Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 4

message: There is a link for this that redirects to a policy page on headings, which doesn't mention this policy. There was a proposed policy along these lines but it didn't gain a wide consensus. I'll remove the link from the page unless there are objections Zeimusu | Talk page 03:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use subheads sparingly 

message: I find that a proportion of contents disputes are due to misunderstandings of Wiki policy. The number may be small, but is significant if you have been inovolved in such disputes. In these cases, where it is quite clear that policy has been compromised, I would like a way to quickly get an independent adjudication.
Often a small consenus of just two or three people, are able to ignore or "interpret differently" Wiki policy, making constructive criticism not possible.
I'd like to see Wiki "adjudicators" who on request, will judge on whether a policy has indeed been broken. Of course where an issue is more complicated, or more appropriate, an adjudicator will defer to the dispute resolution process.
I believe that this will help alleviate the negative cycle of bickering in some disputes, and ultimately resulting in a better quality encyclopedia. --Iantresman 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a game of nomic. You're probably better off posting on WP:RFC. Stevage 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand the reference to nomic. Am I game playing? I'm trying to make Wikipedia policy work better, because I think it will improve discussions about content. Isn't that a good thing? --Iantresman 21:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, except that there's no real need for a formal system for it. If you perceive a policy being broken, the first thing you should consider if it was in fact a useful thing. Policies have exceptions, and if the only argument against an action is that it's against policy, the matter deserves to be dropped. Second, yes, getting outside opinion is always good. Might I suggest our existing processes WP:3O or WP:ANI for simple matters, and WP:RFC if someone is persistently breaking policy? You're also welcome to drop a note on my talk page regarding policy matters. I don't mind being an "adjudicator" but I don't see the need for a title for it. Radiant_>|< 02:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely some aspects of some policy are unbreakable. For example, there is no except to break Neutral Point of View? --Iantresman 14:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *NPOV is non-negotiable, but you are being rather vague here so I really don't understand what you're getting at. >Radiant< 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy adjudication suggestion

message: You tell me, I think that if this showed up in an encyclopedia article it'd be "original research". I certainly have trouble figuring out which should be which, an articles in the project namespace are tagged randomly anyway. Kim Bruning 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The difference between policy / guideline / essay / etc

message: I believe Wikipedia needs a policy on adding IRC Networks and channels. There are hundreds of IRC networks, and not all of them should be allowed to create a Wikipedia article. If they are, then any IRC channel could use the same logic and make an article. Clear guidelines and policy for adding IRC Networks and channels needs to be created. 3H 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggesting IRC Network / Channel Policy

message: Is this wikipedia "process"?
:Just as America has legislative, judicial, and administrative processes, so too, Wikipedia has consensus processes (talking), which when they fail, become democracy processes (voting), which when they fail to help in the goal of building the encyclopedia, become administrative processes (dictatorship) whereby Jimbo and the board (that is legally responsible for the real world hardware Wikipedia runs on) act unilaterally. That is the process, not just the talking or the voting. WAS 4.250 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Wikipedia "process"?

message: For those not reading WP:VPP, there is a proposal at Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines for a new policy on how changes to policies and guidelines should be conducted.  Feedback is desired. --TreyHarris 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines]] 

message: I have added the same proviso to proposal as guideline. "Amendments to a proposals should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a proposal to improve it" Because in at least one case there has been a straw poll about changing a policy to a guideline were the page holding the staw poll, (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey))  was not advertised on the proposal's talk page by the person who created the Rfc subpage. (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (hockey)#No consensus (yet)). --Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A change to the proposal bullet-point

message: I keep coming across articles that seem to be simply a cut-and-paste from another online source. can  someone drop me a line on my talk that points me towards policies and guidlines that cover how this is to be delt with? Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 05:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: As this article contains widely-reviewed policies, I thought it better to raise this for discussion first. An early paragraph reads: Our policies keep changing, and their interpretation as well.. To my ear, the first four words suggest policies outlined in the article are in such a state of flux they cannot be relied upon? I propose changing the first part of the sentence. The new wording should give the impression policies can be relied upon; it should indicate policies are not, however, cast in stone. It should indicate policies may be further enhanced in the future for the benefit of the community; and, if necessary, should be. Something like: continue to be developed / are continuously developed / are continuously enhanced? Whitehorse1 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Fresheneesz 09:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: wording change (minor)

message: Wikipedia is often used as an almanac, but this goes against the key policy that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further". I think that since wikipedia is obviously used to list tabular information, this key policy should be reworded to reflect that. (note that this isn't a proposal for policy change, but a proposal for wording change to reflect what is obviously policy). Fresheneesz 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia is an almanac 

message: I suggest adding the following language to the article.  Nothing new, really, but it clarifies a bit about the hierarchy of policies which now exists.
: Some policies and guidelines apply to all Wikimedia projects (in all languages), and are officially stored on meta.  Examples of this type of policy include No open proxies.  Other policies, such as no original research, apply to all language editions of Wikipedia (being necessary for the construction of an encyclopedia), but do not necessarily apply to non-encyclopedia projects.  Individual editions of Wikipedia may, in addition, institute their own policies and guidelines; for example, the style guide for the English Wikipedia does not apply to the the Wikipedias in other languages.
: Note that for meta-policies, the English-language versions are official and binding upon all Wikimedia projects, regardless of language.  Translations may be provided into other languages, however the policy applies regardless of whether or not a translation into a particular language exists.
Wordsmith as appropriate. --EngineerScotty 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed clarification 

message: Copied from the beginning of the article:
Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia—indeed, the largest well.
What does that mean?  The largest well?
Rracecarr 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ????

message: I have come across offensive language on talk pages.  Should we edit it out?  I was doing so because I think we need to uphold some values and standards.  Remember, this website is publically-viewable by people of all ages.  We are supposed to be an open forum of human knowledge.  Let us not degrade ourselves.
Stovetopcookies 04:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive language on talk pages 

message: How do i become a wikipedian can someone explain please i am new, thanks very much. 
--Joshuarooney 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By improving the encyclopedia. Welcome btw! :-) Kim Bruning 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can i become a wikipedian? 

message: A number of pages are headed with 'This page is a style guide for Wikipedia', with a link to this page.  However, in the run-down of the different types of policy and guideline on this page, style guide does not seem to be among them.  Should it be?  If so, where and with what explanation?
This may seem abstruse, but I came here because someone had argued to me that the Principle of Least Astonishment (which appears in a Style Guide) should take precedence over Consensus (which appears in a Guideline); and, while the point seems to me intuitively absurd, there's nothing here to say that it doesn't.... TSP 02:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Guides 

message: Could someone give me a hand? I'm trying to organise Wikipedia:List of guidelines the same way Wikipedia:List of policies. Thank you. CG 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organising [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines]] 

message: Is it ever acceptable for a user to refuse to follow a guideline?  In particular, some users seem to think that since "guidelines" are not "policies" they do not need to be followed.  I think this issue needs some clarification, and perhaps an explicit mention on this project page.  Exploding Boy 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines vs policies

message: I realized that in the very important statement 'Jimbo Wales, the Board, or the Developers' we don't have links for the Board or the Devolopers. I assume that the Board is m:Board of Trustees (certainly notable and should have an article on Wikipedia at Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Similarly, I have piped the developers to m:Developers. Developers of Wikipedia are proably notable, too. On a related note, it would be interesting to have a list which policies have been changed/influenced by whom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilinks for the Board, or the Developers 

message: Can anyone? or anyone know what is the portfolio analysis, what are the pros and cons of this portfolio analysis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fhyap (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portfolio Analysis and it's Pros & Cons 

message: Thanks for this. We've needed some Policies and Guidelines for along time. Please, please don't tell me that this has been here all the time - I've been contributing to Wikipedia since at least early 2004 and never seen any of this before. It's the first time (as far as I know) that it's been flagged - so I'm grateful.
It's very hard to find your way around all the various policy, admin, and the legion of debating of issues pages - they appear to go on for ever, but never seem to tell you what you want to know. 
So, it's good to have a place to go for definitive guidance on policy. I may soon be coming to you for help in the resolution of a dispute regarding articles - I'm sure you'll be able to point me in the right direction. Cheers – Agendum 11:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Someone requested a source of the quotation on this page. I don't think attribution is necessary in the Wikipedia namespace, but for the time being have credited this to Larry Sanger, per the old Wikipedia policy page. I'd be happy for it to be removed if it is considered unnecessary (I think it is). Ziggurat 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation source 

message: I quote verifiability as a key policy while answering questions at the help desk many times. I was surprised to find that it does not even find a mention anywhere in the page except for the table. Any reason for that? -- Lost(talk) 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people made that up fairly recently. Kim Bruning 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to seek clarity, do you mean the policy of verifiability was made recently? Can it be added now? -- Lost(talk) 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bit that it's so fundamental? Kim Bruning 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that the key policies section does not have any mention of verifiability. Shouldn't we add it to the secion? -- Lost(talk) 03:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: I thought people followed our guidelines because they're a good idea. Could we alter the wording? 
The first paragraph clearly points towards adhocracy, while the 2nd and further points towards bureaucracy.
Yes I'm aware that there's a number of people in favor of bureaucratisation, but that's really a bad idea for an online project, and it's also not really what we're here for, so I'm not sure if that's an accurate description.
--Kim Bruning 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enforce? 

message: === The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. ===
Someone has been making much of this up, so I've moved it here for now. I've already stated in many places that the difference between policy, guideline, essay is mucked up. 
The example I typically give is where people have never even seen the arbcom for things like WP:CSD (policy), have been taken to RFC or arbcom for Wikipedia:Consensus, and people have been community banned for violationg WP:5P (an essay). I once suggested just merging the templates and categories, when this differentiation was just new... but ... *sigh*...
well anyway, now hopefully there'll be some discussion on this. Hopefully we can get rid of several of the categories at least.
Kim Bruning 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on differences 

message: Someone has been making much of this up, so I've moved it here for now. I've already stated in many places that the difference between policy, guideline, essay is mucked up. 
The example I typically give is where people have never even seen the arbcom for things like WP:CSD (policy), have been taken to RFC or arbcom for Wikipedia:Consensus, and people have been community banned for violationg WP:5P (an essay). I once suggested just merging the templates and categories, when this differentiation was just new... but ... *sigh*...
well anyway, now hopefully there'll be some discussion on this. Hopefully we can get rid of several of the categories at least.
Kim Bruning 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. 

message: I was wondering if there was any guideline about internal consistency within Wikipedia. IOW is it okay for articles to have contradictory definitions?  Examples:
*The A article says all A's are B, but the B article says some A's are not B.
*Article A says A is a proper subset of B; article B says B is a proper subset of C; article C says C is a proper subset of A.
*Article A says all A's are B and all A's are C. Article B says all B's are (not C).
If we find such articles, what should be done? Does maintaining internal consistency override consensus? (Thinking of cases where editors of A, B, and C are all adament about not changing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogeye (talk • contribs) 
*What should be done is editing them until they are consistent; I'm sure it's in the MOS somewhere. You can probably find decent sources for which position is in fact true. >Radiant< 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been told by Wikicrats that we must be consistent with the CIA "factbook", which takes its info from governments. Fourtildas 04:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a guideline about Internal Consistency? 

message: * "A proposal is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which no consensus has been reached, as long as discussion is ongoing." 
* "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason."
* "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present."
These definitions need to be better defined. As it stands, this page says that *every* proposal is a rejected page - simply because "no consensus has been reached" - the definition of a proposal *and* a rejected page. This is kinda ridiculous. Also, whats the difference between "unclear" consensus, and "no consensus has been reached" ? Fresheneesz 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarifiaction on "proposal" vs "historical" vs "rejected" 

message: I would like to request assistance at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), where a few editors have gotten it into their head that (1) Guidelines are policy, which need to be enforced past all common sense; (2) That Guidelines should be voted on; and (3) That majority rules.  I've been trying to point out things like Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:VIE and Wikipedia:Guideline, but I'm getting overwhelmed, and, since I'm in the "minority," I'm being accused of bad faith.  Could someone else who understands the way that things are supposed to work, please come in?  I'm not asking for help in deciding the issue, but we do need help in clarifying the process.  Thanks, --Elonka 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on guidelines

message: I am proposing a new policy, Wikipedia:Esotericism does not imply non-notability and I need feedback. Thanks guys. --Ineffable3000 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to stop this policy proposal due after reading WP:SNOW. --Ineffable3000 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Esotericism does not imply non-notability]] 

message: Please look at my new policy proposal. Wikipedia:Ockham's Razor. I believe that it will revolutionize Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ockham's Razor 

message: If Wikipedia is supposedly an online encyclopedia and not merely a collected catalog of general information, then WHY are there so many references and pages devoted to Pornographic entertainment, as in specific movies, and to Porn Stars? Why would ANY encyclopedia of repute want to include a listing of "Big Bust" pornstars or porn stars famous for "female ejaculation"? I mean, really, a page devoted to "Peter North"? Is that a joke? Are either Danni Ashe or Jenna Jameson worth mentioning in an online learning resource seeking legitimacy? How would that possibly cement the site or the Wikipedia concept's reputation as a valuable scholarly resource? Porn doesn't belong here except as a general heading. Adult Film stars are not notable people to be included in an encyclopedia except in the imaginations of one-handed keyboard surfers.
And the number of comic book entries, whether Marvel or DC, is worrisome, as well. Comic Books in general as a subject is perfect. It is a recognized artform. It is considered popular fiction, but of an extremely juvenile nature and NOT on the same level as the young adult fiction of, say, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter... But do we really need a "Venom" article page? Or a complete list of Batman's villains? Or an article dedicated to "Crisis on Infinte Earths"? Where is the scholarly value in this? Why is THIS included as opposed to the works of, say, horror author Tom Piccirilli who is a Bram Stoker Award-nominated author?
I think Wikipedia has a lot of potential and is a fantastic idea, but until there are set, enforcible limits that are applied to ALL entries, across the board, then this subjective "wiggle room" for articles is going to negatively impact the public's acceptance of the concept as a whole.
Respectfully,
Joseph Armstead
: That's funny; I haven't seen many of those.  I guess it depends on what you search for... — Omegatron 02:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose WP:NOT balanced. That is not a cardinal sin.  Also a "page" is in indeterminate entity, so Peter North gets more coverage than the other Peter Norths, but less than (10%) of Bertrand Russell. Thirdly "we are building an encyclopaedia": whether this constitutes "scholarly"  or we are "seeking legitimacy" or "public's acceptance" is another matter.  I am unlikely to read these articles, that is not a good reason to delete them.  Fifthly there are "set, enforcible limits" (if by "set" you mean "set but revisable") and at least one of the article you mention has been subject to WP:AfD. Sixthly and seventhly are Radiant's points.  Eighthly "Wikipedia is not paper" so the normal limitations on space don't apply and ninthly Wikipedia is already one of the busiest websites in the world. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39 18  November 2006 (GMT).
*If the subject is notable then it should have an article (WP:Notability). Notability is defined by the guidelines that the community of Wikipedia users creates. Please read the notability guidelines on the subject of the articles you think should be deleted. Some of your points are valid, Joseph, but on the other hand, Venom is one of the most famous comic book characters in the Spiderman universe and Jenna Jameson is usually recognized as the most famous pornstar in the world. Entertheinferno 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn References 

message: Could someone replace the number 16 by 15 under "Other concise summaries of key policies"?
The real janski 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting error 

message: Can you please read through a policy I am proposing? It is called Wikipedia:Writing about math. --Ineffable3000 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Writing about math 

message: According to this policy page, Larry Sanger had said:
:Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Hence it is common on Wikipedia for policy itself to be debated on talk pages, on Wikipedia: namespace pages, on the mailing lists, on Meta Wikimedia, and on IRC chat. Everyone is welcome to participate.
Did Larry Sanger really say this?  No source is given.  And looking back through the page history, the quote was originally added here by a user who had only ever made two edits.  A few months later someone else requested a source, and another editor attributed it to Larry Sanger. But how can we be sure that Larry wrote this?  We seem to have spectacularly failed to ensure Verifiability on our own policy page.
I have now restored to the earlier text, stating: "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource."  While it's not clear who wrote this either, at least this statement of a goal has a long history , and I believe it's a reasonable statement of Wikipedia's goals as expressed in the early days. Enchanter 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought one of the ways policy was made was through higher authority of Jimbo or the board... Fresheneesz 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources sources sources 

message: Radiant changed how this page says policy is created with this edit, with a sneaky comment that had nothing to do with most of his change. I liked the classic wording (as it is not just wording, and actually means something different), and so I changed it. Radiant, however, reverted me and labeled me a disruptive editor - when my editing on this page has been far from disruptive. 
Personally, I don't think Radiant can make policy on his own - however much he would like that to be possible. I would like some comment on my proposed change reverted here. Fresheneesz 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong page, man.  Wrong page. — Omegatron 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested change - codification of common practice

message: There are a few people who believe it may be useful to vote on guidelines, and have been inserting such language into this page. However, this view contradicts WP:HCP, WP:PNSD and WP:DEMO, and hence I disagree with these edits. >Radiant< 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote note 

message: Recently, Radiant added this... "It does not follow that any page that is not a policy or a guideline is therefore an essay; there are plenty of pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are none of the three." to the section on essays, without any discussion.
It seems like this is intended to support the current movement to remove  tags from pages that should have them. --Barberio 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change to the Essay section 

message: In the sidebar this phrase pipes WP:V.  It's not typically how we refer to this policy page however.  The most-used pipe in my view is "verifiable" or "verification". Wjhonson 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable information only

message: If an admin is improperly deleting content from an article's talk page because he disagrees with what is being said, where on Wikipedia would they be reported? 68.155.86.174 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the dispute resolution process. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper Administrative Actions

message: I am a little confused, does Wikipedia accept America spelling over the International standard of Oxford English? Govvy 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Really, it all depends what was used when the article started, or when it was first drafted.  It is an unneccesary edit to change color to colour or vice versa, and should be discouraged.  For more, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English  Tim (Xevious) 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Language standard? 

message: A comment. If this page is supposed to introduce people to wikipedia's major policies and guidelines (a laudable goal), then I believe that it is sadly out of balance. Well over half of the page is dedicated to discussing the difference between a policy and a guideline. That, like everything else, should be pared down to a few sentences. Awadewit 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that this page should serve as a concise, user friendly introduction to Wikipedia's policies (which was the role it originally served).  The information about how policy is formed and the differences between different forms of policy has become rather dominant here, and I think it would be better moved off to a separate page. Enchanter 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary?

message: I would really like to know if fansites to certain shows or series are allowed. Im..getting a little chaos with getting my site removed (by one particular individual) while a lot of other people are telling me its fine to put it in. So, is there really a rule to this? I know wikipedia wants sources to things that get a lot of information, and my site happens to be just that. But I was TOLD that my site gives lies and somewhat, its really giving me a headache.lavierose 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FanSites?

message: Officially speaking, what is the formal manner in which policies are amended? I know we do it by gaining consensus on the talk page usually, but is that formally written anywhere in a context which has to do not with creation, but amendation? Thanatosimii 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real policy process.  It is mostly chaos, with bullying often winning the day.  6SJ7 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another useful procedural question. 

message: I recommend adding a link to Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines below the link to Wikipedia:List_of_policies in the section Wikipedia:Policies#Other_concise_summaries_of_key_policies.
While the list-of-guidelines page is out of date, it has useful information and it's name jumps out at people who are looking for lists of policies and guidelines.  Recommended text:
List of guidelines: A partial list of the guidelines with very quick summaries. See :Category:Wikipedia_guidelines for a complete list.
Comments?  Davidwr 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend adding link to List of guidelines 

message: i love wikipedia and congratulate you (whoever you are)
thanx for the info and help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.124.1 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  well done 

message: Greetings.  I am trying to locate the policy for editing, specifically, I am trying to understand why editing is not restricted from anonymous users.  If someone could point me in the right direction, or give me some tips on using the search field to find policy, I would appreciate it.  I am finding that I am getting articles in wikipedia with the keywords I am search for, not policies.
Thanks,
EleosPrime 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much!  EleosPrime 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help navigating policy