I’ve always thought that the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia should simply be: is it true and is it verifiable. All the other criteria, notoriety, no original research, etc. really shouldn’t matter.
I totally agree but unfortunately it really is one of the fundamental laws of wikipedia. To me this becomes especially silly when editing math wiki articles, where you might be tempted to connect mathematical concepts (eg with a few lines of algebra), but writing this yourself in a wiki article is not allowed unless you can find a link to an external source making the same derivation!
>> A pattern is a sequence of pebbles repeated three times in a row.
By that logic, player 2 would have lost at their fifth turn. ... And 'in a row' is open to interpretation since it is additional information to 'repeated three times'.