From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My sandbox

I try hard to write with a NPOV - even if an editor is non-neutral, the words should be neutral. Any article, especially a BLP, should be factual and try to provide a balanced picture of the subject. When boiling down a subject into a few pages we have to pick and choose which facts are notable. Some of those may be positive and some may be negative. We should try not to emphasize either the positive or the negative, but should try to present a picture which is a fair representation of the subject.

I believe in the Scientific Method:

The process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called "full disclosure", also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

I oppose ad hominem attacks:

replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Useful things[edit]

<ref>{{cite web 
  | author = 
  | title = 
  | publisher = 
  | url = 
  | date = 
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

On most Wikipedia pages that have footnotes the gap in the line above the note is increased, and gives the whole article a ragged effect. A piece of css code can fix that easily. Just add the following to your main .css: sup {vertical-align:text-top;} and see the difference!

Canned comments[edit]


In Wikipedia, notability does not have the ordinary dictionary definition. It is a guideline with objective criteria. Your statement that "it is the only biography of Wilt" does not help satisfy WP's requirements. Per WP:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Notability requires objective evidence that the subject meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books). Notability requires verifiable references from reliable sources. Currently, the article has but a single reference to Amazon's extract of a review, so it is difficult to verify notability.

The book probably is notable, but that must be established by references. So go find references to the book and include them in the article.

In Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, more than the ordinary usage of the word. Per WP:notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability requires objective evidence, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.

To oversimplify, Wikipedia judges the importance of a subject by the number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines. So the way to verify notability is to provide references to reliable sources. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies).

Notability and verifiability[edit]

Two of Wikipedia's most important policies are notability and verifiability. A subject must be sufficiently notable to be worth including in the encyclopedia and that notability must be able to be verified through references to reliable sources.

To oversimplify, if there are newspaper articles with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those articles can verify the information in the Wikipedia article.

If you cannot find newspaper web sites that provide information for an article, then the subject is not notable or verifiable and almost certainly will be deleted. So your first job is to go find references.

Verifiability, not truth[edit]

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Your comment about facts being true or false is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. If you add true facts without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. If someone else adds facts that you know are false, but are supported by references to reliable sources, then you cannot delete them. So go find reliable sources for all of your edits and add them as references.

Likely to be deleted[edit]

Before you spend too much more time on this article I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia's policies about notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Especially read the policy about people. To oversimplify, Wikipedia judges the importance of a subject by the number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines. If there is enough information at newspaper websites to write an article just from those newspaper sources, not from any independent knowledge that you might have about the subject, then the subject probably is notable and those newspaper articles can serve as verifiable sources for the information in the Wikipedia article. From a quick search in Google, it is highly unlikely that you can produce enough independent sources for your article to merit an article in Wikipedia.

If you think the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, then go collect your references to reliable sources. Do that before you even write a word of the article. You absolutely must have those references. If you can find them, then you can use them to write the article; if you can't find sources, then all the words you write, however persuasive you think they might be, will not justify keeping the article.

The reason for tags[edit]

A tag, in this case a notability tag, is a broadcast for assistance. The tag puts the article in the category of "Articles with topics of unclear notability". There are editors who go around improving articles. They look in a category to find articles to work on. Some people like to "wikify" articles. Others like to improve the writing style. Some find references for articles. Editors go to a category and pick an article to improve. Putting a tag on an article makes it more likely that someone will improve the article.

I am restoring the notability tag. If you want other editors to help improve this article, please leave the tag in place.

Suggested comment for incivility[edit]

Hi, while I understand that you feel frustrated by this editor, I think there's a better way to express that than by saying, '[foo]'. Please remember that the world is watching us here at Wikipedia, and that we aspire to treat each contributor with dignity and respect, even those with whom we disagree. Remember also that personal attacks wear away at the collaborative atmosphere, as well as tending to provoke more personal attacks. Thank you for understanding. -User:GTBacchus

CSD patrol[edit]

I haven't done any new page patrolling lately, but that was always my main method for SD noms. However there are some useful categories and special pages that can serve to show up (with a bit of sifting) articles that are SD or AFD candidates. Fewestrevisions, Deadendpages, Lonelypages, Uncategorizedpages, and some of the sub-categories of the Wikipedia backlog. And if you haven't already, I really recommend that you install something like Twinkle to make the tagging process much quicker and easier, particularly for AFD (just one click!). Good hunting! Adrian M. H. 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Art of Persuasion[edit]

It's not enough to be right. Sometimes you have to persuade others that you are right.

In the heat of an argument it is natural to respond emotionally instead of logically, but such a response will usually not persuade other people. It might just add fuel to the fire. It is more useful, more likely to persuade others, to take time to consider words carefully.

As editors, we can always take minutes, usually hours, sometimes days before posting. We do not have to respond instantly as in a verbal conversation. If we're hot and bothered about something, especially if we are angry, it is a good idea to pause before clicking the 'Save page' button. Take a few seconds to read your words and ask, "Will these words persuade others to agree with me?"

It can feel good to blow off steam, to think that you have put down the other guy, but that feeling won't help you accomplish a goal. Words should have a purpose. If they don't help you achieve your purpose then press the Cancel button. Writing the words may make you feel better but that doesn't mean you have to send them out. If posting the words won't help you accomplish your goal, then don't post them.

be concise

provide facts, not just assertions

be civil

defend rather than attack - 2 wrongs don't make a right