User talk:Brennen Stewart 04

June 2020
Hello, I'm Darylgolden. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Talk:The Epoch Times—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.  This includes religious texts such as the Bible, Quran, Vedas; and (under many circumstances) older commentaries such as the Early Church Fathers or the Hadith.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). -- The Wikipedia Community has affirmed a half dozen that the Epoch Times is not a reliable source for facts.
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
 * "Assume good faith" is a foundational site policy. Accusing others of not being here in good faith without good evidence can be considered a personal attack.

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)