User:David Tornheim

Generalized from below:
 * (1) Avoid making all your edits in one topic area. If you get too invested, someone who disagrees with you may allege you are a Single Purpose Editor (Account) (WP:SPA) or that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest (WP:COI).  If you get angry at people who disagree with you, try working on articles that you feel less attachment to.
 * If applicable, Right now nearly all of your edits are about _______. Better to branch out.
 * (2) Don't accuse other editors of double-standards, don't call them names, don't get nasty, etc.
 * (3) Keep your cool. Try not to get flustered if nasty untrue allegations are made against you. If you do, your nasty or snarky responses will be noted, compiled into a collection of diffs and used against you to make a narrative that makes you into a monster at WP:AN/I, WP:AE or some other forum.  The essay WP:Don't take the bait talks about this.  It's okay to say, "That's not true." and provide evidence.  But don't start calling your accuser names or they will take you to WP:AN/I and use the name-calling to have you blocked, etc.
 * (4) If you feel you are harassed, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I. I would be very cautious before doing that.  Look at what others do.  To win a case at AN/I, you must provide diffs.  Until you learn how to create diffs like other editors do at AN/I, I think you will have a hard time winning any case there.  Some editors are "teflon" (see Beeblebrox's unblockables), and they can get away with things no one else can.  Taking them to AN/I will make your jaw drop, cause immense frustration, and be unfortunately, a complete waste of your time.  Do your research before taking a case to AN/I.  Maybe spend some time looking at cases at AN/I to see how that works.
 * (5) Go to some super controversial articles and just watch. Try not to speak, just watch at the article and the talk page.  Watch for edit warring.  See what happens when someone adds something that others disagree with, and especially watch what happens when they don't get their way.

Advice I gave to some new editors (I will try to make this more general when I have time):
 * (1) Don't spend any more time trying to defend: Article 1, Article 2, etc .  It/They may be a lost cause.  The other editors will decide what happens to those articles, but what you have said so far will be considered.  Saying more doesn't help you.  Let the process play out.  Please read WP:BLUDGEON
 * (2) Work on other articles. Try working on articles that you feel less attachment to.  Other editors feel you are too attached to those two articles and your voluminous responses defending them is probably the reason.  If you work on too few articles with too much investment, you will be accused of being a WP:SPA.
 * (3) Look at this to see what happens when you make accusations against other users. (see:  sealioning).
 * (5) continued... You might notice that you are not treated any differently. They will have warnings all over their talk page too.
 * Please also note that one of the editors who has accused you took me to WP:AN/I twice. Take a look at the cases here, and you will see that you are not alone in dealing with things that you believe are double-standards.  Please don't ask me about those cases.  Just read and try to figure out for yourself.

from: User_talk:David_Tornheim


 * (4) If you feel you are harassed, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I. I would be very cautious before doing that.  I have seen few new users succeed at AN/I.  To win a case at AN/I, you must provide WP:diffs.  Until you learn how to create diffs like other editors do at AN/I, it would be nearly impossible to win a case there.  Also, some editors are "teflon", and they can get away with things no one else can (see User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables).  Taking them to AN/I would make your jaw drop, cause immense frustration, and be, unfortunately, a complete waste of your time.  So do your research before taking any case to AN/I.


 * (6) Look at other articles where there are disputes over resources as to whether something is WP:RS or not, and where there are questions about whether a sources meets WP:MEDRS or not. Take a look at noticeboards, such was WP:RS/N, WP:NPOV/N, WP:FRINGE/N, where issues of sources are mentioned.  The disputes there may take a tone that is familiar.
 * As for what to do at Specific Carb Diet, I have some thoughts, but I am going to wait and keep it brief for now. Because right now you are getting a lot of pushback, I suggest you slow down, and instead of pushing for changes there, try to follow some of my above advice in the meantime.  I suggest avoiding any WP:BOLD changes to the article--on some articles it works; on some articles like this one there is intense negative pushback resulting in warnings.  Instead of changing the article, share proposed changes at the talk page first, and if a majority of editors rejects it, try to accept their opinion even if it seems patently wrong based on your knowledge of the sources.  I know it can be incredibly frustrating to have to accept a majority opinion if you strongly feel the opinion is wrong.

from: User_talk:David_Tornheim


 * (1) When dealing with non-experts, rather than making big changes, make changes ONE AT A TIME.  It will be far easier to argue from the sources (and short quotes from those sources) and for editors like me to follow.
 * (2) If you keep it simple, those who disagree will have to do the same.  Good text from a quality source(s) is hard to oppose based on WP:NPOV.
 * (3) It makes no difference if I agree that your big rewrite is an improvement.  You have about four editors at the page who do not.  You have to get a consensus before such a WP:BOLD change would stick.  Reverts (undo) by you, will be reverted by these four editors, accomplishing nothing, and will lead to the talk page warnings, which lead to blocks, topic bans, etc.  It's not helping you at all to try to push your version in when you do not have support at the talk page.  Think small.
 * (4) You were indeed making better progress with small edits.  Their defense of "causing malnutrition" is weak.  If you are patient, there might be improvement there.  Give other editors to a chance to weigh in on that issue.
 * (5) Regarding the "most recent change on the article this morning taking it to completely unfounded allegations", rather than put in your preferred version for the entire article, which had already been rejected more than once, all you had to do was revert the new edit.  Then the editor who added the new material would have the burden under WP:BRD to address your concern that it is unfounded.  I suggest you put that concern about it being unfounded on the talk page.  I created this section where you can express your concerns.

from: User_talk:David_Tornheim

Suggestion to EDITOR: Please read my suggestions for new users at the top of my page User:David_Tornheim. It's short and could save you from getting blocked, taken to WP:AN/I, taken to WP:AE and topic banned, getting numerous unpleasant warnings and accusations of WP:DISRUPTIVE or WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, and various other unpleasant forms of push back when there are more editors who oppose your proposed changes than support them. ~

Response about talk pages responses + contentious articles:

Help AnalysisAnalysis2 contribution to mainspace User Rights AfD stats DT quickref: Vandalism Sources Articles Re YapperBot

Helpful Info.
where to ask questions: WP:Q

Request_directory

Neutrality/Subjectivity/Balance
"It is important to recognise [sic] that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." Wikipedia Policy

"There's no such thing as objectivity...Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that." WP:NPOV

Power and Knowledge : "Power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions." "According to this understanding, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations." from: power-knowledge in reference to Foucault's theories.

"Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight." WP:COI

I believe when Wikipedia uses the word "neutral", these things are meant:
 * (1) "non-judgmental" (and lacking harshness, nastiness and strongly slanted language)
 * (2) statement of facts established by evidence
 * (3) opinions, interpretations, theories, etc. are attributed to experts (or VIPs) or groups of experts; their opinions are either described or put in well chosen quotes.  This is done instead of stating the theory in the text as a fact (e.g. "The universe was the result of the big bang." That would be attributed to an adherent of the theory.)
 * (4) striving for the inclusion of and ideally a balance of multiple perspectives.

Webster defines the adj. neutral as: "not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping "

These are all good goals. The challenge is (4) especially "balance". Creationists would be unlikely to present Darwin's theory on "neutral" terms in church (or probably anywhere else). Scientists have objected strongly to having creationism taught side by side with Darwin. The adherents to either theory believe so strongly their method for finding truth is the only reliable method (one the bible, the other the scientific method), it is an outrage to have the other view--which for them is undeniably FALSE--presented on equal footing. In fact, they would prefer to have the other view put in the category, "the tiny majority", the flat-earth category. That's when there's a problem.

The problem is that putting two theories side by side is actually not neutral--an attitude, assessment, bias, etc. is implicit: It suggests the two theories are worth roughly equal consideration. Some will be deeply offended and vehemently disagree with that, and insist one view should not be considered AT ALL. Take a look at Attack on Pearl Harbor and whether it was a "surprise" or not. To put on an additional view that experts have established advanced-knowledge is as heretical to certain maintainers of the page as the players in the Darwin/Creationism dispute above.

Ultimately, balance is so subjective that few articles can be balanced for everyone, and the more controversial, the fewer portion of readers will believe an article is fair or balanced. My suggestion for dealing with this conundrum, especially with controversial subjects, is to err on the side of inclusion of multiple perspectives, giving each camp a real opportunity to state their case and provide their evidence, rather than using the "flat earth" censorship method. When Copernicus and Galileo argued the earth was not the center of the universe, most experts of the time disagreed. If Wikipedia existed at the time, a "Skeptic" editor could assert WP:Fringe and the theory summarily removed, equating it with a "flat earth" theory or conspiracy theory.

Short Bio
"Contributing signed-in users may use their user subspace to publish short autobiographies within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia." WP:COI

"Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages." WP:COI

Mainstream Media
I don't think what is or is not covered by the mainstream media should be the bar that determines what makes facts eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has been well established that the mainstream media is biased. If you want sources for that, let me know. For example, see Noam Chomsky and search for "mass media". See also the movie "Manufacturing Consent." (I would recommend this over the book. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees when he argues on paper.  However, his citations and evidence are impeccable.)

From the Lennar Discussion Page
 * The fact that this board passed a resolution and posted a notice on it's website is not really relevant to the article. If this fact were important, it would be picked up by a reliable, secondary source (such as CNN or the New York Times). * * * Jehochman Talk 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You make it sound like CNN is an unbiased source. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Since when does the corporate owned media get to decide what is true and what is not true?  Or what is newsworthy and what is not?  Or is it truth only that which money can buy?  Does Wikipedia believe in that principle?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Epistimology
Let me quote from the beginning of Wikipolicy WP:UNDUE "Undue Weight", I will quote the beginning here.


 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.


 * We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material ...


 * This is an interesting policy, one, I must confess, I find a quite puzzling and virtually unenforceable: a seemingly democratic definition of what is believed on a topic as if all the beliefs were part of some binary system of discrete concepts (A, B, C, D) that either are or not believed and the "experts" on each topic have neatly divided the terrain of their subject and pretty much agree it can be divided just that way (A, B, C, D). All lay people have to do is make a complete list of all the experts and count how many of each has pledged their belief or non-belief in each of the discrete camps A, B, C, D, and we know just how much text to apportion to each viewpoint.  For democratic purposes each expert regardless of experience will have the same count (or will the count be weighted by years of experience in the field?)


 * Somehow, I just don't think it is so straightforward and I'm thankful for that.


 * The first opening line makes sense--to put out major viewpoints, especially those that have been well articulated by those who know the subject intimately. But the next line gets fuzzy fast: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all"...I wonder about that.  Often, I have found, it is the "minority" views that are both the most interesting and most elucidating of the "majority views" by comparison and contrast, and when combined with the majority views are in total more likely to help the reader understand the complexity of the issue and wealth of perspectives available on it.  After all, we learn from our mistakes.


 * This policy makes some sense if there is a wealth of information and high quality research, research that is verifiable, with, for example, repeatable hypothesis testing on the subject, such as in some scientific issues or the nature of particle movement, especially when the subject is somewhat objective in nature or quantifiable and measurable, like the movement of particles. But most of truth is, for better or for worse, not discrete and not measurable.


 * Some serious problems come up immediately in trying to define a MAJORITY or MINORITY view. How do you determine whether two views are "the same".  It is rare that any two authors (or "experts") express their opinions in quite the same way, have the same emphasis or interest or depth of knowledge.  Each often has their own focus.  They will often concede subjectivity in their views and values.  Freud and Adler for example had very similar views, but many were different as well.  If you had all of Freud's followers and all of Adler's followers who had spent years in the profession, brought them all together, how do you determine the "majority" view.  I don't think it exists or that it can be reliably determined.  The "majority" view is a subjective view determined by the observer.  It is true these professionals might come to some agreement on some issues but the more interesting topics are often those where competing views are expressed.  Who gets to make the final decision about what the "MAJORITY" or "MINORITY" view is?  Someone who is NOT AN EXPERT?  I don't think this is an easy one at all to enforce because of this problem.


 * And what about this case, a very common one, and certainly the case with Lennar Corporation: What do you do when there are only a limited number of experts, or no experts at all, then what is the policy?  If only a handful of people really know what is going on, but the the majority of more ignorant people think they know but actually don't (of course they have their credentials--by say working for the New York Times) and simply dismiss out right those who have something correct and unique and 100% correct to say.  Is it Wikipedia's intention to suppress views that are 100% true simply because the majority of "experts" thinks they know what they are talking about, but actually don't, like the way Copernicus was?  I think this is actually the most common case--the case that Socrates was so interested in.


 * And what happens to a highly subjective topic, such as what makes good art? or philosophy? literary criticism? These subjects often don't even have agreed upon definitions, e.g. Post-Modernism or Existentialism.  Many of those labeled existentialist or post-modernists, eschewed the label and insisted that the "experts" did not understand them and were putting them in a bin they had no interest of being in--that seems like a fair argument to me.  On these subjects, there often is NO MAJORITY VIEW and the experts more or less agree on that.  Now what?  And for better or worse, I think life is more like art than it is like science--not discrete, not a binary or discrete system of right and wrong--I think the author(s) of the above policy made an epistemological mistake in their characterization of knowledge and truth--one that becomes obvious from looking at the editing history and discussion pages of controversial topics.  What is more likely are there are diverse views that experts identify themselves with or put more research and investigation into, and often these diverse views contradict each other, despite the fact that each can be solidly defended, or show things from such radically different perspectives you can't really say they are entirely true or entirely false, they simply make good logical, cogent and coherent sense.  Or they are very interesting in and of themselves, for example because of their style, even if they appear logically untrue.  Compare, for example, [Hegel] and [Kant] regarding the subject of subjectivity vs. objectivity--is there a majority view on either of these two authors other than that they are very hard to read???.  In graduate level classes in academia, you learn a number of these diverse competing views, and you don't decide what is the CORRECT MAJORITY VIEW, you simply learn to understand and appreciate the validity and limitations of each of these views often ones the professor has a big interest in, always keeping in mind that before any of these views gained widespread interest, acceptance or repetition, that when that view first appeared were, it was, in fact, a minority or "tiny minority view" and dismissed by the "experts".  The above policy seems to frown upon the value of unique and extremely well put together cogent argument with solid evidence and/or just plain good writing.  It seems to instead encourage some sort of vague mushy definitions of things that are supposedly agreed on by a "majority" of "experts" creating just a shallow sense of a subject, again as if it were a binary or discrete system of things of verifiable facts, rather than a rainbow of infinite colors of beauty, which could only be appreciated by looking at the diversity of numerous well written opinions on the subject.

I haven't had the patience to read it in years. Hopefully it isn't too bad. If you have more patience to read it than me, and want to give me feedback, please tell me on my talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

My Public Advocacy (NOT PAID)
I have excerpted this from the Chris Daly discussion page. The user was kind enough to do some biographical research on me and present it there. That saves me a lot of time with disclosure. I have deleted some portions that were more pertinent in the context of the discussion there. The quote about Willie Brown is deliberately slanted. I used that language because it both: (1) would help get it published (2) to make my point clear in as few words as possible. I DO NOT recommend slanted language like this on Wikipedia, except in quotes, as per Wikipedia policy of neutrality and balance.


 * Dear "longtime activist" David Tornheim, co-founder of Central City Progressives, an SF political group that opposes chain stores,
 * For someone who was questioning peoples' political motives only yesterday, you sure sound like an advisor from the Daly political camp today:




 * ...A conversation you ... had over a couple lattes between your Stop Starbucks! and Save Harding Theater! rallies?


 * A simple Google search on both of your names makes for some interesting reading: http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Tornheim+Chris+Daly


 * Since you're obviously here to attempt to promote and defend your fellow "SF City Progressive", please spare us all the "I'm here to bring balance to the force" act. And your little "HEY!!! Daly's arch rival Gavin Newsom's Wiki-page is more positive! NO FAIR!!!", rant didn't make the act any more convincing.


 * District Five's David Tornheim doesn't like the idea of giving the homeless bus tickets out of town:

So San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration shows its "care" for the homeless by hocking[sic] one-way tickets out of town? Will the tourists also be sent packing, or is there an exception for those with disposable cash? Will Newsom roll out the welcome mat for the homeless from other towns with similar programs, or is Greyhound the long-term housing plan for them? (Letter to the Editor, SF Examiner, Oct. 27)


 * Yeah, you're really here to help make things neutral alright! BillyTFried (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear BillyTFried: Thanks for your hard work digging up my political work.  Yes, that's me indeed.  I never said *I* was neutral on the subject of Chris Daly; I said that the ARTICLE was not neutral.  * * *  I could see real advantages for Wikipedia to require or request more disclosure/transparency (and disadvantages as well).  Note that I use my real name rather than hide behind an anonymous moniker, as Wikipedia suggests you do.  I'm still learning what the protocol on what you are or are not supposed to reveal about yourself, your interest in editing the article(s), etc.--Wikipedia seems to suggest NOT disclosing, despite the obvious disadvantages.  In fact, in disputes, unlike a Court of law, rather than saying you are the petitioner requesting relief, you're supposed to make an anonymous request, which I find quite odd.


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think neutral means "non-judgmental" (and lacking harshness, nastiness and strongly slanted language--e.g. my comments about the Mayor--they were deliberately slanted to get it published! I don't propose that kind of language for Wikipedia.), and striving for a balance of perspectives. I'm not sure there is such a thing as truly neutral content. [I will later provide a reference for that.] --David Tornheim (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cell Phone Antennas & WiFi
I submitted a ballot argument against a "free" Wifi System in San Francisco.

I filed an appeal opposing a T-Mobile antenna box on my block in San Francisco.

I have supported appeals of permits for cell phone antennas in San Francisco.

There may be other activities related to cell phones, cell phones antennas or WiFi where I have participated that I cannot think of off the top of my head.

I made no money doing any of this work. I have not done any of this kind of work for >3 years.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

From Lennar Corporation Discussion Page
David Tornheim is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David is a neighborhood activist with a history of opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development. [Please see DT's notes below] He was a vocal proponent of the bill the San Francisco Board of Education passed a resolution concerning a proposed development by Lennar in the Hunters Point area of San Francisco. [Please see response below] He actually created the fact that his is so enraged has been removed from the article.

I applaud David's commitment to what he believes in and his advocacy. I am impressed by his tactics, including trying for historic status for a 12 unit building and trying to block parking permits to prevent the Lennar project. [Please see note below regarding writer's confusion about what was on that page.] Abrogating the Wikipedia listing about a company to spin it to his own world view, using the wikipedia listing concerning Lennar to advocate his political position and punishing a company who has actually already won a voter initiative to move forward with this project, is blatantly dishonest. Much more dishonest than a Lennar employee attempting to delete ("censor") "facts" they regard as inflammatory and prejudicial. This type of information no more belongs in WikiPedia than blatantly commercial messages from Lennar about their values, their financial data or even the number of house they have build in the last 10 years.

For the record, I have advised Lennar NOT to attempt to make edits to the wikipedia page, although they are more than ready to provide information to any neutral editor who decides to settle this matter.(talk) Jonahstein 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Jonahstein, Welcome to the discussion. I'm glad you can speak on behalf of Lennar so that Lennar's view of itself can have a voice in the article and the editing of the article.  I think that is great that they have given you that authority so we can hear from the company, but sad you are discouraging members of the company from having any voice in the article.  (Does Wikipedia have any policies about who is or is not allowed to comment on a company?  Can employees comment for example?  What's the policy? I certainly think they should.).  I do hope you advocate for a balanced view that supports more than one perspective, both Lennar's views and other's views of the company, rather than promote censorship or an ostrich approach.


 * For the record, I never claimed to be a "neutral" or disinterested observer/editor. If I didn't care about the article, I probably wouldn't have added anything.  [Please see note above about neutrality text was copied there.] * * *


 * As for the material Mr. Jonahstein provided above about me, it is true I advocated to stop a Starbucks and to preserve a building at 900 Innes--that was what was on those to external links. [The other link had to do with a letter written to the Board of Supervisors about parking permits entirely unrelated to Lennar.  Someone ELSE was writing to the Board about Lennar.]  I'm not entirely sure that is relevant here.  I have a right to speak my opinion at public Commissions and don't feel I should lose rights to edit on Wikipedia because of past freedom of expression at public forums.  I don't know if I spoke against Lennar--it is possible.  * * *   I would appreciate if this false allegation [about the parking permits] and the other unsubstantiated allegations be removed, unless you have REAL evidence.  [As of 7/30/08 these allegations have not been removed from the discussion.]


 * I will say that while waiting at the Board of Supervisors for a hearing on another matter, I had to sit through 2-4 hours of testimony from concerned residents upset with Lennar regarding health issues. (I can give a citation for that easily.[Found later in the discussion]) I did not speak at that hearing.  However, that hearing certainly convinced ME that there was something that the public had a right to know about it.  I would be very surprised if that hearing was not covered in the mainstream media.  I don't know if the Board of Education hearing was or not--probably.  But like I said before, I don't think what is or is not covered by the mainstream media should be the bar that determines what makes facts eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.  It has been well established that the mainstream media is biased. If you want sources for that, let me know.  Lets continue with a "good faith" discussion and resolution of these issues. Thanks for discussing it.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Landon1980 Trekphiler

Code Pink and Medea Benjamin
I am Facebook friends with Medea Benjamin of Code Pink--primarily so that I can get news posts from her organization. As of this moment, I have never given money to Code Pink. Sometimes I hit like on her posts or comment on them, indicating my support for things she or her group has done. As of this writing, I have never participated in any of her activist events, including the Embassy_of_Venezuela,_Washington,_D.C., an entry I recently edited. In the future, I may help her or her organization. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC) I just donated to Code Pink for first time. If I do any further edits on articles or talk pages related to Code Pink or Medea Benjamin, I'll put the appropriate COI tag on the article. I have made no further edits on those articles since that donation. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BP
BP, using the approved process of declaring its WP:POV and WP:COI, was able to get 44% of its version into the BP article: . See: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia

Chinese look at the U.S.

 * translated version of the Chinese article on the U.S. (Chinese article on U.S. original article in Chinese)
 * The section on American diet is a fun read:


 * The American diet incorporates Native American cooking recipes and ingredients such as turkey, potatoes , corn , and pumpkin , all of which are an integral part of American culture. Apple pies , pizzas , and hamburgers were originally from or improved from Europe , and now they are a symbol of American fast food culture.  Mexican rolls and tacos are derived from Mexico .  Soul food  , introduced by African Americans as a slave , has become one of the popular dishes of the public.  Overall, due to the high intake of high-calorie foods, the American diet is not healthy, and the problem of obesity in the country is very serious.  [emphasis added]


 * Americans' eating habits are often three meals a day. Breakfast time is approximately 7am to 8am.  Breakfast content varies from place to place.  A simple breakfast, maybe a simple food such as juice, milk, cereal, toast and coffee.  Breakfast is usually served at home, but sometimes it is a chance to take a breakfast to discuss business activities such as business, called "working breakfast."  Lunch time is basically from 12 noon to 2 pm.  Because time is short and people are not close to home, students and office workers rarely go home to eat, but bring meals from home, so American lunch is the simplest of the three meals. Vegetable salads, sandwiches , burgers or pies , hot dogs, etc., and a drink .  Dinner starts in the evening from 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock in the evening. It is generally rich, so dinner in American English also means dinner and dinner.  At dinner, you usually come with a juice or a thick soup before you order the main course.  The main dishes often served on the table are steaks , pork chops , grilled sirloin , fried chicken , fried shrimp , ham and grilled lamb chops.  Most Americans like to have some sweets, such as cakes , ice cream and chocolate , after dinner.  On weekends or holidays, many families only eat two meals.  They called breakfast and lunch together as a brunch , which was added by breakfast and lunch .  Generally more formal.  Some families do not cook on Sundays and the whole family goes to restaurants .  In some American holidays , American families also often hold picnics and outdoor barbecues. [emphasis added]


 * Apple pie the most famous dessert in the United States


 * In the United States, people eat turkey every holiday.


 * American Dream:
 * American Dream is an ideal that believes in a better life in the United States through hard work, that is, people must strive for prosperity through hard work, courage, creativity and determination in their own work, rather than relying on Aid for specific social classes and others. Usually this represents people's economic success or entrepreneurial spirit.


 * Transportation:
 * Due to the relatively large territory of the United States and the economic development of the three countries, the transportation technology and transportation volume of many modes of transportation rank first in the world. The density of roads and railways is the world's leading level. The construction of high-speed railways is far less advantageous than the world's leading countries because of the huge advantages of the aviation industry.  The number of airports and ports is among the highest in the world.  Due to the corresponding restrictions on the passenger rail network, the long-distance travel methods most commonly used by commuter passengers in the United States are mainly driving and aviation.


 * Railway


 * The United States built a transcontinental rail network to carry cargo between 48 states. The rail network operated by Amtrak also traverses 46 of the 48 states and is dedicated to passenger transport.  The total length of railways in the United States ranks first in the world.  According to 2007 data, the total length of the US railway is 226,427 kilometers.  However, due to the developed highway and civil passenger transportation in the United States, its mobility and time-saving are much higher than that of the railway, making the US passenger transport less developed than in Western Europe and Japan.  The US government's analysis believes that air passenger transport is the main cause of the passenger railroad companies' collapse in the 1970s.  However, with the changes of the times, the development of mass transportation has become the consensus of the world to reach a consensus against global warming .  Including the California High Speed ​​Rail Project, which was developed by California, the US government and state governments have begun feasibility studies and preparations for mass rail transportation to prepare for the transformation of future transportation patterns. [emphasis added]


 * Urban traffic


 * Many cities in the United States have a public transportation system, and the subway network in New York City is the largest. The daily commuter is the second highest in the world, second only to the Tokyo Metro in Japan, and its commuter rail and bus network extends to Long Island. New York , New Jersey , New Jersey, and Connecticut form one of the world's largest passenger transportation networks. However, in general, public transportation in American cities is still relatively backward compared to other developed countries. Except for a few metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco , where the public transportation is more developed, the transportation mode most often relied on when people go out is still Mainly private cars.  [emphasis added]


 * Religion (start)


 * During the British colonial period before the founding of the United States, there was no religious freedom. There were very harsh religious decrees that discriminated against and persecuted those who did not believe in Protestantism, mainly against Catholics (partly based on anti-clericalism) and Christian religious factions. The controlled areas also impose discriminatory policies against believers in other factions.


 * Diplomacy


 * History (snippets)


 * Since the 19th century, the United States began to appear "the theory of destiny", Zhao Zhaotian destiny became the political slogan of the United States in the 19th century, one of the meanings is that the Americans are "the people of the election" must expand the territory With the power. Under the leadership of the American expansionist trend of thought, the US Westward Movement began to expand and began to expand into the west.  From 1803 to 1848, the size of the United States was almost tripled, and the ideal of the new republic is "destined to expand to the whole continent." It expands into the vast wilderness, even before the purchase of land by Louis Siena. In-depth inland  .  This expansion was briefly obstructed during the war of 1812, but it quickly continued as the war ended.  Since this campaign, the American people have strengthened their thoughts of "expansion from the ocean to the ocean" and considered it an irresistible fate.  In 1848, the United States captured the Mexican capital of the South and won the US-Mexico war .  Mexico recognizes the incorporation of Texas into the United States and also stipulates more than 2 million square kilometers of land, and half of the territory is given to the United States.  The US government encourages people to sneak into the West, and encourages the construction of railways to create more conflict with Native Americans.  In the late 19th century, the US military and militia launched several times to annihilate Native Americans until the end of the Native American lifestyle. [emphasis added.]

Articles recently created

 * Laura Colella -- film director (6/4/2020)
 * Breakfast with Curtis -- film by Colella (6/4/2020)
 * John Robinson Circus
 * John Robinson (circus owner)
 * Tillie (elephant)
 * Tim Simonec

Backlog
WP:backlog

disambiguation, moves, splits, closing
fix this

 add permlnk


 * [Closing a split discussion]
 * Closing discussions
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

top
See also

to avoid archiving

Reflist
To indent from (full discussion response)
 * Inline templates, citation needed, etc.
 * "better source needed"

tags
templates for sourcing issues

Quotes

 * ... Blockquote in green

Welcome

 * Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates
 * Category:WikiProject-specific_welcome_templates
 * Category:IP user welcome templates
 * --- IP account
 * Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing


 * -- IP account

Pings
Help:Fixing_failed_pings

Other

 * user name

becomes:

Vandalism Warnings:

Example of foreign language article referred to:
 * Benjamin Carter Hett becomes: Benjamin Carter Hett
 * המרכז_האקדמי_למשפט_ולעסקים becomes המרכז_האקדמי_למשפט_ולעסקים


 * 1) This has a list of articles about "template management" Wikipedia Template Management
 * 2) and guidelines for templates
 * 3) Probably the most complete:  Template Namespace
 * 4) And this: Wikipedia Templates
 * 5) And this: Help:Template


 * Moved to


 * hat/collapse/expand/shrink

See: WP:HATTING



Collapsed stuff

Collapsed stuff


 * == foo baa baz   (eXample text)
 * == foo baa baz
 * other good stuff
 * All the other similar "done"-type templates
 * other good stuff
 * All the other similar "done"-type templates
 * other good stuff
 * All the other similar "done"-type templates
 * other good stuff
 * All the other similar "done"-type templates
 * other good stuff
 * All the other similar "done"-type templates

Pics

 * See Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle
 * BOLD revert discuss.svg
 * BRD1.svg BRD1.svg   --->
 * BRD reboot image.png
 * Do you mean File:BRD1.svg ? ->  Do you mean File:BRD1.svg?
 * No, I meant I also like BOLD revert discuss.svg . -> No, I meant I also like BOLD revert discuss.svg.

Symbols

 * Section Symbol: §
 * Paragraph symbol: ¶

Category:Typographical_symbols

Categories
WP:SUBCAT

Notability

 * WP:GNG
 * WP:BLP
 * Sports: WP:Athlete, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NHOCKEY/LA, WP:NOLYMPICS.
 * WP:Company
 * WP:NHS -- high schools
 * WP:NFILM
 * WP:NACTOR
 * WP:NCORP -- Press Release Press Release comment by DGG
 * WP:BROADCAST, WP:BCAST -- broadcast media
 * WP:SPEEDY
 * WP:LISTNAME
 * WP:CORPDEPTH -- re blogs about bldgs
 * WP:GEOFEAT -- features of buildings
 * WP:PROMO
 * WP:NPROF
 * WP:PROF -- highest level
 * Interviews discussion over whether interviews contribute to notability.

Manual of Style

 * WP:MOS
 * MOS:LAW
 * case citations
 * Citing Supreme Court cases:


 * WP:NOTENG
 * WP:ENGVAR -- English variations
 * Gender-neutral language (permalink)

Types of Pages

 * Disambiguation
 * WP:Hat -- hatnotes
 * WP:HATCHEAP -- essay

Titles

 * Page_name
 * Template:DISPLAYTITLE

Readability

 * in technical and math articles

Time/Tense

 * MOS:TENSE
 * MOS:BLPTENSE --
 * "wp:blp should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense."


 * MOS:RELTIME -- relative time

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist.


 * WP:CURRENT
 * WP:PRECISELANG -- "In general, editors should avoid using statements that will date quickly."
 * avoid: "now", "soon", "currently", "recently", "in modern times", "the sixties"

Wikipedia Data
edit counts

Maintenance

 * Help:Permanent_link (and also WP:OLDID) -- permalink

Tools

 * WP:TOOLS
 * Responsible User
 * WikiBlame
 * Interaction Analysis
 * WP:TRACEIP
 * RfCs
 * Word Count Tool
 * Fill in bare references "refill" WP:REFILL
 * WP:LDR -- consolidating references
 * WP:PERM -- request for permissions

Searching

 * Quick Directory
 * Wikiprojects

International/Foreign
es:Loma_de_Bácum
 * kn:ವಿಶೇಷ
 * kn:ವಿಶೇಷ:AboutTopic/Q61394


 * List
 * List_of_ISO_639-1_codes
 * United Arab Emirates

Multiple Watchlists

 * Special:RecentChangesLinked is a lot handier, if it doesn't matter that anyone can see what you're watching. —Cryptic 10:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. One thing that might help is the ability to have multiple edit filters.  These can be saved and recalled, as explained here:  here.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Table
WP:List_of_Wikipedias

Expand
Wikipedia translation tool WP:CXT

Abbr/Acronyms
Acronym Finder or Abbreviations.com

Articles Created

 * Harding Theater

Articles Deleted

 * Articles_for_deletion/25_The_Esplanade -- was like an advertisement.

Technical data about pages
H:WT, although not an article, is in article space: you can tell because its [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H:WT&action=info Page information] shows "Namespace ID 0" - the list of namespace numbers is here. The same goes for any other shortcut beginning "H:". It's not a problem for WP:RS because it's in Wikipedia space: you can tell because its [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RS&action=info Page information] shows "Namespace ID 4", and also "Namespace Wikipedia". The same goes for any other shortcut beginning "WP:" from Redrose

Interesting
From User_talk:SMcCandlish

In breaks between edits, you may enjoy listening to Wikipedia as it is being created and destroyed. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of soothing. Not sure what the chords represent yet. Maybe someone creating an account.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * http://techland.time.com/2013/08/09/like-a-nerdy-wind-chime-real-time-wikipedia-edits-set-to-music/ Being a thinker, I thought you would find it interesting. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't say what the occasional long, dramatic chords are, though. There might be even more than one kind (at a guess I would think page deletion, page creation, and account creation). 20:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Specialists / Interests

 * Wikipedians by degree
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_*

Notices
Insert text here.

Ref


Editing

 * WP:CHEAT -- Cheat sheet for editing
 * WP:MARKUP -- Wiki Markup

Policy

 * WP:POLICY
 * Five Pillars
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:VER
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:VANDAL -- Vandalism
 * WP:SOCK

Guideline

 * WP:RS
 * WP:CS, WP:REF -- citing sources
 * WP:VIDEOLINK (supplement)
 * WP:COI (Talk)
 * WP:MEDRS
 * WP:MfD
 * WP:AfD
 * Articles_for_deletion
 * WP:AfD
 * WP:PROSE -- lists
 * WP:LEAD -- lead, lede

Essays

 * WP:INDENT
 * WP:POLL (see also WP:CONSENSUS)

Templates

 * WP:WARNING
 * WP:NOTIFS <-- when to use
 * Reply to

COI
COI talk page discussion stated by SV

COI Ducks

 * essay
 * MfD
 * Atme Sandbox COI talk

NB

 * WP:AN
 * WP:AN/I
 * WP:AVI -- vandalism
 * WP:COI/N
 * WP:FT/N -- Fringe
 * WP:RS/N
 * WP:NOR/N
 * WP:NPOV/N
 * ArbCom
 * ArbCom elections 2008 with timeline


 * ARCA
 * WP:AE
 * WP:RfA

Cases

 * WifiOne on Jimbo's page
 * Full Case
 * Evidence by Vejvančický (talk / contribs)


 * Jytdog v. DT 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog v. DT 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy v. Jytdog 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog v. DePiep, 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * TimidGuy v. Jimbo Wales and Will Beback on 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * DT v. KofA 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie v. Canoe1967 18 August 2013
 * ArbCom on GMO's
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Evidence
 * DT evidence
 * Involved Parties
 * Tryptofish v. Prokaryotes (case: 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Appeal


 * DT v. jps 3/3/2016
 * EJustice at A/N
 * at AN/I
 * at AE