Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2588943f8773524

Jump to content

Wikipedia:You might be wikilawyering if...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MIGHT)
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy
You might be Wikilawyering if...
  • ...you cite more than 2 policies or guidelines in one sentence.
  • ...you point out that WP:ACRONYM1 is a policy (/guideline/essay), while WP:ACRONYM2 is only a guideline (/essay/policy).
  • ...you check whether something is a policy, guideline, or essay before citing it.
  • ...you care whether something is a policy, a guideline, or an essay.
  • ...you attempt to change a page's status from policy, guideline, or essay into any of the others so that other editors won't be "confused".
  • ...you're posting to ANI, and you're not laughing while doing it.
  • ...you tell someone that their "vote" doesn't "count".
  • ...you explain why you don't have to "assume good faith".
  • ...you reread WP:AGF to decide whether or not you still have to.
  • ...you respond to a block for edit warring by arguing that your fourth revert was more than 24 hours after your first one.
  • ...you agree that, logically, something makes sense, but you still argue against it based on one sentence of a policy.
  • ...you notice that a policy or guideline doesn't support your position, so you edit the policy or guideline.
  • ...you point out that WP:OR and WP:SYN actually point to the same policy.
  • ...you mention in your unblock request that blocking is not supposed to be punitive.
  • ...your interpretations of any policy, guideline, or essay contradict each other.
  • ...you cite previous discussions as "User X vs. User Y".
  • ...you tell every user asking for clarification that they can't handle the truth.
  • ...your responses to criticism begin with "Objection!"
  • ...you didn't agree that something on this page was funny, and you can prove it with a policy.
  • ...you cite WP:IAR in a discussion.
  • ...you insist that editors/administrators provide proof of the obvious.
And finally, you might be Wikilawyering if...
  • ...people keep telling you that you're Wikilawyering.
  • ...you think the term "common sense" in the Wikilawyering page only applies to hive minds.
  • ...you talk about other cases as if you are citing case law.
  • ...you have a philosophy major and therefore claim that mere rules are not real, constructs of our mind, and assigning them purpose saturates our human minds as we try to create our own, wasting precious time that the Supreme Cabal gave us.

See also

[edit]