Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedian contradictions and paradoxes

	This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun
Bottom	This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Lists

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList

Hilarious! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the Ignore All Rules one on my own. 76.185.18.21 20:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TBC disagrees.--TBCΦtalk? 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously did! Go see the talk page for Ignore All Rules!76.185.18.21 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - February 14, 2007? This page was created on October 2006...--TBCΦtalk? 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying I'M the one who made it in the first place, I'm just saying I thought of it before I saw it here.Gorank4 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if one were to be topic banned from having active topic bans?

If one were to get topic banned from being put under active topic bans, the user affected by the topic ban would be in violation of the topic ban because the user is already under an active topic ban; the topic ban from having active topic bans. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It's like the No Rules Allowed philosophy, in which a no rules allowed rule would violate itself because it itself is a rule, it's a rule that prohibits things of themselves and thus violate themselves. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we write it like a textbook or not?

A fragment from wp:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal says not to write it like a textbook;

6. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks,

with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than

to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

Yet a fragment from WP:YOUNG#Working on articles does recommend that we should be writing Wikipedia articles like a textbook;

Language. Wikipedia is used by millions of people. Many of them are top business people, politicians, or university professors. The text you write in articles must be very formal. It can't be the kind of prose you see in your

favorite magazine or blog. Think of it like the language in your school textbooks. Don't worry too much though, because another user will probably edit out the rough edges for you.

So what? Should we write Wikipedia articles like textbooks or not? --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]