Wikipedia talk:No vested contributors

Comment
How do we mark this as historical and rejected by the community and archive it? WP has blatant vestedcontributors (To name them is to incite wrath and create reams of hate filled pages) this essay is meaningless here. 87.112.16.11 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so, this actually nestles in with an already widely accepted policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles I am baffled as to why it has not received more attention. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No definition
It's clear what is meant by "vested" here. I assume this doesn't relate to stock options, so what does it relate to? aprock (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vested, adj: 1.held completely, permanently, and inalienably: vested rights. 2.protected or established by law, commitment, tradition, ownership, etc.: vested contributions to a fund." In other words, the article is about the attitude that once you've done your time or become popular, you're vested in the project or your pet articles and immune from criticism, like having tenure at a university. It's not supposed to work that way. Foxyshadis (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable citing of essay - October 2015
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC about refactoring
Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:MANDARINS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:MANDARINS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)