User talk:Danleywolfe

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Danleywolfe. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. -- In other words, statistics made up by users based on nothing at all are regarded as fake news.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). -- Our definition of reliable sources includes most mainstream news sources, such as the NYT and WaPo.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian. I received your comments recently and accept your key points. I insist however that wiki articles should strive to be non POV and balanced where possible, especially in cases of political POV.Danleywolfe (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]