User:Cresix/Sandbox

Correlation does not imply causation Correlation and dependence Statistical inference Experiments#Biology

https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/bin/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Discography&quality=FL-Class

WikiProject Discographies

WP:HDT: Help Desk Templates

WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6

Write the article first

WP:LISTPEOPLE

WP:MEDICAL

WP:NOTTHERAPY

Fail to address the point: Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis or fallacy of distraction is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Arguments which shift the focus of debate to "safer" but less relevant ground fall into this category.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Refusal to get the point.

WP:Referencing for beginners

WP:BEFORE: Before Afd

Help:Searching

WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
 * WP:INHERITED: Notability is not inherited.

WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose

WP:Assume Ignorance

WP:CLUE: Doesn't have a clue.

Template:Clear: column formatting

WP:The duck test

WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

WP:Indentation

WP:DNFTT: Deny recognition; don't feed the trolls

WP:HERE: Here to build an encyclopedia.
 * WP:NOTHERE

User:Valfontis/Valfontis' Law: The amount of time and effort spent explaining policy and procedure to any user is inversely proportional to the likelihood that user will become a productive editor.

WP:Do your own homework

WP:NOTPERFECT: Administrator conduct.

WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause

WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Why Wikipedia is not so great

WP:Why Wikipedia is so great

WP:Replies to common objections

WP:PEDIANS

WP:Somebody Else's Problem

Question for administrator


--~

WP:Requests for administrator attention

WP:Highly Active Users

Linus' Law

WP:CREEP: Avoid instruction creep

WP:Criticism

[[WP:ELOFFICIAL]

WP:NFF: Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films

Template:ESp: done, not done

Template:Uw-copyright-link: YouTube links

WP:Copy-paste
 * WP:PARAPHRASE

WP:Don't bludgeon the process

WP:CPUSH - Civil POV pushing

WP:USERG - Self-published sources

Sourcing dispatch
WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches

RS
WP:RSEX

Catholic cat
On Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). That standard is frequently violated because many people think they can put anything about a person's religous beliefs in an article without reliable sourcing. That is what is unsourced in the article. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Page title may very well be a Catholic right now, but the article doesn't state that. If you want to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)