User:Rp2006

My Wikipedia stats
My edit stats are here.

My two "Good Articles"
I have two articles in this category. Only about 0.5% of Wikipedia articles are in this category, so I am particularly proud of this!

My six DYK articles
And yes, I wrote (or greatly expanded) each of these. I did not just nominate a page someone else wrote and claim credit. :-)

The sound of Wikipedia
This is just so cool... Listen to the sound of Wikipedia being edited here!
 * Details:


 * Bells indicate additions and string plucks indicate subtractions.
 * Pitch changes according to the size of the edit; the larger the edit, the deeper the note.
 * Green circles show edits from unregistered contributors, and purple circles mark edits performed by automated bots.
 * You may see announcements for new users as they join the site, punctuated by a string swell.

Important concepts
Here are some articles concerning some of the most important concepts for successful Wikipedia editing, and one bad-ass essay on fighting pseudoscience and woo on Wikipedia:
 * Using primary, secondary and tertiary sources
 * Verifiability
 * Manual of Style: Layout (Rules for See also, References, External Links, etc)
 * Lunatic charlatans
 * Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

Helpful lists and articles

 * WikiProject Alternative medicine/Popular pages
 * Alternative Views articles
 * WikiProject Skepticism/Popular pages
 * WikiProject Paranormal/Popular pages
 * List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
 * Fringe science
 * Fringe theories
 * List of questionable diseases

Citation issues
Looking for an appropriate citation template? See here

Simplified DYK instructions
See here for my instructions on doing a DYK nomination.

Hey, why is Wikipedia so biased?
See here for the official WP guidance on bias and POV issues. Also, here is: the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience.

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, once said the following. (This was borrowed from editor Roxy the dog):
 * "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."


 * "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.

We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.

We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.

We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.

We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.

We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.

We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.

We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.

We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.

We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.

We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.

We are biased towards astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.

We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.

We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

On the subject of Verifiability vs Truth, there are these conflicting WP essays:
 * Verifiability, not truth.
 * Truth matters

Wiki Adventure badges
If you're new to Wikipedia and have not yet done so, I strongly suggest taking The Wikipedia Adventure which teaches you to "Learn to edit Wikipedia in under an hour." These are the badges I was awarded while learning to edit: