User:Skinnytony1


 * WP:FRIENDLYSPACE
 * WP:ENJOY
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NEGOTIATION
 * WP:BB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use#How_to_activate_Citation_bot

use to talk to people skinnytony1 ????????

Enviro
WP:WPE WP:ENV

Shortcuts
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_hotheads https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Enjoy_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Maintaining_a_friendly_space

--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Skinnytony1 Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources

REFS
Good


 * Ars Technica
 * BuzzFeed News
 * The Economist
 * Forbes
 * The Guardian
 * HuffPost
 * The New York Times
 * Los Angeles Times
 * PolitiFact
 * Southern Poverty Law Center
 * PolitiFact
 * The Verge
 * The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
 * The Washington Post (WaPo)

OK


 * Hope not Hate
 * The Electronic Intifada (EI)
 * The Daily Beast
 * Business Insider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skinnytony1/sandbox

Interact

Community portal

Dispute resolution

Reliable sources noticeboard

Rules

Simplified ruleset

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations

Academic studies about Wikipedia





Synthesis of published material
WP:SYNTH

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. 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

Neutral point of view
WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content

"Editors must not allow their biases to non-neutrally affect whether or how they include, delete, or present biased content and sources. They must not introduce editorial bias, but must include and preserve content bias, while remaining neutral in how they do it. Content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. They must remain neutral toward any existing bias in sources."


 * "One further point should be borne in mind. Our best contributors should not have to waste huge amounts of their time handholding people who are clueless, ignorant, or have an ideological ax to grind; if some of the latter people constantly post nearly worthless stuff, and do not react to polite and reasonable criticism, they and their writing shouldn't expect to be treated nicely."
 * "Thus Respectful but Firm. I too respect people, not bad writing. I think it should be evident from my editing that I don't waste energy handholding, and don't expect it of others, though I wouldn't actively discourage it. Someday that may define some of 'our best contributors', because that's what they want to do. --TheCunctator"

No original research
WP:OR WP:NOR WP:OR

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Verifiability
WP:V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:


 * University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Identifying reliable sources  WP:RS

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Google Trends https://trends.google.com/trends/?geo=US reliable sources noticeboard

Citing Sources
WP:CS for page number -->

How to place an inline citation using ref tags
To create a footnote, use the  syntax at the appropriate place in the article text, for example: which will be displayed as something like: It will also be necessary to generate the list of footnotes (where the citation text is actually displayed); for this, see the previous section.
 * Justice is a human invention. It...

With some exceptions discussed below, citations appear in a single section containing only the  tag or the  template. For example: == References ==

Outside opinion

 * Third opinion (3O)
 * A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute.


 * Noticeboards
 * Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.


 * Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
 * For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved.


 * Formal mediation
 * For disputes involving many parties or complicated issues or which otherwise need more time for resolution than is allowed at DRN, the Mediation Committee(MedCom) is staffed by members with proven mediation ability.


 * Requests for comment (RfC)
 * Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards.


 * Village pump
 * Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional editors who may help.

Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles

 * Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. We must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
 * Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way.

Statements of opinion
Shortcut


 * WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

Criticism

 * WP:CRIT
 * WP:NOCRIT

Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive.


 * Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section

Balance
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.


 * WP:BALASP
 * WP:PROPORTION

Pages Created

 * Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust‎‎
 * Checks and Balances (organization)
 * Joel Zamel (there was a redirect before)
 * Archimedes Group
 * Trace Balla
 * Ballarat Orphanage