has.
I do agree that "policy can be made later when it's needed", let's leave what is here in draft form. I have no need to say more than I have, and I'd rather not actually be the one to fill in all the open links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:19, 8 October 2003 (UTC)

Office Semkafa (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Simple talkEdit

Things seem to be a bit different over here than at en:, probably because there are no policies yet. I assume contributors should stick to en: policy where applicable but I'm not sure it all applies.

Much of it clearly does not.
For one, en: have Wiktionary to put dictionary definitions into. There is not (as yet) a Simple English equivalent to that. Many of the articles currently at Simple would be removed from en: for being 'mere dictionary definitions', but I think this is one area Simple needs its own policy on. I personally feel that dictionary definitions are very helpful if people are going to use Simple as a base for translation. It also solves the problems of using difficult words where you can't avoid it as you can link to an explanation of that word on a separate page. So, are there any objections to allowing such articles to appear here? Angela, August, very early, UTC.
No objections here. It would be technically easy to set up a simple dictionary and link to there from simple articles. Though WP may not be a dictionary, in keeping with the name and spirit of this project, why not keep everything in one place? It's simpler that way. 8) CyberMaus 15:02, 7 October 2003 (UTC)
I think so too, for now at least. Maybe once we're a bit bigger we can think of doing something different. Angela
They'll probably always be combined here, since we are dealing with people, who, by definition, don't know the words as well as an experienced native english speaker. Simple English Dictionary is a whole 'nother project, but I suspect we can actually find some such project to license in the nonprofit domain, say from some academic source. If they're willing to GNU FDL it, we can avoid having to write the whole damn thing. 142
Good plan. I can't see it would be radically different from Wiktionary anyway, so may be much needless effort. A

We need to find the right levelEdit

All Simple English Contributors need to find and agree on the right level to use in the Simple English Wikipedia. Some contributors are writing things like "Politics is the practical resolution of serious moral? and social conflicts with some potential for violence". Others are writing articles about is, new, the, and two. We need to write articles that aren't too simple, but that use a simple vocabulary.

Also, we need to remember that the users of the Simple English Wikipedia are (probably) people, not from other planets! They already understand the most basic ideas about human life, but they want explanations about the more complicated ones, and they might not read English very well.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:00, 21 October 2003 (UTC)

"Bad words"Edit

What about "bad words" -- for example, slang words about sex or about being angry with people? What should the policy of the Simple English Wikipedia be?

Some people think we should use these words whenever we want to. Some people are very unhappy when they see these words. Some people won't let their children use the Simple English Wikipedia if they see these words here. Some computer software will stop people from seeing articles with "bad words".

How do we want to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:20, 21 October 2003 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks and CivilityEdit

I'm surprised there are no policies regarding proper discussion on Simple Wiki. How do I propose that these policies from English Wiki become policies here? The two policies I am talking about are civility and No Personal Attacks. Also, I think the "Assume Good Faith" guideline should maybe become a guidline here (is there a place for guidelines?). If anyone needs me to explain what these mean I can give you a simplified version of the basic idea of these policies and guidelines (and if you want I can describe the difference between policy and guideline). Perhaps the title should be changed to make them more simple. "Civility" should be changed to "Politeness", "No Personal Attacks" to "No Insults". I can't think of another name for "Assume Good Faith" now, but it should be changed too. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally try to operate under the assumption that Simple operates under the same policies and guidelines as EN, unless otherwise stated, to keep from having us spend a lot of time duplicating all that material here. Unless they've really cleaned up AfD, the comments there make it clear that having written policies regarding behavior in discussions doesn't actually stop uncivil, etc. comments. Freshstart 18:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Policies and Guidelines (Rules) pageEdit

I am not against Netoholic's move from "Policies and guidelines to Rules (since, as he says, rules is a much simpler word). I am also not upset by his incorporation of the "English Wikipedia policy application" policy directly into this page, followed by a delete of the policy, which I originally proposed based on comments here. However, I do think that a few of the changes made during the rewrite should be changed back:

  • I think it is helpful and important to add a visible note that Wikipedia:Core article is a temporary guideline, which will be removed when the core articles are complete, as we discussed and agreed when planning its creation. This is all the more important because that removal may be soon.
  • Additionally, I think it is useful (though perhaps not vital) to mention in the list that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a disputed policy in its current form. Comments/questions/opinions? --Cromwellt|talk|contris 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I propose a change to one of Wikipedia's policies, "anyone can edit Wikipedia articles" should be changed to "only registered users with a user account can edit Wikipedia articles, but anyone can browse articles at any time". Ivthomas (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That would defeat the purpose of the wiki. We want anyone to be able to edit, registered or not. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


I was re -reviewing the rules for myself, and I noticed that it states Wales co-founded Wikipedia. Actually, Wales has stated he is the sole founder. Any objections to a change in wording? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I thought Jimi and Angela had founded it. So both are co-founder or founder or whatever. Barras (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't believe Angela co founded the Wikipedia. I should have has sources before I proposed a change. :) Am at work right now but when I get home, I'll provide more information. Sorry about not being prepared. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
"Wales has been historically cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation,[11] asserting that he was the sole founder of the encyclopedia." It's an endless debate on the English project. I say just leave it as the En. article uses "co" for basically every part of the article. Either way (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia was co-founded by Wales and Larry Sanger, although Jimbo has claimed to be the sole founder since Sanger left. Angela helped Wales found Wikia. ;) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Why does it say "copyleft licensing" under the Foundation Issues heading? Is this intended to be humorous, or am I missing something, as it is linked to WP:Copyrights. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 23:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see our article about Copyleft, or read the article at the English Wikipedia. It is a type of licence based on the idea of copyright, but not as restrictive. The word was originally chosen to appear opposite of copyright and be a little humorous, but it is not a joke. EhJJTALK 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


How come you cannot track user contributions? (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where does it say that? It doesn't say that on this page. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No content other than a commentEdit

First, regarding with the text "Hey baby, I love you!", I have placed the QD A1 tag. Second, only an attribution of DF, I placed a QD A1 notice on the page. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bhartiya Janta PartyEdit

Krishna Singh Raghuvanshi Raghuvanshikrishnasingh (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

Is it ok if someone asks to get paid to write a page? It doesn’t feel like it’s in the spirit of Wikipedia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Paid changing is allowed, but you have to tell other editors who is paying you. IWI (chat) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Publishing PatchesEdit

What goes into a patch 2600:1005:B119:5DA8:4588:A9A6:3F2F:FC9C (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Rules".