Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Versions

Versions

Sign 'em if you like. —Ashley Y 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would look better, on the projectpage in my opinion if SIGS were not used. Also, links to the DIFF, and the approx date of the revision could be useful information to include, in some format or other. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about

I suggest simply listing the entries, but in bunches of five, then a space to the next bunch. The headers I tried before were over the top, maybe, so any other ideas? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right!

" * Obey every single rule precisely and to the letter. Otherwise the encyclopaedia will fall apart. "

Am I the only one who thinks that it should be noted that this is meant as sarcasm? Or at least spelled correctly? Max (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is spelled correctly. —Ashley Y 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops; I guess having an ae in there is a legitimate alternate spelling. My bad =\ Max (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to WP:OWN this page, but please, it's intended as a list of suggested versions from different people. While I agree that it's best without sigs (notwithstanding what I say above), let people "own" their own versions at least to some extent. —Ashley Y 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fine by me, Ashley Y, carry on, I dont think there is a WP:OWN problem, although I actually do disagree on a couple of points.

Add SIGs if anyone wants, i prefer not as they look untidy, just a preference though.

This page, like any page, should be editable, and it should look as good as possible.

So, I dont like the oversize picture (it is way too big).

And, I reckon it looks silly centered, (personal preference only).

If you agree, do something, but if you are happy as is, as I say, fine. Cheers

PS ENCYCLOPEDIA is spelled correctly, yeah, cz I edited just before you! Newbyguesses - Talk 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS ENCYCLOPAEDIA is spelled correctly, yeah, you got me there too!

Hope you like the two I just added, the documentation is in <-- commented out text --> .

Carry on, the page looks OK, thanks Newbyguesses - Talk 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About the young brother

the one from the story of the monastery: he's been clearly gaming the system, he lied :) he never crossed the deep valley.

...

all right all right, I got the point of the story :P

A71104 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge -- Ignore all Precedent

During a discussion about retargeting a redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_2#Wikipedia:IAP which was closed as no consensus the suggestion of merging Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent into this article was raised and it had no opposing opinions raised. The discussion was closed as "no consensus" by an involved admin after it had been open for a month, though IMHO this portion of the discussion did have consensus. For clarity I'm seeking further input on merging. The basis for merge is that Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent raises nothing new or dramatically different to warrant being a separate essay. Gnangarra 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dangling for almost 2 years. Will remove, and leave as is, the default choice. Personally, IAR and IAPD feel different. The first is a one time dispensation b/c of specifics; the second, while similar, has a slightly broader feel, exemplified by e.g. including the potential that the stated precedent is dissimilar in some relevant detail. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that IAPD is a thing of its own and it should seek its own consensus. I think that IAR is its own thing and already enjoys its own consensus. I don't think we should conflate the two ideas. I think that ignoring rules is far safer in general than ignoring precedent. HighInBC 20:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was commenting on the wrong page. I thought this was the talk page of the primary IAR page. I have no opinion on its inclusion in the /Versions page. HighInBC 20:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)