Chorus:

You can edit this page right now is a core guiding check on everything that we do and we must respect this principle as sacred. Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both.

Harmony: Do the Right Thing, Assume Good Faith, Use Common Sense, and Just Do It! aka DtRTAGFUCSaJDI!

Rejected Contributions

/index/

On Wikipedia

• Wikipedia's success is predicated on community openness. It will continue to live, breathe, and grow only so long as participants continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms.
• Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.
• Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.
• It has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits); while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.
• We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while.
• When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user.
• "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
• Strict scrutiny means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
• Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.
• Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same.
• Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...] here to build an encyclopedia. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. Don't WP:BITE. Think hard before tagging a single-purpose account and make sure you are doing so with good reason. Be courteous.
• In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way.
• Rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures
• You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly. Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both.

• Xkcdreader seems like a very diligent editor who is eager to improve the encyclopedia, and I would hate to have you guys scare him off by objecting so vehemently to such a minor thing. -- Pfhorrest

• Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia. It's not a webhost for you to keep your shits and giggles. Try Wordpress for that. Second, you might give some regard to the old joke about the preacher in the flood zone, who ignored the radio warning to evacuate, and sent away the sherrif in his pickup, the emergency services and their rubber boat, and the Navy helicopter, on the grounds that God would save him. When his drowned ass turned up at the pearly gates he complained that God hadn't saved him, to which St Peter replied "well, he sent you a weatherman on the radio, the sherrif, a fire crew with a rubber boat and even the damn Navy. What else did you want." -- Elen of the Roads

• I hereby second every word of what douts has said. I legally makes all their votes count twice and I furthermore decree Pfhorrest be blessed with the same powers. I'll take Heaven over living here. Heaven sounds like a happier place. -- xkcdreader

The rules and standards may need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while.