Advice for New Editors |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Generalized from below:
Advice I gave to some new editors (I will try to make this more general when I have time):
|
|
AnalysisAnalysis2
contribution to mainspace
User Rights
AfD stats
8 June 2024 |
Helpful Info.
Helpful Info |
---|
Neutrality/Subjectivity/Balance
"It is important to recognise [sic] that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." Wikipedia Policy
"There's no such thing as objectivity...Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that." WP:NPOV
Power and Knowledge: "Power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions." "According to this understanding, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations." from: power-knowledge in reference to Foucault's theories.
"Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight." WP:COI
I believe when Wikipedia uses the word "neutral", these things are meant:
- (1) "non-judgmental" (and lacking harshness, nastiness and strongly slanted language)
- (2) statement of facts established by evidence
- (3) opinions, interpretations, theories, etc. are attributed to experts (or VIPs) or groups of experts; their opinions are either described or put in well chosen quotes. This is done instead of stating the theory in the text as a fact (e.g. "The universe was the result of the big bang." That would be attributed to an adherent of the theory.)
- (4) striving for the inclusion of and ideally a balance of multiple perspectives.
Webster defines the adj. neutral as: "not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping " [1]
These are all good goals. The challenge is (4) especially "balance". Creationists would be unlikely to present Darwin's theory on "neutral" terms in church (or probably anywhere else). Scientists have objected strongly to having creationism taught side by side with Darwin. The adherents to either theory believe so strongly their method for finding truth is the only reliable method (one the bible, the other the scientific method), it is an outrage to have the other view--which for them is undeniably FALSE--presented on equal footing. In fact, they would prefer to have the other view put in the category, "the tiny majority", the flat-earth category. That's when there's a problem.
The problem is that putting two theories side by side is actually not neutral--an attitude, assessment, bias, etc. is implicit: It suggests the two theories are worth roughly equal consideration. Some will be deeply offended and vehemently disagree with that, and insist one view should not be considered AT ALL. Take a look at Attack on Pearl Harbor and whether it was a "surprise" or not. To put on an additional view that experts have established advanced-knowledge is as heretical to certain maintainers of the page as the players in the Darwin/Creationism dispute above.
Ultimately, balance is so subjective that few articles can be balanced for everyone, and the more controversial, the fewer portion of readers will believe an article is fair or balanced. My suggestion for dealing with this conundrum, especially with controversial subjects, is to err on the side of inclusion of multiple perspectives, giving each camp a real opportunity to state their case and provide their evidence, rather than using the "flat earth" censorship method. When Copernicus and Galileo argued the earth was not the center of the universe, most experts of the time disagreed. If Wikipedia existed at the time, a "Skeptic" editor could assert WP:Fringe and the theory summarily removed, equating it with a "flat earth" theory or conspiracy theory.
Short Bio
"Contributing signed-in users may use their user subspace to publish short autobiographies within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia." WP:COI
"Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages." WP:COI
|
Mainstream Media
I don't think what is or is not covered by the mainstream media should be the bar that determines what makes facts eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has been well established that the mainstream media is biased. If you want sources for that, let me know. For example, see Noam Chomsky and search for "mass media". See also the movie "Manufacturing Consent." (I would recommend this over the book. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees when he argues on paper. However, his citations and evidence are impeccable.)
From the Lennar Discussion Page
- The fact that this board passed a resolution and posted a notice on it's website is not really relevant to the article. If this fact were important, it would be picked up by a reliable, secondary source (such as CNN or the New York Times). * * * Jehochman Talk 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- You make it sound like CNN is an unbiased source. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since when does the corporate owned media get to decide what is true and what is not true? Or what is newsworthy and what is not? Or is it truth only that which money can buy? Does Wikipedia believe in that principle?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Epistimology
Let me quote from the beginning of Wikipolicy WP:UNDUE "Undue Weight", I will quote the beginning here.
- NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
- We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material ...
- This is an interesting policy, one, I must confess, I find a quite puzzling and virtually unenforceable: a seemingly democratic definition of what is believed on a topic as if all the beliefs were part of some binary system of discrete concepts (A, B, C, D) that either are or not believed and the "experts" on each topic have neatly divided the terrain of their subject and pretty much agree it can be divided just that way (A, B, C, D). All lay people have to do is make a complete list of all the experts and count how many of each has pledged their belief or non-belief in each of the discrete camps A, B, C, D, and we know just how much text to apportion to each viewpoint. For democratic purposes each expert regardless of experience will have the same count (or will the count be weighted by years of experience in the field?)
- Somehow, I just don't think it is so straightforward and I'm thankful for that.
- The first opening line makes sense--to put out major viewpoints, especially those that have been well articulated by those who know the subject intimately. But the next line gets fuzzy fast: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all"...I wonder about that. Often, I have found, it is the "minority" views that are both the most interesting and most elucidating of the "majority views" by comparison and contrast, and when combined with the majority views are in total more likely to help the reader understand the complexity of the issue and wealth of perspectives available on it. After all, we learn from our mistakes.
- This policy makes some sense if there is a wealth of information and high quality research, research that is verifiable, with, for example, repeatable hypothesis testing on the subject, such as in some scientific issues or the nature of particle movement, especially when the subject is somewhat objective in nature or quantifiable and measurable, like the movement of particles. But most of truth is, for better or for worse, not discrete and not measurable.
- Some serious problems come up immediately in trying to define a MAJORITY or MINORITY view. How do you determine whether two views are "the same". It is rare that any two authors (or "experts") express their opinions in quite the same way, have the same emphasis or interest or depth of knowledge. Each often has their own focus. They will often concede subjectivity in their views and values. Freud and Adler for example had very similar views, but many were different as well. If you had all of Freud's followers and all of Adler's followers who had spent years in the profession, brought them all together, how do you determine the "majority" view. I don't think it exists or that it can be reliably determined. The "majority" view is a subjective view determined by the observer. It is true these professionals might come to some agreement on some issues but the more interesting topics are often those where competing views are expressed. Who gets to make the final decision about what the "MAJORITY" or "MINORITY" view is? Someone who is NOT AN EXPERT? I don't think this is an easy one at all to enforce because of this problem.
- And what about this case, a very common one, and certainly the case with Lennar Corporation: What do you do when there are only a limited number of experts, or no experts at all, then what is the policy? If only a handful of people really know what is going on, but the the majority of more ignorant people think they know but actually don't (of course they have their credentials--by say working for the New York Times) and simply dismiss out right those who have something correct and unique and 100% correct to say. Is it Wikipedia's intention to suppress views that are 100% true simply because the majority of "experts" thinks they know what they are talking about, but actually don't, like the way Copernicus was? I think this is actually the most common case--the case that Socrates was so interested in.
- And what happens to a highly subjective topic, such as what makes good art? or philosophy? literary criticism? These subjects often don't even have agreed upon definitions, e.g. Post-Modernism or Existentialism. Many of those labeled existentialist or post-modernists, eschewed the label and insisted that the "experts" did not understand them and were putting them in a bin they had no interest of being in--that seems like a fair argument to me. On these subjects, there often is NO MAJORITY VIEW and the experts more or less agree on that. Now what? And for better or worse, I think life is more like art than it is like science--not discrete, not a binary or discrete system of right and wrong--I think the author(s) of the above policy made an epistemological mistake in their characterization of knowledge and truth--one that becomes obvious from looking at the editing history and discussion pages of controversial topics. What is more likely are there are diverse views that experts identify themselves with or put more research and investigation into, and often these diverse views contradict each other, despite the fact that each can be solidly defended, or show things from such radically different perspectives you can't really say they are entirely true or entirely false, they simply make good logical, cogent and coherent sense. Or they are very interesting in and of themselves, for example because of their style, even if they appear logically untrue. Compare, for example, [Hegel] and [Kant] regarding the subject of subjectivity vs. objectivity--is there a majority view on either of these two authors other than that they are very hard to read???. In graduate level classes in academia, you learn a number of these diverse competing views, and you don't decide what is the CORRECT MAJORITY VIEW, you simply learn to understand and appreciate the validity and limitations of each of these views often ones the professor has a big interest in, always keeping in mind that before any of these views gained widespread interest, acceptance or repetition, that when that view first appeared were, it was, in fact, a minority or "tiny minority view" and dismissed by the "experts". The above policy seems to frown upon the value of unique and extremely well put together cogent argument with solid evidence and/or just plain good writing. It seems to instead encourage some sort of vague mushy definitions of things that are supposedly agreed on by a "majority" of "experts" creating just a shallow sense of a subject, again as if it were a binary or discrete system of things of verifiable facts, rather than a rainbow of infinite colors of beauty, which could only be appreciated by looking at the diversity of numerous well written opinions on the subject.
My Public Advocacy (NOT PAID)
I have excerpted this from the Chris Daly discussion page. The user was kind enough to do some biographical research on me and present it there. That saves me a lot of time with disclosure. I have deleted some portions that were more pertinent in the context of the discussion there. The quote about Willie Brown is deliberately slanted. I used that language because it both: (1) would help get it published (2) to make my point clear in as few words as possible. I DO NOT recommend slanted language like this on Wikipedia, except in quotes, as per Wikipedia policy of neutrality and balance.
- Dear "longtime activist" David Tornheim, co-founder of Central City Progressives, an SF political group that opposes chain stores,
- For someone who was questioning peoples' political motives only yesterday, you sure sound like an advisor from the Daly political camp today:
- \* \* \*
- ...A conversation you ... had over a couple lattes between your Stop Starbucks! and Save Harding Theater! rallies?
- A simple Google search on both of your names makes for some interesting reading: http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Tornheim+Chris+Daly
- Since you're obviously here to attempt to promote and defend your fellow "SF City Progressive", please spare us all the "I'm here to bring balance to the force" act. And your little "HEY!!! Daly's arch rival Gavin Newsom's Wiki-page is more positive! NO FAIR!!!", rant didn't make the act any more convincing.
“ | 'District Five's David Tornheim doesn't like the idea of giving the homeless bus tickets out of town:
So San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration shows its "care" for the homeless by hocking[sic] one-way tickets out of town? Will the tourists also be sent packing, or is there an exception for those with disposable cash? Will Newsom roll out the welcome mat for the homeless from other towns with similar programs, or is Greyhound the long-term housing plan for them? (Letter to the Editor, SF Examiner, Oct. 27) |
” |
- Yeah, you're really here to help make things neutral alright! BillyTFried (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dear BillyTFried: Thanks for your hard work digging up my political work. Yes, that's me indeed. I never said *I* was neutral on the subject of Chris Daly; I said that the ARTICLE was not neutral. * * * I could see real advantages for Wikipedia to require or request more disclosure/transparency (and disadvantages as well). Note that I use my real name rather than hide behind an anonymous moniker, as Wikipedia suggests you do. I'm still learning what the protocol on what you are or are not supposed to reveal about yourself, your interest in editing the article(s), etc.--Wikipedia seems to suggest NOT disclosing, despite the obvious disadvantages. In fact, in disputes, unlike a Court of law, rather than saying you are the petitioner requesting relief, you're supposed to make an anonymous request, which I find quite odd.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think neutral means "non-judgmental" (and lacking harshness, nastiness and strongly slanted language--e.g. my comments about the Mayor--they were deliberately slanted to get it published! I don't propose that kind of language for Wikipedia.), and striving for a balance of perspectives. I'm not sure there is such a thing as truly neutral content. [I will later provide a reference for that.] --David Tornheim (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
From Lennar Corporation Discussion Page
From Lennar Corporation Discussion Page -- 29 July 2008 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
David Tornheim is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David is a neighborhood activist with a history of opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development. [Please see DT's notes below] He was a vocal proponent of the bill the San Francisco Board of Education passed a resolution concerning a proposed development by Lennar in the Hunters Point area of San Francisco. [Please see response below] He actually created the fact that his is so enraged has been removed from the article. I applaud David's commitment to what he believes in and his advocacy. I am impressed by his tactics, including trying for historic status for a 12 unit building and trying to block parking permits to prevent the Lennar project. [Please see note below regarding writer's confusion about what was on that page.] Abrogating the Wikipedia listing about a company to spin it to his own world view, using the wikipedia listing concerning Lennar to advocate his political position and punishing a company who has actually already won a voter initiative to move forward with this project, is blatantly dishonest. Much more dishonest than a Lennar employee attempting to delete ("censor") "facts" they regard as inflammatory and prejudicial. This type of information no more belongs in WikiPedia than blatantly commercial messages from Lennar about their values, their financial data or even the number of house they have build in the last 10 years. For the record, I have advised Lennar NOT to attempt to make edits to the wikipedia page, although they are more than ready to provide information to any neutral editor who decides to settle this matter.(talk) Jonahstein 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Landon1980 Trekphiler |
Cell Phone Antennas & WiFi
I submitted a ballot argument against a "free" Wifi System in San Francisco.
I filed an appeal opposing a T-Mobile antenna box on my block in San Francisco.
I have supported appeals of permits for cell phone antennas in San Francisco.
There may be other activities related to cell phones, cell phones antennas or WiFi where I have participated that I cannot think of off the top of my head.
I made no money doing any of this work. I have not done any of this kind of work for >3 years.
--David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Corporate slant
BP
BP, using the approved process of declaring its WP:POV and WP:COI, was able to get 44% of its version into the BP article: [2][3][4][5][6][7]. See: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#BP
Interesting
Chinese look at the U.S.
- translated version of the Chinese article on the U.S. (Chinese article on U.S. original article in Chinese)
- The section on American diet is a fun read:
- The American diet incorporates Native American cooking recipes and ingredients such as turkey , potatoes , corn , and pumpkin , all of which are an integral part of American culture. Apple pies , pizzas , and hamburgers were originally from or improved from Europe , and now they are a symbol of American fast food culture. Mexican rolls and tacos are derived from Mexico . Soul food , introduced by African Americans as a slave , has become one of the popular dishes of the public. Overall, due to the high intake of high-calorie foods, the American diet is not healthy, and the problem of obesity in the country is very serious. [emphasis added]
- Americans' eating habits are often three meals a day. Breakfast time is approximately 7am to 8am. Breakfast content varies from place to place. A simple breakfast, maybe a simple food such as juice, milk, cereal, toast and coffee. Breakfast is usually served at home, but sometimes it is a chance to take a breakfast to discuss business activities such as business, called "working breakfast." Lunch time is basically from 12 noon to 2 pm. Because time is short and people are not close to home, students and office workers rarely go home to eat, but bring meals from home, so American lunch is the simplest of the three meals. Vegetable salads , sandwiches , burgers or pies , hot dogs, etc., and a drink . Dinner starts in the evening from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock in the evening. It is generally rich, so dinner in American English also means dinner and dinner. At dinner, you usually come with a juice or a thick soup before you order the main course. The main dishes often served on the table are steaks , pork chops , grilled sirloin , fried chicken , fried shrimp , ham and grilled lamb chops. Most Americans like to have some sweets, such as cakes , ice cream and chocolate , after dinner. On weekends or holidays, many families only eat two meals. They called breakfast and lunch together as a brunch , which was added by breakfast and lunch . Generally more formal. Some families do not cook on Sundays and the whole family goes to restaurants . In some American holidays , American families also often hold picnics and outdoor barbecues. [emphasis added]
- Apple pie the most famous dessert in the United States
- In the United States, people eat turkey every holiday.
- American Dream:
- American Dream is an ideal that believes in a better life in the United States through hard work, that is, people must strive for prosperity through hard work, courage, creativity and determination in their own work, rather than relying on Aid for specific social classes and others. Usually this represents people's economic success or entrepreneurial spirit.
- Transportation:
- Due to the relatively large territory of the United States and the economic development of the three countries, the transportation technology and transportation volume of many modes of transportation rank first in the world. The density of roads and railways is the world's leading level. The construction of high-speed railways is far less advantageous than the world's leading countries because of the huge advantages of the aviation industry. The number of airports and ports is among the highest in the world. Due to the corresponding restrictions on the passenger rail network, the long-distance travel methods most commonly used by commuter passengers in the United States are mainly driving and aviation.
- Railway
- The United States built a transcontinental rail network to carry cargo between 48 states. The rail network operated by Amtrak also traverses 46 of the 48 states and is dedicated to passenger transport. The total length of railways in the United States ranks first in the world. According to 2007 data, the total length of the US railway is 226,427 kilometers. However, due to the developed highway and civil passenger transportation in the United States, its mobility and time-saving are much higher than that of the railway, making the US passenger transport less developed than in Western Europe and Japan. The US government's analysis believes that air passenger transport is the main cause of the passenger railroad companies' collapse in the 1970s. However, with the changes of the times, the development of mass transportation has become the consensus of the world to reach a consensus against global warming . Including the California High Speed Rail Project, which was developed by California , the US government and state governments have begun feasibility studies and preparations for mass rail transportation to prepare for the transformation of future transportation patterns. [emphasis added]
- Urban traffic
- Many cities in the United States have a public transportation system, and the subway network in New York City is the largest. The daily commuter is the second highest in the world, second only to the Tokyo Metro in Japan , and its commuter rail and bus network extends to Long Island. New York , New Jersey , New Jersey, and Connecticut form one of the world's largest passenger transportation networks. However, in general, public transportation in American cities is still relatively backward compared to other developed countries. Except for a few metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco , where the public transportation is more developed, the transportation mode most often relied on when people go out is still Mainly private cars. [emphasis added]
- Religion (start)
- During the British colonial period before the founding of the United States, there was no religious freedom. There were very harsh religious decrees that discriminated against and persecuted those who did not believe in Protestantism, mainly against Catholics (partly based on anti-clericalism) and Christian religious factions. The controlled areas also impose discriminatory policies against believers in other factions.
- Diplomacy
- History (snippets)
- Since the 19th century, the United States began to appear "the theory of destiny", Zhao Zhaotian destiny became the political slogan of the United States in the 19th century, one of the meanings is that the Americans are "the people of the election" must expand the territory With the power. Under the leadership of the American expansionist trend of thought, the US Westward Movement began to expand and began to expand into the west. From 1803 to 1848, the size of the United States was almost tripled, and the ideal of the new republic is "destined to expand to the whole continent." It expands into the vast wilderness, even before the purchase of land by Louis Siena. In-depth inland . This expansion was briefly obstructed during the war of 1812 , but it quickly continued as the war ended. Since this campaign, the American people have strengthened their thoughts of "expansion from the ocean to the ocean" and considered it an irresistible fate. In 1848, the United States captured the Mexican capital of the South and won the US-Mexico war . Mexico recognizes the incorporation of Texas into the United States and also stipulates more than 2 million square kilometers of land, and half of the territory is given to the United States. The US government encourages people to sneak into the West, and encourages the construction of railways to create more conflict with Native Americans. In the late 19th century, the US military and militia launched several times to annihilate Native Americans until the end of the Native American lifestyle. [emphasis added.]
Backlog
GMO
Current Discussions
Major/Discussions
"scientific consensus"
- "scientific consensus" at GM Crops by Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Articles
- Genetically modified organism (Talk)
- Genetically modified food (Talk)
- Genetically modified crops (Talk)
- Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
- Genetic Engineering (Talk)
- Regulations:
- See if I missed any from: here
Sources
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources
Vandalism
When Huggle Doesn't work
No reliable Source
- -- not providing a reliable source ([[WP:CITE]], [[WP:RS]])
- {{subst:uw-unsourced1|Article}}
Other
Mass reverts--use with caution: [[11]]
Templates
top
See also #Templates 2
to avoid archiving {{bump}}
{{Paragraph break}} {{Paragraph break}}
Reflist
{{reflist}}
{{reflist talk}}
To indent from (full discussion response)
- <div style="margin-left: 4em;">{{reflist}}</div>
Infoboxes
{{Infobox}}
{{Infobox building}}
{{coord}}
tags
{{unreferenced}}
{{refimprove}}
{{Essay|section|date=September 2011}}
Quotes
- {{tq|...}}
Blockquote in green
{{tq}}
{{Talkquote}}
Very important quotation templates were listed. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome
- Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates
- Category:WikiProject-specific_welcome_templates
- Category:IP user welcome templates
{{welcome-anon}}
--- IP account{{register}}
-- IP account{{welcome}}
{{welcome2}}
{{welcomeg}}
Warning
Discretionary Sanctions / DS
{{subst}}
{{subst:alert|ap}} Examples: [12][13]
{{uw-ew|Paul Ryan}} -- edit war warning to specific article / editwar / edit-war
Pings
{{ping}}
{{replyto}}
{{bcc}}
Other
{{See also}}
{{pg}}
This article incorporates facts obtained from: Lawrence Kestenbaum, The Political Graveyard
{{main}}
{{subst:uw-editsummary|Article}} -- failure to put in an edit summary
{{See also|Mistake (contract law)#Unilateral Mistake#Exceptions}} becomes:
Vandalism Warnings: [14]
{{uw-vandalism1}}
{{uw-vandalism1|article name}}
{{refimprove}}
{{unreferenced}}
Example of foreign language article referred to:
- {{ill|Benjamin Carter Hett|de}} becomes: Benjamin Carter Hett
- {{ill|המרכז_האקדמי_למשפט_ולעסקים|he}} becomes המרכז_האקדמי_למשפט_ולעסקים
- This has a list of articles about "template management" Wikipedia Template Management
- and guidelines for templates
- Probably the most complete: Template Namespace
- And this: Wikipedia Templates
- And this: Help:Template
- Moved to {{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Still confusing secondary and primary sources}}
- hat/collapse/expand/shrink
- {{cot|Title}} Collapsed stuff {{cob}}
Title
|
---|
Collapsed stuff |
- {{xt|foo baa baz}} == foo baa baz (eXample text)
- {{!xt|foo baa baz}} == foo baa baz
- {{hilite|foo baa baz}} == foo baa baz
- {{done}} = Done
- {{Fixed}} = Fixed
- {{Not done}} = Not done
- {{doing}} = Doing...
- {{Tick}} =
- {{Cross}} =
{{resolved}}
{{resolved|Put stuff in here}} =Resolved– Put stuff in here
{{Resolved}}
→Resolved{{Unresolved}}
→Unresolved{{Not sure3}}
→Not sure{{Being worked on}}
→Being worked on{{2O}}
→2nd opinion requested{{Duplicate issue}}
→Duplicate{{Disregard}}
→Disregard{{Moot}}
→{{Off-topic thread}}
→{{FYI}}
→{{Moved discussion from}}
→Moved from {{{1}}}{{Moved discussion to}}
→Moved to{{Stale}}
→Stale{{Stuck}}
→Stuck{{WQA in progress}}
→Work in progress; comments welcome{{Wrong venue}}
→Wrong venue. Please move to {{{1}}}{{Referred elsewhere}}
→Not an issue for David Tornheim. Referred elsewhere.{{Resbox|demo=y|reason=(customizable)}}
→Any inline resolution template here
Misc
- Template:Done/See also, the large family of inline, comment-level templates (similar to the above, but with no box around them); {{Resbox}} can be used to convert any of them into {{Resolved}}-style hatnotes
- Template:Table cell templates/doc, the family of table-specific templates that work only in tables
- Category:Image with comment templates
- Category:Resolution templates other good stuff
Pics
- See Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Image
- [[File:BOLD revert discuss.svg|center|500px]]
- [[File:BRD1.svg|100px|right]] --->
- [[File:BRD reboot image.png|thumb|This is along the lines of what I have been thinking.]]
- Do you mean [[:File:BRD1.svg]]? -> Do you mean File:BRD1.svg?
- No, I meant I also like [[File:BOLD revert discuss.svg|100px]]. -> No, I meant I also like .
Symbols
- Section Symbol: §
- Paragraph symbol: ¶
Category:Typographical_symbols
Categories
Notability
- WP:GNG
- WP:BLP
- Sports: WP:Athlete, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NHOCKEY/LA, WP:NOLYMPICS.
- WP:Company
- WP:NHS -- high schools
- WP:NFILM
- WP:NACTOR
- WP:NCORP -- Press Release Press Release comment by DGG
- WP:BROADCAST, WP:BCAST -- broadcast media
- WP:SPEEDY
- WP:LISTNAME
- WP:CORPDEPTH -- re blogs about bldgs
- WP:GEOFEAT -- features of buildings
- WP:PROMO
Manual of Style
- {{ussc|name=Roe v. Wade|410|113|1973}} Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Types of Pages
- Wikipedia:Disambiguation
- WP:Hat -- hatnotes
- WP:HATCHEAP -- essay
Wikipedia Data
Tools
- WP:TOOLS
- Responsible User
- WikiBlame
- Interaction Analysis
- WP:TRACEIP
- RfCs
- Word Count Tool
- Fill in bare references "refill" WP:REFILL [15]
- WP:LDR -- consolidating references
- WP:PERM -- request for permissions
Searching
International/Foreign
[[:es:Loma_de_Bácum]]
Table
Language | Priority | Search | Code | Template | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spanish | 2 | Spanish Wikipedia | es | ||
German | 2 | German Wikipedia | de | {{Expand German|*|date=April 2017}} | |
Chinese | 3 | Chinese search | Chinese other | ||
Japanese | 3 | Japanese | jp | ||
Hebrew | 5 | Hebrew | he | ||
French | 2 | French | Code: fr | ||
Dutch | 4 | Dutch | Code: nl | ||
Turkish | 4 | Turkish | Example | ||
Swedish | 3 | Swedish | Code:SV | ||
Italian | 3 | Italian | Code: it | ||
Urdu | 3 | Urdu | ur | ||
Hindi | 3 | Hindi | hi | ||
Kannada | 3 | Kannada | kn | ||
Marathi | 3 | Marathi | mr | ||
Arabic | 2 | Arabic | ar | ||
Polish | 3 | Polish | pl | ||
Russian | 2 | Russian | rus, ru | ||
Example | Example | Example | Example |
Expand
{{Expand German|Walter Hauck (SS-Mitglied)|date=March 2017}}
{{Expand Chinese|美国|date=January 2019}}
{{Expand German|Wikipedia|date=March 2017}}
{{Expand}}
Wikipedia translation tool
WP:CXT
Abbr/Acronyms
Acronym Finder or Abbreviations.com
Success
Articles Created
Articles Deleted
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/25_The_Esplanade -- was like an advertisement.
Interesting
From User_talk:SMcCandlish#I_thought_that_you_might_like_this
In breaks between edits, you may enjoy listening to Wikipedia as it is being created and destroyed. Regards, William Harris • talk • 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Kind of soothing. Not sure what the chords represent yet. Maybe someone creating an account. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- http://techland.time.com/2013/08/09/like-a-nerdy-wind-chime-real-time-wikipedia-edits-set-to-music/ Being a thinker, I thought you would find it interesting. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it doesn't say what the occasional long, dramatic chords are, though. There might be even more than one kind (at a guess I would think page deletion, page creation, and account creation). 20:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- http://techland.time.com/2013/08/09/like-a-nerdy-wind-chime-real-time-wikipedia-edits-set-to-music/ Being a thinker, I thought you would find it interesting. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Specialists / Interests
- Wikipedians by degree
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_*
Notices
Insert text here.
Ref
<ref name=[name]> <ref name=[name]/>
Editing
Policy
- WP:POLICY
- Five Pillars
- WP:NPOV
- WP:VER
- WP:EDITWAR
- WP:VANDAL -- Vandalism
- WP:SOCK
Guideline
- WP:RS
- WP:CS, WP:REF -- citing sources
- WP:VIDEOLINK (supplement)
- WP:COI (Talk)
- WP:MEDRS
- WP:MfD
- WP:AfD
- WP:PROSE -- lists
- WP:LEAD -- lead, lede
Essays
- WP:INDENT
- WP:POLL (see also WP:CONSENSUS)
Templates
- WP:WARNING
- WP:NOTIFS <-- when to use
- Reply to
COI
COI talk page discussion stated by SV
COI Ducks
NB
Cases
- Full Case
- Evidence by Vejvančický (talk / contribs)
- Jytdog v. DT 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog v. DT 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- DrChrissy v. Jytdog 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog v. DePiep, 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)