User:PhotogenicScientist

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

What is written quickly must be read thoroughly, but what is written thoroughly may be read quickly.

Wikipedia IS a democracy; voters are just required to have qualifications.

If Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, then why does it very much feel like one?

Articles I've worked on

Major contributions

Minor contributions

Learning Wikipedia's Policies

Article Content

Citing Sources

The Gold Standard - Reliable Sources

List of Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Conditions and Exceptions

"Context matters" (essay: Reliability in the context)
In-text Attribution (also here)

Alternatives

External Links

Criteria for inclusion or deletion

WP:Verifiability (Essay: WP:TRUTH)

WP:CONTENTFORK

WP:POVFORK

Biographical articles

WP:Contentious labels

Talk Pages

Non-constructive rants

NOT ALWAYS vandalism: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (also, WP:AGF)
NOT IMMEDIATELY disruptive editing: Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article.
Can be removed, per WP:NOTFORUM

General

Layout Formatting for Articles and Sections

Conduct when editing

Reversion

Policy: Edit-warring with reverts
Guideline: How to handle reverting editors
WP:REV#When_to_revert
H:RV#Before_reverting
"Sequential reverts count as one"

Consensus

Foremost, consensus through editing

WP:NOCONSENSUS

"Stonewalling"

Guideline: WP:STONEWALL
- See also: WP:STONEWALLING
Guideline: "Does not engage in consensus building"
Policy: Consensus-building

When Sanctions apply

Holy long walk for a short drink of water, Batman. Source documentation for 24-HR BRD?
- WP:Enforced BRD: Most official documentation

Biographies of Living Persons

WP:DENIALS
- WP:MANDY
- WP:NOTMANDY

Template for Relevant Policies & Guidelines

Administrative/WP-space considerations

AFD

WP:MERGEDELETE; should instead be "merge and redirect", due to licensing and attribution requirements

Potential Scenarios

Editor 1 makes an edit, I revert it, Editor 2 re-adds it

WP:BRDR: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted."

Conclusion: If I revert a bold edit, and it is restored by another user, the new edit stands until discussion is held (unless it violates policy)

Editor 1 makes an edit, I edit their edit, Editor 2 reverts me

WP:REVERT: A revert is "undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits"
- Bold edits may still be considered "reverts", but not always
WP:SQSAVOID: "If the status quo cannot be defended with strong arguments based in policy, guidelines, consensus and actual practice, don't try to defend it."
WP:STATUSQUO: "The procedural practice of temporarily favoring the status quo prevents edit warring while discussion is taking place"
24-hr BRD enforcement banner: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours"
WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."
- IMO: A revert is distinct from a bold effort
WP:EW: "The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors..."
WP:EW: "The three-revert rule applies per person"
- Applies to 3RR and 1RR, but not explicitly to BRD

Conclusion: Similar to above - If I make a bold edit that still undoes some change another editor made, and there's no policy-based reason to revert the reversion, discussion must be taken to talk page.

^ Editor 2 in this scenario owns the change, and must back up their new opinion in discussion

Quality of Life

Formatting

Green for talk quotes
~~strikethrough text~~
template:tq2 for proposing article content
- Ex:
  This is the first sentence.^[1] This is the second sentence.^[2]^[3]

References

^ Citation 1
^ Citation 2
^ Citation 3

Anchors

Example of a section title anchor: [1]

Form responses

"Wikipedia should reflect the truth" is a common misconception. Instead, Wikipedia collects information that is verifiable. WP:V is a core policy of the project (similarly, see WP:TRUTH).

You said "there is bias on Wikipedia" - allow me to invite you to edit here and help to neutralize bias (in accordance with WP:NPOV). But before you do so, please read up on the policies and guidelines used around here. If that's too much to read in one sitting, just start with these: Edit carefully, be polite, and if you violate policy and are told as much, don't take it personally - just take it to heart and continue to edit better.