User:Granitethighs



I’ve watched Wikipedia grow into a really useful information source since 2001. It is great to contribute to a not-for-profit combined international effort like this with all its warts – bit like society itself. Nice to think that we can do something worthwhile without being paid for it. — "the sowing and planting of ideas into an orderly series, as opposed to just living off the careless ideas one finds in daily experience, is pleasurable in itself" — Thomas Hobbes My edit counter

Useful stuff
Barnstars  

History of editing
"It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a  lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either  intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the  unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's  contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with  arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary?  Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let  it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go [...] retaliating  not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and  corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related  provocations rises." – Antandrus, January 2007

Dablinks
Checks article for words needing disambiguation

Peter Coxhead Citation tool
Explains the operation of citation tool for book/journal/web Citation tool

Citation checker
Citation checker

NPOV
A source must be verifiable and reliable. NPOV policy is premised on the idea that most secondary sources are not disinterested: a strong encyclopedia does not seek to provide a disinterested view, but rather multiple views. Hence the slogan "Verifiability, not truth." What matters is not that a claim be true or factual, but rather that it be a verifiable fact that someone actually holds this view. We strive to include all significant views, giving each due weight, and putting each view in context.

Original research or synthesis
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.[1] That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.