User talk:Thematerialisticmaiden
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
PamD 21:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources
[edit]Find-a-grave is not considered a Reliable Source to be used as a reference, though it's OK to add it as an External Link - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_93#Find_a_Grave_as_a_reliable_source_or_reference. If you're going to create more articles on individuals, please try to find better sources than Find-a-grave. I found a better source for Mary Howard Schoolcraft pretty easily. Happy Editing! PamD 21:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
[edit]- Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
- "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from 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).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.
Reformulated:
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- 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).
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from 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).
- 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.
- Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
- 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.
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 28 October 2019 12:06:01 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to do anything negative in the Wikipedia community. It seems I made the mistake of stepping outside of my normal realm on Wikipedia; therefore, I know to steer clear of those pages. No worries. It won't happen again. Thanks for your input. Thematerialisticmaiden (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This is your final warning. If you continue to edit the Barton article, despite your obvious COI (which notice you removed), you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)You not only ignored the COI notice on your talk page, but you deleted and declared that Not necessary. No conflict of interest here.
which is rather amusing. Now you are free to make edit suggestions on the talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thematerialisticmaiden, if you wish to appeal the above block, follow the instructions in the block notice. However, do not go to WP:RFPP and rant about "injustice". Your report there was an abuse of process. If you persist in your crusade, you risk being sitewide-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)