User:Buster7/2014 sandbox

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 2 71 0 1 100 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 19 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 14:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

TRA!

trah, an Interjective Symbol.

• A farewell wish originated in the 1970's from the movie The Taste of Honey.

• A symbol used by the musicwise community as an affirmation of the infinite beauty, power, and creative intelligence of musical experience.

• "Okay, thanks for calling, see you tomorrow. TRA!"

Bahá'í Laws and rules

Rules that Bahá'ís are to follow concerning death:

• No cremation or embalming. The body is to be respected, not destroyed or harmed in general. Donation to science is allowed if the other rules can be followed.
• Suicide is a rejection of God's plan for humans and is forbidden. The souls of adherents can "suffer spiritually" if they commit suicide. Bereaving families are to be comforted.
• There are no specified rituals but except a shared Prayer For The Dead
• A ring with an inscription should be worn and the body wrapped in a shroud. The inscription should read; I came forth from God and return unto Him, detached from all save Him, holding fast to His Name, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
• Interment of the body should be in a coffin
• Burial should be in within no more than an hour's travel from the place of death.
• The appropriate marker on the gravestone is a nine-pointed star and or the word Bahá'í.

Funerals and burials

Bahá'í teachings address how a Bahá'í is to approach death and the preparations for a Bahá'í funeral and burial are clear. Bahá'u'lláh has encouraged regarding of death as a Messenger of Joy.His Laws regarding funeral and burial have the purpose of continuing the blessings of God upon the soul newly born into the next life.

On the obligation to prepare a will

The Book of Law says that it is incumbent to write a will. Contents? 1) Headed with the Greatest Name (Bahá'u'lláh, Allah'u'Abha or Yá Bahá'u'l- Abhá' are all various forms of the Greatest Name); 2) Mention the believer's belief in the oneness of God as manifested by Bahá'u'lláh; 3)set forth any good deeds which the deceased wishes to have performed in his or her name. Such good deeds will have an impact upon the soul in the next world and may even, says 'Abdu'l-Bahá, "be the cause of his pardon and forgiveness, and of his progress in the Divine Kingdom." Therefore, a Bahá'í may choose to perform such acts through the instrument of his will. 4) Choose to honor Bahá'u'lláh's own provisions, outlined in the Kitab-i- Aqdas, for the distribution of his estate, including, for example, remembering his teacher(s), or distributing his unpaid portion of the Huqúqu'lláh. 5) Indicate one's wish to be buried according to the Bahá'í laws of burial. There is no prohibition against donating one's body, or some organs, for scientific purposes.

Location of burial place and timing of the burial

The deceased is to be buried no more than one hour's journey from the place of death, regardless of the means of transport and calculated from the city limits. The sooner the burial takesh place, the more fitting and preferable. The emblem used to indicate that the deceased was a believer is a nine-pointed star with the word "Bahá'í" enclosed.

Preparation for burial

Bahá'ís are not to be embalmed or cremated, unless required by law, as our teachings require both that the body be treated with great respect and that it be allowed to decompose naturally, with no means used to hasten its decomposition.' After death, the body is to be washed carefully and wrapped in a shroud. Should a Bahá'í pass away in a Western hospital, the body will probably already have been washed, as this is the custom before transport to a funeral home. It is also not unfamiliar to funeral homes to honor this provision, inasmuch as the washing and wrapping of the body is also observed by those of the Jewish faith. Therefore, a funeral home may provide a location for someone to perform this service, or they may be commissioned to do it. In the Holy Family, the responsibility of washing the body was given to an intimate of the deceased and was considered a great honor, and some Bahá'í families retain this custom. Therefore, some Bahá'í communities do not require a funeral home's services, having arranged to provide these services themselves. Though it is not specified in the Bahá'í law, it has been the custom among the Bahá'ís of Iran to perfume the body as well, with attar of rose or another perfume. Subsequently, the body should be wrapped in white cloth, preferably silk, though cotton is also mentioned.

If one is unfamiliar with this method of preparing the body, as is true in the West where the deceased is often buried in their own clothing, the following notes may be helpful: The shroud is a piece of cloth approximately seven yards or meters in length, when used for a person of normal height and weight. It can be wrapped around the body in one piece, though this is more difficult than to cut it into four one yard or meter pieces, with one each used for the feet and legs, trunk, shoulders, and head, with the longer three foot piece wrapped the length of the body to hold the other pieces in place. It is not necessary to cover the face, but the shroud may be wrapped over the top of the head, as with a shawl.

The deceased, if over fifteen years of age, should be buried wearing a Bahá'í burial ring placed upon the forefinger. This simple ring bears the inscription (in Arabic), I came forth from God, and return unto Him, detached from all save Him, holding fast to His Name, the Merciful, the Compassionate. A coffin of hard fine wood should be used.

These latter four observances: of the burial ring, the shroud, the nature of the coffin, and the direction in which the deceased faces; these observances are Bahá'í law binding upon believers from Iran and other Middle Eastern countries but not obligatory at present for Bahá'ís from the West. However, some Western believers may wish to observe Bahá'í funeral practices associated with the East, inasmuch as they were observed by the family of Bahá'u'lláh Himself.

Funeral service

According to Bahá'í law, there is just one ceremonial requirement at a Bahá'í funeral, and that is the recitation of the Prayer for the Dead This prayer should be recited by one believer only, at the graveside, with all those present standing. Other prayers may be chosen and the service should be simple and dignified. Bahá'ís may also hold future memorial gatherings for the deceased should they wish to do so and are encouraged to distinguish the Bahá'í services from the customary social bereavement gatherings. A Bahá'í funeral presents a wonderful opportunity for teaching the faith to those who wish to respect the deceased with their presence at the service. The Bahá'í service is a dignified yet joyful event, honoring the promotion of a soul to its next realm of existence, and as such can educate others and bring comfort to their hearts.

WP:MoS

• One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs.

Template:Cite Web

{{cite web |url = |title = |last = |first = |date = |website = |publisher = |accessdate = }}

How to display something in green instead of using quotation marks.

How to display something in red instead of using quotation marks.

IRC

• #wikipedia-en ^connect. 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Or #wikipedia-coffeehouse ^connect a better location. 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding references

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
2. Then click on "Templates".
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
4. Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
5. Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
6. Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

• Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header   ==References==   is near the end of the article.
• And check that   {{Reflist}}    is directly underneath that header.

7.  Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

Same reference used more than once

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code (such as the author or article title):

<ref name="smith">DETAILS OF REFERENCE</ref>

Subsequent times that you cite the same reference in the article, you can use a shortcut instead of re-typing it:

<ref name="smith" />

You can then use that shortcut as many times as you want, but never forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the section.

Names for footnotes and groups must follow these rules:

• Names are case-sensitive. Please do not use raNdOM capitalization.
• Names must not be purely numeric; the software will accept something like ":31337" (which is punctuation plus a number), but it will ignore "31337" (purely numeric).
• Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":31337".
• Names must be unique. You may not use the same name to define different groups or footnotes. Try to avoid picking a name that someone else is likely to choose for a new citation, such as ":0" or "NYT".
• Please consider keeping reference names short, simple, and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals. If spaces are used, the following technical restrictions become relevant:
  • Quotation marks are preferred but optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9, and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~. That is, all printable ASCII characters except #"'/=<>?\ and space.
  • Inclusion of any other characters, including spaces, requires that the reference name be enclosed in quotes; for example, name="John Smith". But quote-enclosed reference names may not include a less-than sign (<) or a double straight quote symbol ("), which may however be included by escaping as < and " respectively.
  • The quote marks must be the standard, straight, double quotation marks ("); curly or other quotes will be parsed as part of the reference name.
• You may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required. This makes later re-use of the sourced reference easier.

For an example article where there are three sources, and they are each referenced three times, see William Bowyer (artist). For more details see WP:REFNAME.

IMDb as reference

IMDb should not generally be used as a source for biographical information. You've done so on many articles such as Rico Alaniz and Ben Cooper. Instead of using the movie site as an inline citation, put it in the External Links section as a complementary reference. Also, it's not necessary to mention every single part they've played in the main text. That's what the Filmography list is for.

WPNotibility

• The standard for inclusion for a subject on Wikipedia is called notability. It only has a loose relationship to importance or fame. What needs to be shown to prove notability is reliable, independent, secondary sources writing about your subject in detail. Please take a look at the wikilinks preceding this sentence before going any further. Thanks.

• The standards for notability are found at WP:GNG. There is a specific standard for organizations and companies found at WP:NCORP. The difference in the two standards is that companies and organizations are required to show that they are notable over a wide geographic area. This can be done either by showing appropriate references that have a wide circulation, such as books or magazines, or by showing appropriate references that are locally circulated (such as newspapers or local TV and radio) from widely distributed geographic areas.

Good Advice to a NOVICE EDITOR

To get acclimatized with editing Wikipedia, first try a small task. If you're skilled at writing, find an awkward phrase in an article, and re-write it to be stronger. If there is a topic you're very familiar with, such as a particular team or player, have a look at the corresponding articles, and look for an inaccuracy or inconsistency in the text. Then find a reliable source for the correct information, and update the article, complete with a citation to the source you uncovered. Review the talk page for the article and browse through its discussion threads. Place the article you've updated on your watchlist (which you can access from the menu at the top of every Wikipedia page) and see how you can monitor edits to articles and their associated talk pages. Once you are familiar with the mechanics of contributing to Wikipedia, making larger changes should be less daunting. Just be ready to discuss your edits with other editors, and keep an open mind. WikiProject Baseball's talk page is always available for your questions. Isaccl in the Signpost about Project Baseball

The Learning Curve is steep

Hi New Editor Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, the learning curve is steep, and a lot of beginners make the same mistakes you've made. But is absolutely essential that you never paste material from copyright sources onto any page on Wikipedia, including your user pages and sandbox. It is also essential that you explicitly credit your actual sources. Failure to do so is plagiarism, even on the rare occasions when you are using text that is out of copyright. See some comments at Talk:Henry Harrington Janeway, for example. Here are some tips that I give new editors...

How to avoid close paraphrasing and copyright problems.

• Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is essential reading before you even start your next draft as is Wikipedia:Copy-paste (a simple guide to copyright issues)

• One of the best ways to avoid copyright violations (and to write a better article) is to use several sources rather than relying on a single reference work or web site.

• If you do find material that you want to use or refer to, copy it into a word processing file (or draft email) completely off-wiki'. Never put it in your sandbox or any other Wikipedia user or draft space.

• But don't take the material and then start changing a few words in it or moving the phrases around. First of all, this will almost always result in paraphrasing which is so close that it risks being a copyright infringement. Secondly, if you just change a word to a similar word, you risk distorting the meaning.

Do this instead...

• Read the material. Digest it. Internalize it. Make sure you understand the outline of the subject well enough to explain it out loud to another person without looking at your sources.

• Then make an outline of the facts only—no adjectives, no phrases, just the facts

• Now attempt a draft of the topic, just using your outline, preferably after not having looked at the source material for a little while. This will force you to write it in your own words — it's just too easy to be tempted to copy the perfect phrases that are found in professionally written material.

• Draft your article gradually rather than rushing to get it into Wikipedia. This approach will result in more interesting and coherent content. It also allows you the time to review your work carefully for potential copyright violations.

Hope that helps. 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Upload Wizard

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard.

reasons for reporting vandals

• actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account
• actions on a large number of articles in spite of multiple warnings
• "...but with a few hundred edits and I can't find a single one that is constructive."

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Much of your editing is unambiguous vandalism, such as the edits you made to _______________ and other editing is highly dubious, to say the least. I see that a large proportion of of your editing has been reverted by other editors who regarded it as unconstructive. You have also created articles, such as Bang Habib, which show every sign of being hoaxes. Wikipedia is not a playground,and neither is it a medium for publishing fiction. (JBWtsn talk) 10:08, 10 September

Do you know the difference between a "vote" and a "!vote"?

In a straight "vote", participants select a desired outcome and the final result is determined by a tally or percentage. However, in a "!vote" (or "not-vote"), participants select a desired outcome and provide rationales to support their positions. The final result of the discussion is determined by consensus, which is based on the strength of the rationales, not the numbers alone. Many processes on Wikipedia operate by "!voting", including RfA's to some extent.

January '14

Almost all of your editing is to your user page, and you show very little sign of intending to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Also, although some versions of your user page have looked like drafts for an article, you show no sign of actually intending to use them as such, and appear to be just using your talk page to hold article-like content unrelated to contributing to the encyclopaedia. If this is not so, and you do in fact intend to contribute, then it would be as well to make that clear very soon. Wikipedia is not a social network site or a free web host, and a user page is for providing a little information about the user ion question, in connection with their editing of the encyclopaedia, not for storing pages for personal use, unrelated to building the encyclopaedia. User pages used for inappropriate purposes may be deleted, and any user who does not seem to be here to contribute to the encyclopaedia may be blocked from editing. User:JBWAT 13:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying...

...the only real nation is humanity, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Advice for editors

• Advice for Wikipedia Editors from User talkpage of editor WeijiBaikeBianji

Template:Welcome-COI

Template:Welcome-COI

Conflict of Interest

I'm sorry to inform you but the edits you did today @ [[__________________________]] are in violation of some basic Wikipedia rules and guidelines related to neutral-point-of-view, original research and verifiability. Most importantly, as you have self- identified, you are an agent for the _________, and you are restricted from editing the article. Please carefully read WP:COI which explains Conflict of Interest, WP:COI declaration which explains the steps necessary for you to edit the article, and WP:PSCOI which is a simple explanation of the situation. I'm sure you are disappointed and you deserve credit for your hard work. But, this is an encyclopedia. You are a new editor and it takes quite a bit of time and effort to fully comprehend the rules and regulations that govern this site. Hopefully, you will understand the changes that I am required to make and the steps you need to take to do your job and still abide by the rules of Wikipedia. If you learn about our policies and practices, make an effort to remain neutral, and are transparent about your connection to subjects, you will be guided towards constructive engagement with our community. Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral-point-of-view on all subjects. It's one of our core principles. As a paid employee or agent of the school, you are unlikely to be able to have a neutral perspective. While your closeness to the subject may make you very informed, it is this very closeness that means you should not edit the article. Surely, you will know a lot more things about the __________ than the average person. In fact, you may be one of the worlds _______ experts. However, since it's very inception, Wikipedia has not been about collecting essays from experts and relying on their authority, but rather collecting information that has already been published in reliable sources and citing those. This is the essence of two of our core principles, no original research and verifiability. It's also the main way Wikipedia keeps articles limited to important information, rather than just an unlimited list of facts and trivia about a subject. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
• Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. User:Orangemike 19:26, 13 November 2013

From the Signpost: 23 October 2013

"There is a rather silent majority on Wikipedia that supports paid editing." What a bunch of bullshit!

Jobs that need doing at WER

1. - Always be on the look-out for Editor of the Week potential nominees.
2. - Remind ALL the members of WP:WER to visit the Awardees page to offer congratulations. (Very few do. ALL should. Its the least one can do as a member.)
3. - Making sure that the recipient gets added to the Merchandise List.
4. - Search out a really good Image pertinent to the Awardee for Tuesdays Infobox. Help with creating a colorful, informative Infobox. (These can be done weeks in advance)
5. - By at least Friday, the current Awardee should be added to the Hall of Fame.
6. - Add Awardee to Past Winners List.
7. - Get editors involved by promoting a visit to the Awardee's talk page to congratulate.
8. - Investigate [1] for potential EotW candidates
9. - [2]

66% of editors

... said that their primary activity is to edit existing articles, 42% said it was researching articles and 28% creating new articles. 23% said that they do mostly patrolling work, 22% participate primarily in discussions and 17% mainly upload media. per [[WP:Administrators. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Rise and Decline by Aaron Halfacre

Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you. --Buster Seven Talk 13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Empty Chair Barnstar

— The candles you have lit will not wane. WE cannot replace you but will do our best 'till you return. B7

• ```Buster Seven Talk

The Mind the Gap Barnstar

...is awarded to contributors who have dilegently worked to close the gender gap on Wikipedia and related projects through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions.

		Mind the Gap Award
		For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. name (talk · contribs)

MastCell on Paid Editing

The currently dominant thinking seems to be that a conflict of interest is not particularly problematic in and of itself, and that edits should be judged on their own merits with respect to our content policies. I understand the superficial appeal (and practicality) of that line of thinking. But it seems to me that Wikipedia is at the point where journal publishers were 20 years ago. Back then, it was considered unnecessary to mention that the authors of a scholarly article were employed by the company making the drug under study, or by the tobacco industry. After all, the science in the article should stand or fall on its own merits, right?

Unfortunately, it's become obvious that conflicts of interest have relevance separate from an evaluation of the underlying content, and that in fact one cannot evaluate content fully and accurately without some understanding of the authors' conflicts of interest. That's why every reputable journal and textbook on Earth demands a conflict-of-interest disclosure from its authors.

Think about it. It would be extremely concerning, if not outright malpractice, if Britannica failed to disclose that its article on the purported health benefits of transcendental meditation featured heavy contributions from employees of Maharishi University. Or that its biography of Newt Gingrich featured extensive editorial input from the Gingrich campaign's PR team. I can't help feeling like we're stuck in the past, and ignoring part of our basic pact of honesty with the reader, when we fall back on superficially appealing but outdated ideas about conflicts of interest. And thank you for letting me use your page as a soapbox. :) MastCell Talk 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&oldid=476696732"

FROM:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal (section)

Conflict of Interest guideline

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"spare me the explanation...."

I am not going to spend any time looking over diffs, and I am not going to engage in this conversation. I'm far from the only editor who has commented on your disruptive behavior, and you ought to think about why this is so important to you - but please spare me the explanation. I'm not interested.

Afrikanse Our Father

Onse Vader wat in die hemele is, laat U naam geheilig word. Laat U koninkryk kom, Laat U wil geskied, soos in die hemel net so ook op die aarde. Gee ons vandag ons daaglikse brood, en vergeef ook al ons sonde, soos ons ook ons skuldenaars vergewe. En lei ons nie in versoeking nie, maar verlos ons van die Bose. Amen.

Seriously, Jimbo

• You are wrong about the rules of Wikipedia. Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is not a very compelling argument. We can and must use thoughtful editorial judgment. A random bonkers claim like "life will end on 21 December 2012" is something that thoughtful and trustworthy editors will consider and dismiss as... well, random and bonkers. If you have a serious reason for thinking that I am lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) or that she is lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) then let's have a thoughtful discussion. Perhaps there is a very standard and widely accepted method for transliteration from Arabic to English, and her preferred version violates the rules in some obvious way, and is therefore unlikely to become standard. (That's false, by the way, but it is at least the sort of objection that we might thoughtfully consider.) But simply chanting the long-discredited mantra that we must continue in error when we know something to be wrong, due to some rules of Wikipedia, is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• I stand by the categorical and broad statements. I don't really know what you are asking me, exactly, but I wrote more at the talk page of the Will.i.am article and perhaps that will be helpful? I think that we absolutely do (must, really) have a thoughtful community of trusted editors who make editorial judgment calls up to and including in some cases acknowledging that reliable sources have something wrong. That's not an invitation to crackpots or cranks. We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what the sources say - we are editors. We use our editorial judgment all the time, and when we get to an interesting edge case, we discuss the details. Let's pick a different widely respected editor, because it's not about me. There are many editors who might be contacted by the subject of an article with a correction, and there are better and worse ways of dealing with it. One of the bad ways of dealing with it would be to say "I don't care how you spell your name unless you blog about it." Or "I don't care if it hurts your mother's feeling, a random blog says that's your name." A good way of dealing with it is to adjust the article and have a thoughtful discussion to see if there are any reasonable objections. So far, for both of these changes, there have been none.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

• Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

Caps

Hi again. I'm not usually what they call a "talk page stalker," but I haven't removed your page from my watchlist yet. I'm actually a writer, (among other things), so perhaps I can offer some assistance in understanding why people seem to get upset at the "all-caps" thing. Please understand that I'm not trying to yell at you or lecture you; just trying to explain why, without over-explaining.

When you write it's like speaking. Unfortunately, I can't see or hear you speak, so all I have is your tone and punctuation to determine whether you're happy, angry or sad. Mostly, your tone lets me know, but punctuation like exclamation points or all-caps also plays a huge part.

When you speak, the words you choose indicate your emotion, just like the tone of your voice does. You do this without even thinking about it, and this lets me know what words you want to emphasize. In fact, the reason I liked your statement above is not only because it was a well written thought, but also because it was filled with emotion. So, what I'm saying is that it is really unnecessary to use all-caps to emphasize words, because your tone already does that.

However, sometimes when speaking people do say certian words or phrases slightly louder, just to give a boost of extra emphasis. If you want to do this in writing try using itallics. To anybody who is reading what you write on Wikipedia (and many people will) itallics will sound like you've only slightly raised your voice in a friendly way. If you really --and I mean really-- want to give a lot of emphasis, then simply surround the words with dashes, like I just did in this sentence. I don't want to bombard you with policy or guideline links, but if you feel like reading some more about punctuation like all-caps, dashes or parentheses, my page User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the non-writer gives some brief explanations.

I hope that helps explain why, and have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Z. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Wagon

If the Welcome Wagon Greeter People leave a bushel basket on your doorstep, containong grapefruit (Which you have detested since grade school) and a tin of nuts (which you are allergic to), you dont scream after them, ..'You dumb fuck, What are trying to do? Kill me?" NO....you smile for the thoughtful personal friendliness and throw the offending fruit and nuts into the waste bin.```Buster Seven Talk 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:EOTW
• _________ is one of our most promising and talented editors. He/she has been with us for almost __ years with over ________ edits. That is where ________ truly distinguishes himself; he/she demonstrates impeccable discretion--calm, thoughtful, incisive, diplomatic skills. He/she is as expert as anyone I've seen at getting past controversy to discuss content while mediating between challenging points of view at the most contentious articles in main space.A quick look at ______'s top contributions demonstrates his unique disposition.

"I don't want to make a Watch; I just want to know what time it is."

• Anonomopopulos

Conspiritors

• conspirators 'breathe together':...Con---->with, spire---->breath
• members of a conspiracy are strengthened and strenghthen each other by their mutaul sense of righteousness.
• ".....conspirators are organized groups of people/editors who maliciously plot to to undermine whatever it is that YOU believe in.
• creates a 'climate of opinion', capture the mind and capture the future thoughts.
• ...capture the leadership in order to mold and control public opinion.
• Once a thread is lost do ++....catching the thread++
• "circle of the single thought" (cercle de la pensée unique).
• TINA

"We are not adversaries. We are fellow editors"

I understand that you are concerned about presenting accurate information in the fill in the blank article, and I appreciate it. A concern has been raised, however, that you appear to have an unhelpfull and seemingly hostile attitude towards your fellow collaborators within that topic. From what I have seen, a number of your comments on the talk pages for the article are hostile or confrontational, and it appears to be, IMO, impeding cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Would you be willing to be less confrontational or as adversarial with other editors in that topic area? Failing that, would you be willing to take a voluntary break from the topic area for just a short while? Capitulation is a heathy tactic for collaborators. For Wikipedia editors it does not mean surrender: it means "I am willing to let the article be as it is while I search for verifiable sources to support my perspective." We are not adversaries. We are fellow editors. Good luck.

• The variables of human behavior in a particular situation.
• "....marked by stasis and even turpor."
• "...serving no bigger picture than his own self-agrandizement.
• ".....a real time-test of the temperment, character and instincts of a man who would be king or self-appointed "generalisimo"."
• collaboration
• connection
• relationship
• perspective

Compatriots

Writers have always corresponded. The “back and forth” between editors MUST be congenial. For generations, writers of all kinds have corresponded. In order to maintain a working relationship they rarely, if ever, attacked each other. We do not create articles or edit them in isolation. By "Leave the room" I don't mean back down....just "back up". When you stumble upon a hornets nest, you don't keep hitting it. You back up...for your own well-being. The hornets are not going to change. They like being hornets. You tried ANI. Neither of you are satisfied with the results. But many editors and admins saw what happened and will file it in their memory. I don't like bullies/hornets any more than you two do. I just have learned not to get stung. The article isn't going anywhere. Watch it and wait for com-patriots. WP editing should be enjoyable, not aggravating. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Your welcome. But please note. My encouragement was toward your potential as an editor. Not as an argue-er. Almost always, the best thing to do with DRAMA is .......leave the room.```User: Buster7|06:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Unfortunately, when I edit the articles, I have to deal with edit-warring by the WikiProject Conservatism posse, which forces me to have lengthy, semi-productive policy debates on talk pages, which leads to dirty tricks to get me blocked. User:Still-24-45-42-125|06:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Point Missed-----I have to deal with edit-warring by the WikiProject Conservatism posse. No you don't. I see you have asked User:DB for assistance. Great Idea. I'm sure his efforts will be the same as mine; to retain you as a quality editor...not to help you in your bickering with some isolated posse. We are Wikipedia collaborators not Internet adversaries.```User: Buster7|06:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how to avoid it. It's very obvious that the false reports against me have been motivated by an attempt to remove me from editing controversial articles. The ridiculous one that claimed I made legal threats, for example, came from someone who disagreed with my edits on Paul Ryan. It came after a miscounted 3RR report from a posse member.

I have no interest in bickering with these people: I just want to edit these articles to make them accurate and neutral. The solution to keeping me -- and keeping the other people who've been scared off by the posse -- is to reign in the posse. User:Still-24-45-42-125|07:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Buster, I am confused. If an editor "leaves the room" when drama erupts, such as facing a POV bully, then doesn't that leave the article to the bully editor(s)?! (Especially if the article is little trafficked, and there are not other supporting editors to help.) How does that work well? User:Ihardlythinkso|07:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are both in communication with Admin:Brown...I believe about the same situation/subject. He has shared much time with you, Ihts, and has provided some very good guidance. The “back and forth” between editors MUST be congenial. For generations, writers of all kinds have corresponded. In order to maintain a working relationship they rarely, if ever, attacked each other. We do not create articles or edit them in isolation. By "Leave the room" I don't mean back down....just "back up". When you stumble upon a hornets nest, you don't keep hitting it. You back up...for your own well-being. The hornets are not going to change. They like being hornets. You tried ANI. Neither of you are satisfied with the results. But many editors and admins saw what happened and will file it in their memory. I don't like bullies/hornets any more than you two do. I just have learned not to get stung. The article isn't going anywhere. Watch it and wait for com-patriots. WP editing should be enjoyable, not aggravating. ```User: Buster7|08:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many jobs at the Zoo. And Many Many happy workers. Pick a job that needs doing. And be happy. Leaving the Zoo is always an option. I love this Zoo. Maybe that's the difference. ```[[User: Buster7|09:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

By "zoo", I mean hostile, hypocritical, abusive editing environment. User talk:Ihardlythinkso|09:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What you call "zoo" is just one of the hundreds (or is it hundreds of thousands) of enviroments here. I would suggest you leave the zoo and find an environment more condusive to your greatness. Or stay in the zoo and be fretful and unhappy. ```[[User: Buster7|

.....but rather as a celebration of some of the "behind-the-scenes, don't get caught in the drama, hard-working" volunteers at WP.

CFB North Bay

Please don't just blindly revert good faith edits that are trying to improve the article. Beyond the annoyance it might cause the other editor, doing so repeatedly can lead to concerns about you trying to take ownership of the article. It's understandable as you've obviously put a great deal of effort into the article and that's appreciated. But you cannot be the sole "gatekeeper" of an article, accepting only your edits and dismissing others. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Editing here requires you to work with others in good faith, to developer the best possible article following the Wikipedia policies. Everyone has different styles and their outside view can offer improvements or suggestions that are difficult for you to see because you've done so much of the work on the article. You need to work with the other editors, using the talk page to discuss edits or concerns.

The edit cycle is supposed to go Bold, Revert, Discuss, or simply BRD. Someone is Bold and makes an edit. Another editor Reverts the edit, hopefully with a edit summary on why. Finally, a discussion happens about the change on the article talk page. I'm starting that discussion about the lead shortly to hopefully work towards something that improves the article and everyone can accept. I ask you to participate in that discussion, and others that may be raised. Try to understand the concerns others are raising and work with them to alleviate those concerns through discussion or edits.

Quick Links

	Administrator Intervention		Administrators' noticeboard		Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents
	Requests for Adminship		Articles for Deletion		Criteria for Speedy Deletion
	Candidates for speedy deletion		Miscellany for Deletion		Requests for comment
	Images for Deletion		Redirects for Discussion		Barnstars
	Requests for Page Protection		Requests for unblock		Articles/media for speedy deletion
	List of Guidelines		The Three Revert Rule		Requested moves
	Wikipedia Logs		User Warning Templates		Requests for Checkuser

Exasperation and Wikipedia go together like Kraft and Dinner

• Lifted from The Interior's talk page:
• I'm not that comfortable giving advice to people who've been around much longer than me, but here goes ... "my intentions of expanding history and geography articles" - that's the key. That's the fun, enjoyable work, where you get to share knowledge and work constructively with other intelligent people. You have to make that a big part of your Wikipedia time investment if you're going to enjoy yourself. Many of these talk page/project space imbroglios end up having only a very minor result on content - they are timesinks, pure and simple. An internet debate club. I know for a fact you used to do more content writing here than you do now - the edit histories of hundreds of BC articles will attest to that. Try getting back in that mode. Like the Hecate Strait thing, instead of a talkpage fight with Khazar (who's a good egg in my experience) which leaves both parties exasperated, a rewrite on the POV content would leave you feeling satisfied and like you've accomplished something for the day (which would probably spill over positively to your real-life writing), and, most importantly, the information would be improved. Now I'm sounding like Tony Robbins, so I'll stop. There are more problems with B.C. WP articles than both of us combined could solve if we worked every day at for the rest of our lives; all you can do is chip away at it and enjoy yourself. Or find a new hobby. But I for one wouldn't want you to do that :) The Interior (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Remind you of someone?

____ is notorious for his acerbic, provocative style, on one occasion describing the ______ as: "loquacious dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls. CM

There can be no WP editing without people

And when people gather there follows some sort or form of association for the purpose of maintaining order among those people. It is a given that WP is vulnerable to uncivil behavior. Incivility displays a lack of consideration for others. The question becomes what to do once the behavior and the perpetrator of that behavior have been identified. WP should be bound by an ironclad commitment to a safe and comfortable working environment for ALL employees. (I say employees knowing we are all unpaid. But, except for that minor detail we are "at work".) We should be assured of a professional workspace. But, Wikipedia, like all "user generated content" projects, is bottom up, not top down. It consists of an invitation to the entire world to edit and then hopes that Users will maintain an environment where it is possible for individuals from that world to edit abuse-free. All user-generated projects are radical democracies, despite the inconvenience of that in practice. Except for our made-up names, we are all either unidentified opponents or unidentified collaborators. Civility maintains the spirit of collaboration; Incivility corrupts it. Civility is a cornerstone of civic foundation. Lack of it can make things unstable. It is a buffer against aggression and chaos. It shows respect for each other and maintains the fluid state of interpersonal relations. There is absolutely no need to dredge the linguistic sewer in order to communicate.```Buster Seven Talk 07:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Faith Collaboration

Synopsis

Wikipedia the encyclopedia is built by a community--a community of Wikipedians who are expected to "assume good faith" when interacting with one another. In Good Faith Collaboration, Joseph Reagle examines this unique collaborative culture. Wikipedia, says Reagle, is not the first effort to create a freely shared, universal encyclopedia; its early twentieth-century ancestors include Paul Otlet's Universal Repository and H.G. Wells's proposal for a World Brain. Both these projects, like Wikipedia, were fuelled by new technology--which at the time included index cards and microfilm. What distinguishes Wikipedia from these and other more recent ventures is Wikipedia's good faith collaborative culture, as seen not only in the writing and editing of articles but also in their discussion pages and edit histories. Keeping an open perspective on both knowledge claims and other contributors, Reagle argues, creates an extraordinary collaborative potential. Wikipedia is famously an encyclopedia "anyone can edit," and Reagle examines Wikipedia's openness and several challenges to it: technical features that limit vandalism to articles; private actions to mitigate potential legal problems; and Wikipedia's own internal bureaucratization. He explores Wikipedia's process of consensus (reviewing a dispute over naming articles on television shows) and examines the way leadership and authority work in an open content community. Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been imitated, analyzed, and satirized. Despite the social unease over its implications for individual autonomy, institutional authority, and the character (and quality) of cultural products, Wikipedia's good faith collaborative culture has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the century-old pursuit of a universal encyclopedia.

Forward

• The encyclopedia anyone can read, not just the Encyclopedia anyone can edit.
• Formed through a practice, or a doing - collaboration.
• It is hard to imagine a more significant and sustained community, manned by volunteers, from teenagers to retirees, working to produce understanding.
• Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Norms

• Unlike previous reference works that stand on library shelves distanced from the institutions, people, and discussions from which they arose, Wikipedia is both a community and an encyclopedia.
• the encyclopedia, at any moment in time, is simply a snapshot of the community’s continuing conversation.
• it sometimes reveals what I call a good faith collaborative culture. Wikipedia is a realization — even if flawed — of the historic pursuit of a universal encyclopedia: a technology-inspired vision seeking to wed increased access to information with greater human accord. Elements of this good faith culture can be seen in the following conversation about a possible “neo-Nazi attack” upon the English-language Wikipedia.
• active contributors who are familiar with the basic practices and norms of English Wikipedia.

MMMM

"my intentions of expanding history and geography articles" - that's the key. That's the fun, enjoyable work, where you get to share knowledge and work constructively with other intelligent people. You have to make that a big part of your Wikipedia time investment if you're going to enjoy yourself. Many of these talk page/project space imbroglios end up having only a very minor result on content - they are timesinks, pure and simple. An internet debate club. erated, a rewrite on the POV content would leave you feeling satisfied and like you've accomplished something for the day (which would probably spill over positively to your real-life writing), and, most importantly, the information would be improved. Now I'm sounding like Tony Robbins, so I'll stop. There are more problems with B.C. WP articles than both of us combined could solve if we worked every day at for the rest of our lives; all you can do is chip away at it and enjoy yourself. Or find a new hobby. But I for one wouldn't want you to do that :) The Interior (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words

• http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/

grenades

Let us not allow WikiPedia to become an increasingly discordant society. Take away that deadly ploy (hubris), refuse the charlatans that combustible fuel (superiority), and their game is a bust. ANON

Fish ladder

Hello __________! You have just removed a unique picture of salmon in a salmon ladder. Should we follow the practice you must also remove the image of the interior of a church, then it is not a church. It's your choice. I will not try to put the picture back. Have a good evening. Regards --[[User:__________]] 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

_________, you have taken a nice photo of two fish, but it just doesn't illustrate anything about fish ladders. Your photo doesn't show the interior of a fish ladder, or the exterior of a fish ladder, or anything at all about a fish ladder. Instead, it shows two salmon which could be anywhere. You say the fish are inside a fish ladder, but there is nothing in the photo to indicate that. The fish could be inside a fish bowl in a church. That wouldn't make a good image to put in an article about churches. --[[User:__________]] 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Principle of Least Drama

The Principle of Least Drama says that given a choice between several ways of dealing with a problem, pick the one that generates the least drama. If the only approach you can think of is laden with drama, sign off for the night. You may think of a new alternative in the morning, or someone else may have implemented a better approach. Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama Buster Seven Talk 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple

When multiple editors disagree with you, they're a "tag team". When multiple editors agree with you, they're a "consensus". Pretty much every single time I've seen the term "tag team" used, it's boiled down to that equation. MastCell 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus.

You don't hang a gun over the mantle in Act I unless someone is going to fire it in Act III. Anton Chekov

Best description

...for sane sensible longterm members of the community that are willing to occasionally wield the mop. WSP @ Request for admin. 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New admins

It's not so much that new admins should know how to use every admin tool expertly right away (how could they, when they haven't been allowed to try them before), but more that they should act sensibly, according to policy, not use the tools for their own advantage, and ask advice from other admins in cases where they aren't sure of the correct procedure. —Anne Delong 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Titanu/New User Notice

Buster Seven Talk 18:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article you created about yourself

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. -- User:Gogo Dodo 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Use the Edit Summary

Hi ____________, when you edit the _______________ article, would you mind putting an edit summary or at least marking it as a minor edit. I appreciate all of the time that you spend on the article, but edit summaries are very helpful to everyone, including you. Thanks, Buster7

• Language improvements for clarity
• sentence construction
• simplify sentence structure

Saira Said

Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral-point-of-view on all subjects. It's one of our core principles. As a paid employee or agent of Ms. Said, you are unlikely to be able to have a neutral perspective about her. While your closeness to the subject may make you very informed about Ms. Said, it's this very closeness that means you should not edit the article. You will know a lot more things about her than the average person. In fact, you would probably be one of the world experts on her. However, since it's very inception, Wikipedia has not been about collecting essays from experts and relying on their authority, but rather collecting information that has already been published in reliable sources and citing those. This is the essence of two of our other core principles, no original research and verifiability. It's also the main way Wikipedia keeps articles limited to important information, rather than just an unlimited list of facts and trivia about a subject. It takes a while to get used to writing like this, especially on a topic we call a Biography of a Living person. WP:BLP. Sent to Adam, the Official Representative for Samira Said. His Email is : Adam@SamiraSaid.net and his username is Nanocoloraturo 11/10/13

Sockpuppetry

• User talk:Nanocoloraturo
• User talk:Operaworldmusic
• User talk:192.0.137.184
• User talk:Opera2006

Using youtube as a reference

Is it valid to use a youtube video as a reference and where is the rule or guidance that governs it? What about facebook and twitter? I know I read it somewhere....! ```Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB In general none of these will count as a reliable source. However there are exceptions. Youtube postings by reliable sources of their own work, such as for example when a new organization uploads a clip to youtube, or a movie studio uploads a trailer, may be a reliable source. In a biography the subject's OWN Facebook page may be a citeable source for what the subject has said/written about a topic, but their own website will often be more stable and thus should be preferred if the info can be cited from there. Much the same applies to Twitter and other social media sites. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:YOUTUBE, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:TWITTER. Many organizations have an official YouTube channel that would be considered reliable. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that we don't include links to YouTube postings which are copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A Youtube video could be a source for the existence of a video, for example, but not for the notability of the video. Or a video which was an (authorized) replay of a news broadcast could be a reliable source for facts announced by the professional newscaster, but not for information given by people being interviewed unless they were recognized experts speaking on a topic independent of themselves. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• see also WP:ELNO

Provenance

When a paid to edit editor gets another editor to make entries, the problem is that it hides the provenance of the Wikipedia content. The assisting editor will appear in the Wikipedia edit history to have "authored" the content. The reader will neve know that the content had been paid for by a client. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT [[]]==Since you're somewhat new....==

Regarding your recent edit to AFD-Patrick Borchers, may I make a few suggestions, since you're somewhat new to this editing business? If you noticed after your edit, your comment continued on the same line as the comment to which you were responding. There are a few ways to avoid that. One is to put a double-return between the two paragraphs. A second is to return, then put one or more colons in front of each of your paragraphs—each colon will indent the text a bit more, as you can see was the case with this paragraph, which I prefaced with a colon.

When you're registering an opinion for the first time at an article-for-deletion page, the usual Wikipractice is to preface your paragraph with an asterisk, which will place a bullet and then indent the paragraph. Also, if you think the article should be kept, as appears to be the case, then you might want to begin with a boldfacedKeep before explaining your view. (If you'll look at some of the other articles for deletion, you'll see how this is done.)

Finally, after you've made a comment at an AfD page or a talk page, you can sign it by typing four tildes:~~~~ This will produce a signature with a link to your user page and talk page, and a time stamp.

Please forgive me if I'm being excessively didactic: I know that you're a fairly new editor, and it takes some time to pick up all the practices and techniques usual at WP. Good luck with your further edits; if you've got questions, please feel free to leave a note at my talk page (click on the "talk" after my username, then start a new section, or, to continue a discussion, edit the existing section.)```Buster Seven Talk 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RfC for an AfC draft

May I ask for the reasoning behind your removing the RfC tag from my AfC draft? It might be a common practice - I just don't see the reason behind it. Thank you for your attention. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• AFC is a stand alone place to develop articles, and has its own processes for approving or declining submissions. After it has been declined, you need to work within the AFC system to get the article up to snuff. Using an RfC isn't allowed because it is considered an end around the process. Taking a second bite of the apple. Like shaking a Magic 8 ball until it gives you the answer you want. Whatever analogy you want to use. It is a type of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and can get you blocked, particularly in areas like Fringe Science, Middle East, and other areas where WP:Discretionary sanctions are authorized. Sometimes you just have to live with the answer you get, go fix the article, or simply understand that the topic does not fit the criteria for inclusion. Not every article makes the cut. That is another thing you need to understand: The criteria is for including, not excluding. That means the burden of demonstrating that an article should be included is on the editors creating and maintaining it. You can't just make an article on Joe Bob Dunce with no references and say "you can't prove he isn't notable". That would be insane. The burden is on YOU to provide sources that verify the facts, using reliable sources, and that the topic meets the WP:GNG. In your case, the article you started was already covered in other articles (that alone is a criteria to delete), is a fringe topic, and a stand alone article was seen as undue (another policy it violates). To be perfectly honest, in the almost 8 years I've been here, I've seen 100 more just like it, and they all get deleted. It is well established that fringe topics without solid and multiple reliable sources AND community consensus always get deleted. That isn't likely to change. User:Dennis Brown 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Few, The Proud, and The VERY Rich

Upon closer inspection, the Forbes list reveals that six Waltons — all children (one daughter-in-law) of Sam or James “Bud” Walton the founders of Wal-Mart — were on the list. The combined worth of the Walton six was $69.7 billion in 2007—which equated to the total wealth of the entire bottom thirty percent of Americans! The 2011 Forbes 400 has the inherited worth of the six Waltons heirs at $93 billion. The 2010 SCF data that is slated for release spring of 2012 will almost certainly show a further widening of the wealth gap given that corporate profits, stocks and CEO pay have all recovered while housing values & equity (the lion’s share of wealth for average American’s), wages and family incomes have yet to turn around. The current Forbes 400 numbers, as of 11/30/2013, are:

• - (#6) - Christy Walton and family ($35.4B)
• - (#7) - Jim Walton ($33.8B)
• - (#8) - Alice Walton ($33.8B)
• - (#9) - S. Robson Walton ($33.3B)

Articles that look like blogs and need work

• Condé Nast

Good Advice

This is very important to understand. Your comment implies a fellow editor is intentionally trying to harm you. It displays a complete misunderstanding of our mutual roles here at Wikipedia. Editor _________ is not your adversary. She is your fellow editor, fellow collaborator, fellow teacher. She has ONLY the best intentions for the article. That you can be sure of. To continually imply otherwise shows you really don't yet understand the role of your fellow editors. Most editors have a drive to improve the articles that they come upon and there are many ways forward. Most times new editors are concerned only with the article they have just created. But, experienced editors like _________ are more concerned with the Encyclopedia as a whole. I know you are a new user and you hold this the article and your edits to it and your word choices and your particular references as precious and you can't bear to see them changed. You have great pride in your work and rightfully so. But saving it in its original form has become a mission. Because you have misunderstood some basic facts, you see experienced editors like ___________ as having a "cruel hands". That could not be further from the truth. Once you change your opinion of her and what she is doing you will be on the path to a happier Wikipedia career. It's always up to you how you respond.```Buster Seven Talk 08:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Fair-minded people CAN come to agreement. Compromise is hard...not everyone gets what they want." President Barack Obama 11/15/12
• Thoughts from those better versed in this?

Eddy candidates

Note: Since edits are displayed at Recent Changes, I alter the User name a bit so the Nominee doesn't "get wind" of the upcoming award. All care should be taken (noping. etc) to protect the surprise of receiving the Award

Compliments lifted from here and there

• ...one of the most tempered and even-keeled personalities involved.
• ...kept to the substantive issues and avoided the non-productive pitfalls that frankly a considerable majority of the other involved editors all fell into.
• ...managed to marry deep concern over the issue with a calm and level-headed and respectful approach to resolving matters.
• ...continue to contribute for a long time.
• ...your priories are exactly the type which serve the community's needs best
• ...your contributions are generally of great value to the project.
• ...with abiding respect, Editor _________'s consistent service in editorial civility and diplomacy.
• ...for exhibiting great attention, diligence, and engagement in Wikipedia content and policy disputes
• ...your effort, as much as anything, might have kept one more content expert in the Wikipedia fold.
• ...WP needs excellent content contributors such as yourself.
• ...Unlike so many others, you are complimentary, not prickly. You take the time to answer people's question in a thorough way without a hint of anger in anything you wrote.
• ...all the content you've contributed, on very meaningful topics, not just silly pop culture trivia.
• ...embodies what WP is: a small group of colleagues working together toward a common goal [3]
• ...for cool heads and professional decorum.
• ...for being a thorough and astute investigator
• ...for dedicated initiative in fighting persistent sock puppetry and vandalism.
• ...work is quite underappreciated a lot of the time, most likely because people haven't heard of it yet: He's developed good relationships with other editors...

Mizz Seven

• User:Mz7

Mad Alibi

• User:Madalibi

Play sack

• User:Plazak

Reify-tech

From a barnstar; I stumbled upon one of your edits and had a look at some of the rest of them. You expand articles in a meaningful way, revert vandalism, interact with civility, and always seem willing to help others. Thanks for your excellent editing! User:Magnolia677 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |}

Thank you! As you've probably noticed, I work on a broad and eclectic assortment of topics, but I try to do a thorough job wherever I go. Interacting in a positive way with other editors is a genuine pleasure! User:Reify-tech 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(Howdy)Cowdy001

• June 10,2011
• Article 85%
• Summary 92%
• South Australia, Caves of Aus, Sport diving, underwater sports, freediving, etc.
• Project:Austrailia Maritime History and Project:Scuba diving
• Templates:Protected Areas of South Australia

Hello. Do me a favor

• Finnusertop
• Worldedixor

EotW Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you. I see you recently signed on as a new member of the Editor Retention Project. The future of the Editor of the Week portion of the Project depends on nominations. You seem to be a Wiki wanderer. I would imagine that you run across potential candidates here and there. Please keep EotW in mind as you wander the hyways and byways of WikipediaWorld. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Frans Crabbe van Espleghem

Flemish printmaker. Friedlander first identified the Master of the Crayfish (Dutch: Crabbe) as Frans Crabbe in 1921. It seems likely that Crabbe met and was influenced by Albrecht Dürer during the latter's visit to Mechelen in June 1521. In 1539 Crabbe acquired the workshop of Nicolaas Hogenberg. He is recorded in Mechelen as a master in the Guild of St Luke and head of the Brotherhood of Our Lady. His work is transitional, combining late northern medieval subjects and compositions with a style and technique showing the influence of the Italian Renaissance. He was especially indebted to Lucas van Leyden in his concern for atmosphere and depth in landscape, and to Jan Gossart for Italianate figure types.

Crabbe worked as an engraver, woodcutter and etcher but is noted for etching because of his unusual success in a medium considered by his contemporaries to be limited. His achievement lies in his ability to create graphic equivalents for a painterly style in this experimental medium and in his ambitious compositions, which show his ability to depict striking lighting and atmospheric conditions. Surviving examples of his work are rare. [4]

• Catalogue of prints attributed to the artist at www.artistarchive.com
• [5]

In May 2012, BP tasked a press office staff member

...to openly join discussions on the Wikipedia article's talk page and suggest content to be posted by other editors. Controversy emerged in 2013 over the amount of content from BP that had entered this article. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales stated that, by identifying himself as a BP staff member, the contributor in question had complied with site policy regarding conflicts of interest.

WMF legal counsel Michelle Paulson

From the July 16th Signpost:

“In our opinion, this lawsuit is an effort to try and chill free speech on the Wikimedia projects. Since Wikipedia editors do not carve out facts based on bias or promotion this lawsuit is rooted in a deep misinterpretation of the free-form truth-seeking conversations and analysis that is part of the editorial review process that establishes validity and accuracy of historical and biographical information.”

Wikify, wfy, wikiize, wiki-ise, etc.

To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML). It commonly refers to adding internal links to material (Wikilinks) but is not limited to just that. To wikify an article could refer to applying any form of wiki-markup, such as standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, or bolding/italicizing of text. Noun: wikification; gerund: wikifying; practitioner: wikifier. See also Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Category:Articles with too few wikilinks, Wikify project, Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Articles should be wikified if they...

• contain few or no links to other articles ("wikilinks"). Wikilinks link to another Wikipedia page or to an anchor on the same page, as opposed to an external link. For policy, see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Wikipedia:Build the web. For mechanics, see Wikipedia:Canonicalization, Help:Section#Section linking, Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs, and Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references. See also free link and piped link.
• contain HTML tags that should be replaced with wiki markup. Wiki markup consists of the syntax and keywords used by the MediaWiki software to format a page. To learn how to see this markup and to save an edit, see: Help:Editing. There is a short list of markup and tips at Help:Cheatsheet.
• or need reformatting to conform to Wikipedia's formatting guidelines. Sections and subsections are introduced by headings. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.

WP:MoS

• One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs

Readability and writing style

• The writing quality of some articles is sadly lacking. In such an article, paragraphs lack any cohesion and trail off without conclusions. Entire sections are composed of orphan sentences, created by piece-meal additions from random users. Similarly formed are the monstrous super-sentences, whose loose multi-layer clauses require the utmost concentration to comprehend. Users whimsically write equation-sentences ("The event is what caused excitement in the scientific community" instead of "the event excited scientists"), knowing nothing of conciseness. Punctuation and spelling are very good, but style and clarity are ignored. Wikipedians embrace bad "correct" writing, only recognizing its faults when told (or not). Use of passive tense actually seems to be encouraged in an effort to be boring, even when active past tense would be far better. And direct quotes are also sometimes discouraged even when they are entirely appropriate or necessary to the article's claims, or where paraphrasing would be almost certainly misconstrued.
• Many Wikipedians write in a way that is considered acceptable within the author's peer group, but is less comprehensible to the general reader. This may include the use of jargon. There's currently no systemic effort to remove it.
• In a related problem, large articles constructed via numerous (individually reasonable) edits to a small article can look okay "close up", but are often horribly unstructured, bloated, excessively "factoid", uncohesive and self-indulgent when read through completely. In short, adding a sentence at a time doesn't encourage quality on a larger scale; at some stage, the article must be restructured. This happens nowhere near often enough. Users who try to do this inevitably encounter hostility or resistance, until they figure out that they should do it with a throwaway pseudonym, not a real username.
• Wikipedia articles have a somewhat haphazard usage of American, Australian, British, Canadian, etc., as well as spelling and usage variations of the English language. There is also use of non-English words and names when English equivalents exist. See Manual of Style.

Paragraphs

See also: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Paragraphs

Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose. Between paragraphs—as between sections—there should be a single blank line and the first line of each paragraph is not indented. Bullet points should be minimized in the body and lead of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. However, bulleted lists are typical in the reference and reading sections towards the end of the article. Bullet points are usually not separated by blank lines.

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.

One-sentence Paragraphs

WP:Paragraphs redirects to Wikipedia:Writing better articles

• One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs.
• Plain paragraphs are preferred per WP:MOS

Kemzeke

• Derrick or Diederick of Alsace or Thierry, Count of Flanders took part in four crusades, So he could easily reach the church from his count's castle , which was located in the vicinity of the hamlet Trompe, north of the village Kemzeke. The castle was one of the many hunting lodges of the Counts of Flanders . The castle is now gone, destroyed in 1452 by the citizens of the city of Ghent in their conflict with the Count of Flanders, but nearby is the hunting lodge Voorhout Hoeve and a field named Castle Field.
• the flax industry in Kemzeke in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
• the 17th-century Voorhout Hoeve,
• the bust of Jef Van Durme
• A part of the art collection of the Verbeke Foundation is on permanent display.
• In Trompe, the remnants of the former Spanish Fort St. John. It was on the border of the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Northern States.
• As the grandson of Count Robert I the Frisian Thierry could, after the murder of Charles the Good in 1127, lay claim to the throne through his mother Gertrude of Flanders . King Louis VI of France had [[Willem Clito], (who was also in the maternal line descended from the Flemish counts), appointed Count. This was against the wishes of the Flemish cities and the pro-imperial-minded nobility party in Flanders. Nobles of the cities of Ghent, Bruges, Lille and Saint-Omer asked Diederik, then lord of Bitche, to be Count of Flanders. There was a struggle between William and Diederik. Louis VI had Diederik excommunicated and besieged him in Lille. The French king had to withdraw when it appeared that Diederik had the support of Henry I of England. In 1128 Diederik defeats suffered at Tielt and Oostkamp and he had to flee, first to Bruges and then to Aalst . William besieged the city, but was found dead in his tent on July 27. This was seen as a sign of both parties that Diederik was the rightful earl, and there was peace closed.

Vandal

• Your an idiot

2020 Conversation @ WER

@Isaacl: I am joyous about the conversation that is bubbling up at WER. Over all the years you and I share a common goal of maintaining the CORE element of any conversation that takes place there. With that in mind we need to establish Who We Are. The following is a Welcome to the new visitors. .

Let me take this opportunity to welcome you all to the Editor Retention Project. This conversation is as welcome as the Sun rising in the morning. WER has been relatively dormant for too long a time. In the early years this talk page was a hotbed of ideas and possibilities. Some were given flight and some died on the branches. In more recent years the only thing keeping the project alive was the Editor of the Week program. This project stayed alive in the hopes that a new group of concerned editor would arrive with new idea and a willingness to act. Again welcome from Buster7 and Isaacl.

―Buster7 ☎ 13:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC),