How do you make your userboxes cluster into a neat pile on your page? I have about five on the top of my user page and they are messing the top part of my bio: it is squashing my small little bio on the top and I don't know where else to put them. Do they have to be at the top or can you put them in the bottom? Need help! SarahTHunter (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@SarahTHunter: One tip is to browse through the userpages of other editors and peek at the source code that they've used to create their pages. For fancy layout ideas, see Wikipedia:User page design center. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I add mine at end of all my other stuff. Be aware that some are taller than others, so if mixed in with standard size boxes, create gaps. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
rol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here to the NPP newsletter]] that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Thank you for looking into my problem about not being able to edit individual sections on my talk page and for fixing it. I would have never found the "NO EDIT SECTION" that was causing my problem. Thank you very much. Osomite (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The correct way to give a barnstar - call to "subst"
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list).
This is good knowledge--how do people find out about these things?
This method can be used to search for a specific character string in any URL.
Using Google (and probably other search engines), to find a specific character string on a site (URL), use the Google site: operator to search through a specific site (a site such as the English Wikipedia). You can use this to search for a specific character string by putting it in quotes. This will also search through Wikipedia page text including citations.
For example, plug the following into Google's search window:
site:en.wikipedia.org "a future for the past"
Make sure to use the quotes around the character string.
For this search, the first page it returns is the Wikipedia article World Heritage Site. Within the article, there is a reference to a journal article with that name
If you're interested in where a specific URL is used, you can use Wikipedia's Special:LinkSearch.
In a long and meandering interview on Tucker Carlson’s show this week, the podcaster Darryl Cooper offered musings about the “mythology”—the heroes, the villains, the plot, the moral stakes—of World War II.
Tucker claims Cooper is a historian, but Cooper fails the Historian Test:
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums.
I posted on the delete article discussion page:
Agree. A historian? I see no credentials. 2603:7080:5000:A807:4DCF:3EE0:5E8B:C122 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you need credentials to be a historian? He publishes his work for all to see. Most popular historians do not have PhD. 136.242.8.20 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Gym Shoes, Maps, and Passports, Oh My! Creating Community or Creating Chaos at the NMAI?
Elizabeth Archuleta
American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, Special Issue: The National Museum of the American Indian (Summer - Autumn, 2005), pp. 426-449 (24 pages)
A copy of the "Gym Shoe, Maps, etc" is on the D driect in the DocumentsD folder with the filename:
"American Indian Museum - Critique of the National Museum of the American Indian.pdf"
According to its inventor, enigmatology is the study of puzzles. Why haven’t you heard of it until now? Because only one person has ever earned a degree in enigmatology: Will Shortz, who designed his own major program at Indiana University in 1974.
This makes Will Shortz the world’s only college-accredited “puzzle master,” which sounds a bit like the name of a crossword-based superhero. For this reason alone, we salute him.
Both the Donohue article and the Hansge article
is probably incorrect about their connection and relationship.
From Donohue article:
An experienced race driver named Walt Hansgen (who worked for Inskip Motors in New York & Rhode Island) recognized Donohue's ability[2] and befriended him, eventually providing an MGB (through Inskip Motors in Providence, RI and prepped by their race shop Competition Engineering)
From Hansgen article:
Donohue won the SCCA national championship in an Elva Courier in 1961. An experienced race driver named Walt Hansgen (who worked for Inskip Motors in New York & Rhode Island) recognized Donohue's ability[2] and befriended him, eventually providing an MGB (through Inskip Motors in Providence, RI and prepped by their race shop Competition Engineering)[8] for Donohue to race at the 1964 Bridgehampton 500-mile (800 km) SCCA endurance event, which he won.[citation needed] Hansgen arranged for Donohue to become his teammate in 1965, co-driving a Ferrari 275 at the 12 Hours of Sebring endurance race,[2] which they finished in 11th place.[9] That year, Donohue also won two divisional championships: in SCCA B Class in a GT350 and in SCCA Formula C in a Lotus 20B.[2]
During a royal funeral, the white staff is symbolically broken over the grave of the deceased monarch. This was last done by the Lord Parker of Minsmere, who broke his staff over the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022.[2][9]
should say "broke staff and placed in on the coffin".
The ceremonial breaking of the Lord Chamberlain’s “wand of office” during the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on 19 September 2022 symbolized the formal end of Parker's service as Lord Chamberlain to the monarch.[14][15]
The Lord Chamberlain now breaks his wand of office and places it on the coffin, a tradition that is being seen for the first time because no committal service has been televised before.
Before the final hymn, the crown jeweler removed the imperial state crown, the orb and the scepter — precious symbols of the crown — from the queen’s coffin, and placed them on the altar. As a symbol of the end of his service, the lord chamberlain broke his wand of office and placed it onto the coffin, to be buried with the sovereign.
after a service in St. George’s Chapel, the Lord Chamberlain broke his ceremonial wooden Wand of Office and placed it atop the queen’s casket, symbolizing the end of her reign.
The Lord Chamberlain, former MI5 chief Lord Parker, also "broke" his wand of office and placed it on the coffin. The snapping of the staff signals the end of his service to the sovereign as her most senior official in the Royal Household.
The coffin was then lowered into the royal vault, before the Sovereign's Piper played a lament.
The Queen’s Company Camp Colour flag will be laid at the foot of the Queen’s coffin by the Captain of The Queen’s Company after the coffin has been placed on the catafalque at the end of the final hymn during the committal service. This will occur at around 4.30pm today.
At the same time, the Lord Chamberlain will break his Wand of Office and place it on the coffin.
The wand of office is a thin, white ceremonial staff that used to be used to discipline courtiers - they would be tapped with the wand by the Lord Chamberlain as a warning if they were being too rowdy.
The last time the wand of office was broken was at the funeral of King George VI in 1952.
These ceremonial events signifiy the end of one reign and the beginning of another as King Charles III became the King of England at the moment of his mother the Queen’s death.
The lord chamberlain is the senior officer of the royal household. His thin white staff, known as the “wand of office,” is a ceremonial tool, according to the Evening Standard.
The ceremony, known as the “breaking of the stick,” signifies the end of the lord chamberlain’s service to the monarch. The wand will then be placed on the queen’s coffin before it is lowered, according to the order of service for the committal at St. George’s Chapel.
On a day laden with ceremony and symbolism, one of the stranger moments of the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II was a ceremony known as the “breaking of the wand”, an event that has not taken place since her father, King George VI, was buried in 1952, and which had never been widely seen by the public before.
The “wand” at the royal funeral had nothing to do with the Arthurian legend of Merlin, or indeed a more modern British wizard in Harry Potter, but was actually a symbol of the lord chamberlain, Lord Andrew Parker, known as the “wand of office”.
This thin white staff has its origins in a tool that was used by the lord chamberlain to admonish people in the monarch’s court by tapping them if they were too rowdy or disrespectful. The last act of the service at the Queen’s committal involved the wand being broken, and then placed on the coffin before it was lowered into the royal vault.
The lord chamberlain is the most senior position in the royal household, and Parker has held the role since 1 April 2021. He was responsible for organising ceremonial activities such as weddings, funerals and state visits.
He was formerly the head of the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence service, MI5. Despite the seniority, and responsibility, it is a part-time role. Named Baron Parker of Minsmere when he took up his position in the House of Lords, Parker was the eighth and final lord chamberlain appointed by Queen Elizabeth II.
Also known as the “breaking of the stick”, the action marks the end of the lord chamberlain’s service to the monarch. King Charles will duly appoint a lord chamberlain of his own, who will receive a new wand of office.
An editor added a "back story" to the story that did not appear in the film.
A plot summary is a retelling, a summary, or an abridged or shortened précis of the events that occur within a work of fiction. The purpose of a plot summary is to help the reader understand the important events within a work of fiction, be they of the work as a whole or of an individual character.
Editors are generally discouraged from adding fictional information from sources that cannot be verified or are limited to a very small number of readers, such as fan fiction and online role-playing games. In the latter case, if you absolutely have to write about the subject, please be especially careful to cite your sources.
While it is difficult to quantify a strict word limit since no two articles are equal, however, the Wikipedia Manual of style offers some general recommendations to editors. The Film style guideline suggests that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The TV style guideline recommends "no more than 200 words" for television episodes in episode lists, or "no more than 400 words" in standalone episode articles. The Novels style guideline says that "400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work". The Video game style guideline states "no more than approximately 700 words to retain focus". However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance.
Maintenance over time
Having written a concise plot summary, authors must be wary of excessive attachment to their golden prose. At the same time, "plot bloat" is a serious problem. Plot bloat is the gradual expansion of a plot summary over time by well-meaning editors who do not have the advantage of the prior discussion about the preferred level of detail for this particular work. Periodic reviews and reassessments by new editors are essential to maintaining Wikipedia articles and to maintaining plot summary sections in particular.
There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be excessively long. Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work, linking them together with fairly brief descriptions of the less-important scenes or paraphrase dialog.
Nutshell - One can streamline a plot summary with minimal loss of information by rephrasing verbose passages.
To maintain readability, plot summaries should have just enough detail to give readers an understanding of the work. Occasionally, you'll find excessively detailed plot summaries that overwhelm readers with a summary of every scene. In this case, it's frequently best to rewrite the plot summary from scratch. If you come upon a plot summary of around 800 to 900 words, it's frequently possible to streamline it such that you lose no significant information. The context may change slightly, but it is usually not terribly important. I
Plot summaries that are too long and too detailed can also be hard to read and are just as unhelpful as those that are too short.
If it makes the plot much easier to explain, events can be reordered; for instance, a backstory revealed later in a novel can be put first, or an in medias res opening scene of a film can be described where it would occur later. A nonchronological narrative structure can be made chronological; for some works of this nature, the original nonchronological structure of the plot is of interest to commentators, such as for Pulp Fiction or Memento. In these cases, it can be useful to include a brief out-of-universe summary to explain how the nonchronological narrative is presented in the work before presenting the chronological summary. Plot summaries should be written from the real world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material.
Michelangelo is said to have created David by "taking a block of marble and cutting away everything that was not David". Writing a plot summary is a similar process—you take a long work, and you cut out as much as possible. The question is, what do you cut?
The basic structure of many narrative plots includes a lengthy middle section during which characters repeatedly get in and out of trouble on their way to the climactic encounter. Most episodes of Doctor Who, for instance, involve the main characters getting captured and escaping repeatedly in the middle portion of the adventure. Although such events are exciting to watch, they often clutter a plot summary with excessive and repetitive detail. Cutting less important ones can make the plot summary tighter and easier to understand.
Necessary detail, however, must be maintained. A summary of Odyssey as "Odysseus, returning home from the Trojan War, has many adventures which he uses his wits to escape until he reunites with his wife and kills the men who were trying to take over his kingdom" would omit almost all of the important passages and confuse the readers. Even though they may know how the Odyssey ends, it's hard to say that they understand the work well enough to appreciate its context and impact.
The Odyssey contains various scenes where people recount myths to each other, and other such scenes of little importance to the main plot. If most of these get left out, or mainly consist of a sentence or two, that is not a problem, and helps keep the focus on the main story. In works less vital to the foundations of academia and the founding of the Western literary tradition, even more detail could safely be left out as unimportant, including entire lengthy subplots.
While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one.
How to begin a plot summary--an example
The first thing we should ask is "What is Little Red Riding Hood about?" If you had one sentence to describe what it's about—not summarize it, just describe it—what would you say? Probably something like "Little Red Riding Hood is the story of a young girl's encounter with a dangerous wolf in the woods." This short summary would generally go in the lead of the article. Now that we have that, the next step is to figure out what the parts of that claim are that we're going to have to explain. There are three major ones—there's a young girl, a dangerous wolf, and an encounter. We're going to have to explain what all of those are.
The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included in the story.
A plot summary is a retelling, a summary, or an abridged or shortened précis of the events that occur within a work of fiction. The purpose of a plot summary is to help the reader understand the important events within a work of fiction, be they of the work as a whole or of an individual character.
The objective point of a plot summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. For those who have not read or seen the story, it should serve as a general overview that fills in on the major points. For those who have, it should be detailed enough to refresh their memory, no more.
It is not helpful to simply declare a subject non-notable; an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any relevant policy or guidance offered on Wikipedia.
It is not helpful to simply declare a subject non-notable; an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any relevant policy or guidance offered on Wikipedia.
From the Manual of Style subparagraph "Adding individual items to a list" WP:SOURCELIST
Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies
the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Content should be sourced where it appears with inline citations if the content contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked.
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections).
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
----and there is more about this on the [Notability-(people)] page
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
"This song is biographical. I would come home and try to explain to my
father in his later years what I was doing. I didn't know what I was doing,
so how could I explain it to him? Nobody had ever done it before the way
I was doing it."
I guess I should have written Dad to let you know that I was coming home
I've been gone so many years I didn't realize you had a phone
I saw your cattle comin' in boy they're looking mighty fat and sleek
I saw Fred at the service station he told me that his wife was awfuly sick.
You heard my record on the radio oh well it's just another song
But I've got a hit recorded it'll be out on the market 'fore too long
I got this ring in Mexico you know it didn't cost me quite a bunch
When you're in the business that I'm in the people call it puttin' up a front.
I know I've lost a little weight and I guess I am looking kinda pale
If you didn't know me better Dad you'd think that I've just gotten out of jail
No we don't ever call 'em beer joints night clubs are the places where I work
You meet a lotta people there but no there ain't much chance of gettin' hurt.
I'm sorry that I couldn't be here with you all when Mama passed away
I was on the road and when they came and told me it was just too late
I drove by the grave to see her boy that really is a pretty stone
I'm glad that Fred and Jan are here it's better than you being here alone.
Well, I knew you's gonna ask me who the lady is that's sleepin' in the car
That's just the girl that works for me and man she plays a pretty mean guitar
We worked in San Antone last night she didn't even have the time to dress
She drove me down from Nashville and to tell the truth
I guess she needs the rest.
Well Dad I gotta go we got a dance to work in Cartersville tonight
Let me take your number down I'll call you and I promise you I'll write
Now you be good and don't be chasin' all those pretty women that you know
And by the way if you see Barbara Walker tell her that I said hello...
In Chapter 1, Tail Risk. John McWilliams is introduced. He was the DOE’s “chief risk officer”. He had compiled a list of the 138 most dire risks that the Department of Energy alone faced. At the time, I didn’t even know what the Department of Energy did, so that there were 138 risks inside of it worth counting was interesting.
The DOE is a powerful tool for dealing with the most alarming risks facing humanity. . . .the tool was being badly mishandled and at risk of being busted [evidently by the Trump administration)
The top five risks facing the DOE:
1. An accident with a nuclear weapon
2. North Korea
3. Iran
4. the US electrical grid
5. Project Management
Managing risks is an act of the imagination. And the human imagination is a poor tool for judging risk (page 67)
John McWilliams identified five risks; "The Fifth Risk" is "Project Management". When Lewis asked him what the fifth risk was, McWilliams replied, "project management". That was all he said. (from the book on page 69). McWilliams provided details about the first four (they were risks that the DOE faced every day).
From the NYT Book Review:
risks one through four (an attack by North Korea, war with Iran, etc.) before you learn that the scary-sounding “fifth risk” of the title is — brace yourself — “project management.”
"One danger to the proper functioning of federal agencies is a combination of incompetence and neglect."
Lewis doesn’t do is delve too deeply into politics, preferring instead to focus our attention on technical functions of government that everyone takes for granted.
(I don't think this was a particularly insightful review as the writer MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY)[3]
Lewis "is horrified by the practical effects of the president’s [Trump] ignorance." "The Fifth Risk raises the most important question of the moment: Have we grown too lazy and silly and poorly educated to sustain a working democracy? We live in a moment when tribal bumper stickers — both left and right — pass for politics, when ignorance and grievance drive policy. The federal government exists at a level of complexity most people just can’t be bothered to understand. We have little idea what it does, only the vague sense that it doesn’t do anything very well. Michael Lewis has taken on the task of rectifying that misconception, and he has done so with refreshing clarity — and a measured sense of outrage — which makes this his most ambitious and important book."
many of us are aware of at least some of the risks government manages. Right now, for instance, we are all fixated on pandemic risk — and there are other obvious risks like climate change or nuclear war. But in the book you talk about a set of risks that gets talked about a lot less. What is “the fifth risk”?
Miceal Lewis characterizes the "fifth risk" as he understood it from McWilliam's concerns"
Michael Lewis
It’s an idea that grew out of that conversation I had with John McWilliams at the Department of Energy. I asked him, almost as a joke, to tell me five top risks the department faced off the top of his head. He got through four very quickly: they were things like nuclear weapons accidents, attacks on the electric grid, the Iran nuclear deal being undermined, and North Korea figuring out how to get a missile to California. He had very detailed stories about each one and why each one was much scarier than we knew. But then he got to the fifth and it took him like a long time — I could see that he’d run out of material.
And I thought, that’s the fifth. The risk you’re attending to, the risk that’s top of mind, is not likely the thing that’s going to actually kill you. The fifth risk is a scary one because it’s the thing you’re not paying attention to.
Now, eventually, he does come up with a fifth risk. He says “project management.” So literally, the fifth risk in the book is project management. And what he meant by “project management” was that there are these very slow, glacially paced risks that the government manages day to day where nothing really dramatic ever happens. But if it gets mismanaged over the long run, something really dramatic could happen.
Title of Vox article "Michael Lewis explains how the Trump administration puts us all at risk of catastrophe" IMPORTANT QUOTE: “The United States government manages the biggest portfolio of [catastrophic] risks ever managed by a single institution in the history of the world.” And that means the US president is, above all, the risk-manager-in-chief. “Some of the things any incoming president should worry about are fast moving: pandemics, hurricanes, terrorist attacks,” writes Lewis. “But most are not. Most are like bombs with very long fuses that, in the distant future, when the fuse reaches the bomb, might or might not explode.” the Trump administration puts us all at risk of catastrophe. [4]
The Fifth Risk (the risk posed by incompetent government leaders), Lewis turns his attention to government data collection, including weather information and the census (which, as we rapidly approach the 2020 decennial census, also lacks a permanent director).
Lewis delves into its critical missions: to protect us from threats, including nuclear weapons proliferation, devastating tornadoes, and foodborne illnesses; and to efficiently distribute services and benefits to those needing a hand — whether from Federal Emergency Management Agency or food stamps
NPR mostly missed the point
From a book review by Rubrick Biegon and Tom Watts [6]
also saved as [C:/Users/t_dod/Downloads/LSELewisbookreviewBiegonandWatts.pdf]
the titular ‘Fifth Rubrick Biegon and Tom Watts Risk’ speaks to the unforeseen dangers which Lewis sees as emerging from Trump’s prioritisation of short-term gains (often to the advantage of narrow sectional interests) over a careful management of longer-term political and ecological challenges. This includes ‘the existential threat that you never really even imagine as a risk’ (73) and the ‘innovation that never occurs, and the knowledge that is never created, because you have ceased to lay the ground for it’ (74)
The Fifth Risk is an examination of three core themes which are relevant to understanding contemporary American politics and society. These are: the bungled and chaotic transition between the Obama and Trump administrations; the tension between the American public’s declining trust in the federal government and the need for federal agencies to manage the complex portfolio of ‘risks’ which private interests don’t have the capacity to manage; and the longer-term and as yet unknowable ‘risks’ which Trump’s presidency presents to American prosperity, security and wellbeing.
the book’s three main chapters examine the Departments of Energy, Agriculture and Commerce respectively.
whilst there is much that is novel about the Trump presidency, his administration’s fundamental approach to government is not new, and, unfortunately, cannot be attributed solely to naiveté or the absurdities of Trump’s character.
The capability of responding to long-term risks should be the embodiment of competence and serve as a reminder to every new administration.
Anyway, when Lewis was curious to proceed and get a clear definition of the fifth risk, a strained silence emerged. It seemed as though nothing is explainable.
He assumed that the reason behind this stalemate was, in fact, the classified information MacWilliams was unable to share. He did utter a few words: Project Management.
If you are one of those who ponder a lot before making a conclusion, there is another way of interpreting John MacWilliams’ fifth risk. It depicts a society whose ineptitude of handling long-term risks is compensated by short-term solutions.
It is a kind of habit.
The bottom line is, nurturing a certain agenda or worldview can often get into the way of science. According to Michael Lewis, Trump’s administration decided to remain ignorant about real issues, and leave them unsolved.
However, he doesn’t accuse Trump of inventing this political expression.
I am not convinced by this 12 minute blog book review.
At no point did anybody object to any edit resembling that. Somebody fixed some embarrassing grammar errors, and you aggressively and frantically objected. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or are you simply hallucinating things that didn't happen, as you have previously claimed to do? 213.39.115.59 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see the above IP editor's comment on User talk:Osomite, which can be found here. It appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPA. If so, can it please be rev-del'd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It also seems probable that the IP editor is User:Sergow violating their indef block. I no longer remember the specifics of Sergow's NPA-violating post on their user page, but the use of "pathetic toddler" in an edit summary still remains, and is consonant with "infantile behaviour:, "angry child", "child precocious enough to speak somewhat like an adult" and "tantrum" used in the above cited comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar to Nuclear Weapon article dif, this dif is also strange in the same way and needs clarification. Seems he BMK doesn't like to have "Bibliography" as an entry in the article "Contents" box. ?????
The words needed to be exactly right. “And the language has a rich vocabulary for describing statements that fall short of the truth,” said Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Information. “They’re ‘baseless,’ they’re ‘bogus,’ they’re ‘lies,’ they’re ‘untruths.’”
Rarely are these words, each with its own nuance, applied directly to something said by a president
Harcourt, Edward John. “‘Would to God I Could Tear the Page from These Memoirs and from My Own Memory’: Co. Aytch and the Confederate Sensibility of Loss.” Southern Cultures, vol. 23, no. 4, 2017, pp. 7–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26391716. Accessed 3 Jan. 2021.
http://tennessee-scv.org/camp29/ - Sons of Confederate Veterans named camp in Watkins honor - The Samuel R. Watkins Camp’s main purpose is to maintain and defend Confederate Heritage and perpetuate the memory of the Southern Confederate soldier who fought during the American Civil War (War Between the States [1861-1865]).
Here is what Admin Oshwah posted on the Admin Notice Board Incident
Whether they're test edits or if this is vandalism has become irrelevant. The user is causing disruption to multiple articles and has done so numerous times. They've also been warned numerous times. I've indefinitely blocked the user. This will require them to file an appeal and request an unblock, and convince the reviewing administrator that the behavior will stop before they'll be allowed to edit. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Editor Fuaacena appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal.
I happened across five edits to the Laura San Giacomo page made by Fuaacena which on the first view appeared to be "test edits". I reverted these changes and commented on the Laura San Giacomo talk page and commented on Fuaacena's talk page concerning these edits. Being curious about what Fuaacena might be doing, I looked at Fuaacena's edit history and saw a troubling pattern of suspicious "test edits" on numerous Wikipedia articles. Many of these "test edits" had already been noticed and reverted.
Fuaacena's pattern of suspicious "test edits" on Wikipedia articles seems to merit examination with a view toward "Administrator intervention against vandalism".
Seeing what the "od" does here. There should be an arrow to undent.
Osomite hablemos 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
NJZombie put the following on Fuaacena's talk page, and Fuaacena deleted it.
Should it happen that a cabal of admins, operating on the talk page of an article or the lion's den of AN/I, manage to block you on an invented charge, the world will continue to turn. The grass will grow, the birds will lay eggs, the number of Pokémon-related articles will still double every 1.7 weeks, and articles on weathermen will be brought to AfD. Sure, it won't be done as smoothly and as elegantly as when you did it, but it will be done. This encyclopedic project will continue to turn. Sad, but true.
Using this source to prove he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist amounts to original research: "conspiracy" is never mentioned in the source. The rule on original research states: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
In their paper about the rise and decline of Wikipedia, the researchers suggest updating Wikipedia’s motto, “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Their version reads: “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.”
Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores.
The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere
When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today.
Wikipedia_Review is an Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia Foundation projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review
Also, calling another editor "ignorant" is potentially a personal attack, so I suggest that you review that policy. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if calling someone's view "ignorant" is considered a personal attack? Need to look into that.
https://www.legalmorning.com/ Legalmorning is a full-service online marketing agency. We offer content writing, Wikipedia editing, media outreach services, and more. Founded by Mike Wood in 2011
You've been discussed on this board countless times because of edit-warring you engaged in because you don't like the manual of style. Please, let's not pretend that this is a new problem. Your antipathy to the MOS (shortcut to MOS - WP:MOS is legendary but you've gotten a pass because yes, most of your contributions are excellent. Anyway, guidelines have consensus. They wouldn't be guidelines otherwise. They're not mandatory, no, but they generally should be followed. It does not follow that because they are not mandatory, editors are free to ignore them whenever they like, for no reason whatsoever other than they don't like them. You don't have to edit in accordance with them either, but if someone comes along and does, the right response is not to mass-revert, yell at them, then revert them on your talk page when they tried to answer a question that you asked! Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I had no idea I was legendary!
I will take your remarks with all the weight that they deserve given your clear lack of understanding of why a guideline is not a policy and cannot be treated as one, and your obvious personal prejudice against me, which I am very sorry to learn about. As for stopping, I stopped as soon as this unwarranted report was filed, so, again, I have no idea where your animus is coming from. Do think on this, though: if MOS must be treated in the fashion you suggest, than how in heaven's name can guidelines ever be be truly descriptive of what Wikipedia editors do, when there's no wiggle room for them to deviate from the strict letter of the law, and they are forced to toe the line. That would make them prescriptive, and we know that's not supposed to be the case. Do recall that WP:IAR is still one of the pillars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a significant flaw in your reasoning. Of course guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive, always have been. If a guideline does not describe present practice, then it should be changed to match that practice. Guidelines also represent best practices; while not ironclad, they should be followed unless there is a good reason not to do so. That the guidelines do not describe your editing does not mean that the guidelines are wrong. It does mean that every time you edit in a contrary fashion, you're undertaking a special burden to justify why your edit is better and why we should depart from the guideline in this case. I would expect that to be article- and context-specific, and wouldn't seem to apply to a mass reversion. If the guideline is in fact wrong in this case (either wrong on its face or no longer describing present practice), then it should be changed. If not, then the original edits should stand. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You keep trying to make it personal, but it's not. In any case, I'm wasting my time and energy here, I can see that. Someone should give me a buzz if I'm needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: WP:IAR says that if a rule prevents an improvement being made, then it can be ignored. Moving the template that displays the GA icon from the top of an article to the bottom of an article is not an improvement, as it has absolutely zero effect on the display of the GA icon. Therefore IAR cannot be invoked for that edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing. What kind of people have nothing better to do than edit war over something as silly and petty as the MOS? Utterly pointless. If the problem's with the bot, that needs to be said to the bot operators. Though really MOS:ORDER seems like CREEP and I see way too many purely cosmetic edits by bots and regular editors alike because of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, you made this post accusing me of doing a promotion of a company.
And can you explain this [[6]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
"And can you explain this. . ." Interesting you start your post with the conjunction "And" which implies "in addition to other things". Is this a logical, continuing part of the BMK incident? Why is this "can you explain" posted there? I don't mean to be glib, but if you think this accusation that I am "promoting of a company" is part and parcel of that incident, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK on that incident.
I am curious as to why I have to provide an explanation about what this "seems" to you? Are you stalking me to see if I will do something to criticize and perhaps claim an incident? Seriously, why are you doing this?
Here's the short answer: It is not what you seem to think it is. I am in no way promoting a company.
Here's the long answer:
You were looking at a page called Osomite/Stuff. It is one of my sub-user pages. If you look at it, it is my collection of "references" and things that I don't want to forget and might want to check out at a later time. I have a lot of stuff there I use while editing as I have difficulty remembering the details of things like the content of the various "CITES". Although it is accessible to all, I don't really expect to have an editor be interested enough to look at it much less be critical of the "stuff" I might happen to save.
Apparently, anything one editor does could be considered suspect to another editor if you what to infer something. True, Legalmorning is undoubtedly considered to be antithetical to Wikipedia's editing policy and philosophy, but in the real world of commerce, it is just a company that provides a service that undoubtedly Wikipedia does not appreciate.
I saved some LegalMorning stuff as it is about something I thought interesting enough that sometime in the future I might want to look into the subject for more detail. There is a lot of this type of stuff on my "Stuff" page.
In holding stuff in a place that undoubtedly does not receive much traffic, in a "backstage" area, am actually I promoting a company? It isn't covert advertising.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia page Subpages with special attention to "Disallowed uses" and the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I don't see a violation concerning my saved stuff.
If doing this innocuous save of stuff (at least it is to me) is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, please specify what that policy is, and I will make my saved stuff comply.
If this explanation is not adequate, please clarify what is needed.
A squadron of B-17s from this force detached to the Middle East to join the First Provisional Bombardment Group, thus becoming the first American B-17 squadron to go to war against the Germans.[citation needed]
There are articles tagged with content issues which
can be resolved to insure accuracy as the articles are developing. Remember to discuss major additions, changes, and controversial topics on the article's talk page.
There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
So, the next time you find yourself standing over the body of a clearly-deceased horse: please don't beat it. It won't help. There is no way to beat a dead horse back to life.
There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.
This is called "shooting yourself in the foot". The behavior of a returning boomerang is similar: if thrown incautiously, it can come back to injure the thrower.
The war in Europe is generally considered to have started on 1 September 1939,[9][10] beginning with the German invasion of Poland; the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany two days later.
The Third Reich at War, by Evans, Richard J. at CCC Lib need to hold it
The third volume, The Third Reich at War, was published by Penguin in the UK in October 2008 (ISBN978-0-7139-9742-2, 912 pages), and in the US in March 2009 (ISBN978-1-59420-206-3, 944 pages). It describes the entire wartime period of the Third Reich, beginning with the invasion of Poland in 1939 and completing the timeline with the end of the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.
In September 1939, the successful[13] German invasion of Poland infringed on both a French and a British alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.
When asked a question you don't want to answer, reply by asking a question that is not on the point of the question.
In an extraordinary one-hour arm twisting phone call, Trump Pressures Georgia Sec of State to recalculate vote in his favor.
Trump says, "Look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state". We won the election, and it's not fair to take it away from us like this. And it's going to be very costly in many ways.
Trump claims, "the people of Georgia are angry, the in the country are angry" and there is nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you've recalculated."
Brad Raffensperger, GeorgiaSecretary of State responded, "Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. was asked, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong"
Later in the conversation, Trump asks, "Now, do you think it's possible that shredded ballots in Fulton County? Cause, that's what the rumor is. And Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that's illegal.
Ryan Germany, General Counsel of Georgia's Secretary of State replied, No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.
Trump asked, "Are you sure Ryan" Ryan replied, "I'm sure". Trump replies, "You want to have an accurate election"
Raffensperger replied, "We believe that we do have an accurate election."
Trump denies, "No no you don't. No, no you don't. You don't have. You don't have. Not even close. You're off by hundreds of thousands of votes". You know what they did and you are not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. They are removing machinery and they moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen."
There is a little bit of legal peril for the President in this conversation by claiming public officials being guilty or liable for criminal behavior. . .prosecutorial discretion. . .this comes right up to the line of threatening criminal liability.
{{Blockquote}} adds a block quotation to an article page.
This is easier to type and is more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags, and has additional pre-formatted attribution parameters for author and source (though these are not usually used in articles;
How do I write in HTML the symbol for "plus or minus"?
use ± (click edit to see the code).
You can also use ±. There's a long list of HTML entities here)
When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted content:
It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup <s>...</s>.
Which looks like this Which looks like this
It is best to indicate inserted content using the underline markup <u>...</u>.
When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes, and do not mark them up in any special way. However, when the article itself discusses deleted or inserted content, such as an amendment to a statute:
It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup <del>...</del>.
It is best to indicate inserted content using the underline markup <ins>...</ins>.
Note: <s></s> and <u></u> (speced in HTML 3 & 4) are considerably more popular than <del></del> and <ins></ins> (speced in HTML 5) on Wikipedia.
What you type
You can <del>strike out deleted material</del> and <ins>underline new material</ins>.
What it looks like
You can strike out deleted material and underline new material.
A list of websites that editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia. Some of these are currently accepted, some are currently opposed, and some depend on the circumstances as consensus can change.
Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas); or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption, in reporting quoted speech. In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:
An em dash is always unspaced (without a space on either side):
Another "planet" was detected—but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
An en dash is spaced (with a space on each side) when used as sentence punctuation:
Another "planet" was detected – but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line (markup: the {{spaced ndash}} or {{snd}} templates, or use the HTML character entity ):
Another "planet" was detected{{snd}}but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
But do not insert a non-breaking or other space where the en dash should be unspaced (see § Other uses (en dash only)).
Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both.
The book summarizes works of some major philosophers in chronological order: Descartes, Locke, Hume – but not his Treatise (deemed too complex for the target audience) – and Kant.
Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which people from all over the world are editing at all times of the day. So, sometimes when you're WP:BOLD and make an edit to an article, another editor comes along later on (sometimes even a long time later) and WP:REVERTs the changes you made (either partially or entirely) because they don't think it was an improvement. When this happens, the next thing to do it to follow WP:BRD and try and WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk and seek clarification.
Ideally, an editor who reverts another should leave an edit summary explaining why. If you check the page history of Off-track betting in New York, you find that is exactly what the editor who reverted you did here. Now, if you want clarification about that, you can start a discussion about it at Talk:Off-track betting in New York. My personal assessment is that the content you added was done in good faith, but it probably wasn't something really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:Namechecking; so, it's encyclopedic relevance to the general reader seems a bit questionable. If you disagree with that assessment, you're free once again to discuss why on the article's talk page.
Although it can be a bit of a shock to have an edit reverted, it's really quite commonplace as it is part of the process on articles are improved or unimproved over time.
The "policy" concerning "Newspaper and magazine blogs" WP:NEWSBLOG is vague to the point of uselessness.
The policy is as follows:
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
The concern with this policy is that it does not define "blog" with any precision. Simply saying a "blog" is an "online column" isn't much of a definition. Yes, it refers to the Wikipedia article Blog, but that is whatever Wikipedia editors decide it might be with having the stricture of writing a Wikipedia policy.
This policy was not at all helpful when I encounter an editor claiming a Washington Post article was not creditable because it was from a "blog".
The article is promoted by the Washington Post on a page called Morning Mix - Stories from all over. It explains itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world."
The Washington Post calls a collection of links to some of its newspaper articles a "blog". It is an unfortunate selection of a name to define its genre.
I am involved with editor @Usename: PackMecEng, who claims that because its source was called a "blog" it was not a creditable article. The editor continues to argue this position using only his opinion as support. He particularly dislikes the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" that I wanted to use in the article's Lead. He has posed various arguments, but in the end, his argument is that the article is from a "blog" and is not creditable.
I disagreed and a long, long argument ensued about the news article's creditable. This discussion can be found at [Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Sentence_%22Donald_Trump_has_been_a_prodigious_spreader_of_misinformation%22_in_Lead_is_an_issue_for_Editor_PackMecEng].
It would be very useful for The policy to define "blog" more clearly.
It seems that such a definition would include the key elements of a blog, such as:
Immediate access to readers
Highly interactive
No set deadline or publishing schedule
No fixed length
Relies on comments
More casual in tone
Continuous conversation
How would one go about improving this policy so that sources that are clearly not a "blog" can more easily be identified?
Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying
I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. You are acting like a bully.
Based only upon you opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body."
Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the WP:MOSLEAD.
You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem?
Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable?
You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it.
Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.)
And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements.
And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here.
It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alertr on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on WP:TRUTH & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." Gee, you left out WP:TENDENTIOUS.
And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth.
About WP:TRUTH, a "rule" is "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability.
About WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally WP:MOSLEAD, WP:TRUTH & WP:RGW. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Wikipedia guidance.
I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made [undo of my edit].
Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary?
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Not saying anything is wrong, just a standard awareness note for WP:ACDS topic areas.
I was really looking forward to all of us enjoying a fresh start on day 1 of the new year, and stopped by to spread a bit of WikiLove and well wishes when I couldn't help but notice the rather dyspeptic screed above, and the wrongful issuance of a DS alert by Osomite. My first thought was that it was a newbie editor, which is incorrect. Osomite is a 13 yr. veteran editor who should have known better than to violate DS alert policy which clearly states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
Osomite, your edit summary speaks volumes relative to your intent: Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying */ . You obviously issued the alert to get even, which is a violation of ArbCom's DS alert procedures. Had you done what is expected of all editors prior to issuing a DS alert, you would have known that PME had already received an alert within the past 12 months, and that she is also well aware of the DS process in the AP2 topic area as evidenced by (1) the alert on her UTP, (2) her issuance of a DS alert on your UTP, and (3) her participation at AE. You not only failed to do what was expected of you relative to issuing a DS alert, you laid the groundwork for further disruption with your WP:PAs against PME above. Encouraging colleagial discourse would have been a much better approach than the behavior you've demonstrated above, and I do hope that you will heed my friendly advice and amend your behavior when approaching editors you consider opposition. I also invite you to read/participate in the open discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV-problems on Wikipedia. WP does have a NPOV problem, particularly in the AP2 topic area that many of us are/have been trying to resolve. A good start for 2021 would be to approach our differences in a more collegial manner. Happy editing in 2021!! Atsme💬📧 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I am curious, what brings you into this issue? (other than being a talk page watcher)
A dyspeptic screed? Isn't that a bit judgemental? By any chance did you read the edit summaries for the edit and undo for the article in question? Did I violate Wikipedia guidance on how long and detailed a talk page comment should be?
It seems you did not like my dyspepsia. Perhaps you missed the point that I am quite offended by PackMecEng's behavior.
My long tedious piece of irritated writing was intended to reply to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PackMecEng 's arrogant comments in the edit summary when making the undo of my edit. I took care to address the several issues involved with PackMecEng's bureaucratic Wikipedian barrage of links that basically accused me of violation. My objective was to clearly explain to PackMecEng, that in the context of the undo activity, PackMecEng's opinion was just an opinion and was not adequate to justify/support the undo. Clearly, PackMecEng was unwilling to acknowledge the point. It seemed that getting these points on the record was appropriate. Or do you object?
Your concern about a "wrongful DS Alert" and that I should have known that PackMecEng had already received an alert seems to assume that I have an in-depth knowledge of "DS Alert" ritual. I had never even heard of a DS Alert before it showed up on my talk page. The Wikipedia rule of only one DS Alert in a 12 month period is obscure to me, and the way in which I would have ascertained that fact is completely obscure to me.
You accuse me of WP:BAITING. I don't think you are correct in this judgment. PackMecEng put a DS Alert on my talk page clearly as an unnecessary offensive (operative word here is offensive) move because PackMecEng disagreed with my edit on the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump involving one sentence: "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Consider this situation, PackMecEng was WP:BAITING. Check the record, I make the edit done in good faith, PackMecEng undoes my edit with no comment. I revert with comment. . .well, go read the record. I commented in the edit summary to attempt to communicate with PackMecEng, but PackMecEng was not particularly interested in anything but PackMecEng's opinion--basically saying you are wrong and I, and only I, am right.
So how do you get an obtuse editor to collaboratively interact? Hence the DS Alert--seemed like a way to get the obtuse editor's attention. But maybe it will not, so what to do, what to do?
About "WP does have an NPOV problem". Yes, it does. However, it is not clear to me why you bring NPOV up in the context of this issue. Is stating the fact that "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" a violation of NPOV? Donald Trump is an invertebrate liar. The entire article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump addresses his serial mendacity. It seems that it is a fact to anyone who is not a kool-aide drinking true believer of the Donald Trump personality cult (sorry if I have offended anyone saying that).
About your "friendly advice" that I should amend my "behavior when approaching editors you consider opposition". Two thoughts here.
One, I do not have a pattern of this "behavior" when approaching editors I consider obtuse. You accuse thinking I do this all of the time--I do not.
Two, you seem to be taking PackMecEng's side on this issue. If you are trying to be an honest broker in an attempt to resolve an issue, where is your fairness?
I find PackMecEng to a very disagreeable editor. I did an edit on the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump involving one sentence: "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation." He undid (did an undo?) it. I put it back with an edit summary explaining my edit. He undid it again. At this point, because he wasn't getting his way and I was resisting his undos (seems there is a lot of arrogance and ego involved), without any comment on my talk page, PackMecEng put a DS Alert on my talk page clearly as an unnecessary offensive (operative word here is offensive) move because PackMecEng disagreed with my edit. So I made the edit on PackMecEng's talk page and for "good measure" applied a DS Alert on his talk page. It seems I violated the DS Alert ritual as PackMecEng already had a DS Alert in the past 12 months (Atsme took umbrage with my violation and lectured me. Atsme seemed to be very concerned with assuring the correct enacting of the DS Alert process protocol. A process that I had never heard of before). So that's my story and I am sticking to it.
Here is BRD in a nutshell by BMK: "Per WP:BRD you made a Bold edit, I disagreed and Rerted to the status quo ante, now, if you feel your edit was justified, you have to start a Discussion on the talk page. You do not revert back."
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
soibangla (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, soibangla described jerk PacMecEng argument method without having seen it
Would you say that raising an issue in Talk, seeing the issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, over and over, garnering no support for your position, then falling silent for a day or two, before reverting long-standing content without consensus, exemplifies good faith editing?
Four Score and Seven Years Ago, well you get the idea
.
And here is a blockquote with "br"s added to break lines appropriately:
BUILD THE NEWS UPON THE ROCK OF TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS CONDUCT IT ALWAYS UPON THE LINES OF FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO GET FROM THE NEWSPAPER BOTH SIDES OF EVERY IMPORTANT QUESTION G. B. DEALEY
And then there is "poem quotes" which add the "br" (line breaks automatically):
In Birmingham, they love the governor (boo boo boo)
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth
...
Sweet home Alabama, oh, sweet home baby
Where the skies are so blue and the governor's true
{{quotebox
|quote='Two B or not Two B'
|author=—'Shakespeare'
|source=First Folio
|align=left
|width=50%
|style=padding:8px;
|fontsize = 105%
|bgcolor = #CCDDFF
}}
which creates the following quote box on the left using 50% of the text column:
'Two B or not Two B'
—'Shakespeare', First Folio
And here is another quote box on the left side of the text column
Information about ping. There are several ways that you can mention an editor that will result in that editor getting a notification:
{{u|editor name}}
or {{reply|editor name}}
or {{replyto|editor name}}
or {{ping|editor name}}
or {{yo|editor name}}.
All methods use the Template:Reply to, so which one you use doesn't really matter. Just use one of those in a comment that you sign and they will be notified of your mention. If you don't include the four tilda sign-in the edit, no notification ping will get sent
If you want to notify an editor but not have their name visible in the comment, you can use {{hiddenping|editor name}}.
You can notify multiple editors in a single template as follows:
{{yo|editor1|editor2}} or {{hiddenping|editor1|editor2}}.
Feel free to ask me questions any time, if there's anything I can help you with. I'd be glad to help you archive old conversations on your Talk page also. Schazjmd(talk) 20:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is an issue I posted to the TeaHouse on September 21 2020 at about 3PM
I have a concern that needs some other editor's perspective.
I make good faith edits and get reverted or edited over with the justification that "The Manual of Style" says so and so.
It seems that some parts of the MoS is good policy and reflects a necessary "rule" to follow.
It seems that some part of the MoS is good guidance.
It seems that some editors strongly believe that every word of the MoS is Wikipedia dogma and must be followed without question.
In the Squaw Valley Ski Resort article, editor Jtbobwaysf was adamant that the led must have only 4 paragraphs rather than 5. The edit was justified with the "excessive paragraphs in the Lead Paragraph". The edit to make the 5 paragraphs into 4 paragraphs just deleted a line feed so it added the "fifth" paragraph to the end of the preceding paragraph without consideration of the importance of the paragraph.
Jamming two paragraphs together is not supportive of information presentation. With the "forbidden fifth paragraph" obscured, a reader could easily miss something that might be the key to continue reading the article.
In this case, the offending paragraph was about Squaw hosting 1960 Olympics, which was without a doubt, is the seminal event in the history of Squaw Valley. Here is the "dif" for that edit:
Dogmatic following of the MoS potentially diminishes the quality of content and content presentation.
Reasons for doing unnecessary edits because "The Manual of Style says "X" so you are wrong" is not necessarily good Wikipedianship.
What is a reasonable approach with regard to some of the more benign "violations" of the MoS?
User:Tenryuu is a helpful WP:FAIRY. I asked at the Teahouse where a list of Wikipedia Admins could be found, Tenryuu me where to find the list. Tenryuu is primarily a copyeditor and is part of the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) project here on Wikipedia. Also Tenryuu says on his User Page, "If you need an article proofread either hit me up on my talk page or send a request over to the Guild. I am also a host over at the Teahouse, so if you have any questions to ask about Wikipedia, experienced editors will answer them for you in a timely manner."
WFS! "Binksternet" is a manic obsessive (it sure seems like that) editor, he did more edits this morning than I did in a month. He edited the plot section for the Movie "The Devil All The Time" to the MoS standard of 700 words which makes the plot ununderstandable. I don't think he saw the movie.
A thing to do --- compare versions of The Devil All The Time for September 21, mine and Bink's to see just how much blot was actually removed.
12:40, September 21, 2020 Cullen328 talk contribs 15,967 bytes -4,632 Let's stick with the Manual of Style. That summary is way too long. Undid revision 979619373 by Osomite (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
curprev 12:34, September 21, 2020 Osomite talk contribs 20,599 bytes +4,632 Undid revision 979602367 by Binksternet (talk)I appreciate that the Manual of Style says a film plot should be 700 words; however, Binksternet's edit culled many plot points and failed to introduce key characters. That revised plot does no service to the film. I appreciate Binksternet's efforts, but I must revert as anyone interested in the actual plot would prefer the plot with more than 700 words. See my comment on talk page. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
curprev 10:35, September 21, 2020 Binksternet talk contribs 15,967 bytes -4,632 →Plot: rolling back plot bloat per WP:FILMPLOT which caps the size of this section at 700 words
I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
Also, please note that WP:FILMPLOT is an editing guideline, and is not mandatory. I have carefully examined the plot section of this article, and there is no excessive verbiage especially considering that the film is considered to be one of the best film musicals ever made. The names of cast members and the titles of songs are very helpful to the reader, and should not be removed. If you disagree, make your argument and get a consensus. Note that the plot section has been extant in this condition for quite a long time, indicating a de facto agreement with its condition. The onus, therefore, is on you to convince other editors that your version is superior.
I appreciate your counsel pointing out the long term view. It is the way of Wiki.
I do see change happening, usually a word or phrase at a time. This evolution process is bearable. What annoyed me was that Bink, who edits movie plots without having seen the movies (he actually makes this claim proudly), is a compulsive editor (he made over 200 edits that day), dropped in, mucked up what was a clear plot (though I agree somewhat too much for the 700 word limit--700 word limit, that sounds like the requirement for a high school book report, HAHA) and produced a hack job. Since he had not seen the movie, had no first-hand knowledge of the story, he had no idea what nonsense he created with his edits to remove "bloat".
It was Bink's arrogance in what he did that annoyed me. He slopply performed just one of very numerous edits (apparently he has a compulsion) and just moved on. When apprehended by my complaint, he just shrugged it off, with what he thought was a Jedi Mind Trick (. . .theses are not the droids you are look for. . .move on. . .). And that annoyed again. He wasn't interested in working to compromise, he did not care. In his most recent reply to my complaint, he did acknowledge that I was angry; I did appreciate that slight nod.
This was another Wiki learning experience for me. There is so much Wikipedia documentation, rules and such that are just hidden. The Manual of Style (which is admirable) is a document that is hard to get a comprehensive understanding of (short of reading and reading and reading). 700 word limits, only 4 paragraphs in the led, on and on, stuff I stumble on often.
So in penance for my sins, I have rewritten the plot into a tight terse narrative of 665 words. It tells the film's story accurately enough so that a reader will see the story sort of (adequate for Wikipedian purposes). I left out anything that could be left out (it was a lot) although sorely tempted to include some explanatory detail.
So now others will edit. I wonder what enhancements or detractions it will bring.
Wikipedia editing, a blessing and a curse. Oh well, may we live in interesting times.
Thank you.
Stay Safe.
PS I will send you 35 cents for the psychiatric counseling (it used to 25 cents in the Peanuts cartoon, but with inflation and such, the session fee has increased)
Osomite, Wikipedia has a policy of not attacking other editors personally. The policy can be seen at WP:NPA.
If you are trying to alert me, make sure to link my username as you have been. If you want to say things about me without alerting me, use the Template:No ping.
Thank you for putting together a shorter plot version. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
To keep references within a section of a talk page and not at the very end of the talk page, use the following "code":
{{Reflist-talk}}
The following text is a Test of Keeping References With the Section -- Not at the page bottom
The Moscow match is played in 1968 yet prior to that a video for Venus by Shocking Blue is on Harmon's TV. This song was not released in Holland until summer 1969 and not a hit in the USA until early 1970.[14] Put here due to WP:Wiki is full of dumbasses.
It's WP:TRIVIA. It's not a docuseries so, it's not important. Also, this happens to a lot of TV series more than you think. —
References
^ ab"Notable". Encarta. Archived from the original on May 28, 2011. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
^ ab"Notable". American Heritage Dictionary. Retrieved January 17, 2015.
Using named references Basically give a ref a name, then reuse it.
More specifically type <ref name="name">text of the citation</ref> to define the ref, Note that when adding the "name", the quotes are not used.
then type <ref name="name"/> to use it.
This is in the source (wikitext) editor. The "ref name" can be almost anything, though it can't be just numbers. A "ref name" must be unique within an article. I like the names of the form Pub-Date, such as NYT-10Jan20 for an article from the NY Times dated 10 January 2020. But you may use any convention you might want.
A citation or reference in an article usually has two parts. In the first part, each section of text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source is marked as such with an inline citation. The inline citation will be a superscript footnote number. The second necessary part of the citation or reference is the list of full references, which provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it.
This page explains how to place and format both parts of the citation. Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (the principle is reviewed at § Variation in citation methods). While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. See: "Help:Referencing for beginners", for a brief introduction on how to put references in Wikipedia articles; and cite templates in Visual Editor, about a graphical way for citation, included in Wikipedia.
A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles.
An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote.
A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found, but without giving full details of the source – these will have been provided in a full bibliographic citation either in an earlier footnote, or in a separate section. For example: Rawls 1971, p. 1. This system is used in some articles.
In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact. The in-text attribution does not give full details of the source – this is done in a footnote in the normal way. See In-text attribution below.
A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.
By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and by giving attribution you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas.
In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article.
Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight.
Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number, as in <ref>Smith 2010, p. 1.</ref>. These are used together with full citations, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate "References" section.
Forms of short citations used include author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style), and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style). As before, the list of footnotes is automatically generated in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section, which immediately precedes the "References" section containing the full citations to the source. Short citations can be written manually, or by using either the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates or the {{r}} referencing template. (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.) The short citations and full citations may be linked so that the reader can click on the short note to find full information about the source.
The Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller 2005, p. 23.</ref> but the Moon is not so big.<ref>Brown 2006, p. 46.</ref> The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>Miller 2005, p. 34.</ref>== Notes =={{reflist}}== References ==
* Brown, Rebecca (2006). "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51 (78).
* Miller, Edward (2005). ''The Sun''. Academic Press.
This is how they look in the article:
The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]
Notes
An example of citations and ref name use in The Patriot from Samuel Johnson Article
Here is an example referencing/citation of a "book" and page number with a "brief" "ref" "citation" from the Samuel Johnson article
On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made a famous statement: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[1] The line was not, as is widely believed, about patriotism in general but rather what Johnson saw as the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the patriot minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general but valued what he considered "true" self-professed patriotism.
This reference "named" was created: [6]
Then to again reference Bate on page 5, the following use of the "ref name" was used: [6]
Both references to Bate p.5 are given the same reference number.
This is the formatting of a Reference for an "==External Link" Reference (should not be used for a "==See also==" section) is as follows--note the space between the link's URL and the "name" of the link". Also not that the wikitext presentation is "created" using the nowiki (AKA no wiki) formatting.
*[https://kriii.com/about-kriii/an-incredible-discovery/ King Richard III Visitor Center - An Incredible Discovery]
[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] - note the space between the URL and the word Wikipedia) creates the following link: Wikipedia
Unnamed link is used only within article body for footnotes
[http://www.wikipedia.org] creates the following link: [9]
link to a Link Icon Name, such as "edit dif" - (for some reason the "scare quotes" are necessary) the reference is created as follows:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squaw_Valley_Ski_Resort&type=revision&diff=976424592&oldid=976232261|"edit dif"] creates the following link: "edit dif"
The following internal reference [[Squaw Valley Ski Resort|SQUAW is the shrine]] creates the following: SQUAW is the shrine
An external link that removes the "scare quotes" around the Link Icon Name is created as follows:
[https://and so on (followed by a "space" and a "link icon name") Link Icon Name]
The following meta:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squaw_Valley_Ski_Resort&type=revision&diff=976424592&oldid=976232261 Link Icon Name]
Referencing a book several times, using different page numbers for the footnotes. This example was provided by Fuhghettaboutit at the Tea House 11 January 2021
Citing the same source multiple times in the same article
Citing a book and citing different pages with a book
This is taken from Glossary of bird terms with a bit of stuff deleted to show only the essential meta language stuff. See WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes for more details stuff.
This is reference using "sfn" format - sometimes this method doesn't show reference when the superscript is touched by cursor.
Something is homologous to the human big toe.[7] The comb is like a comb.[7]
This reference using a ref name and "harvnb" (aka Harvard citation documentation) format.
Something is homologous to the human big toe.[8] The comb is like a comb.[8]
A claw on the middle toe of some birds, such as nightjars, herons, and barn owls,[9] with a serrated edge. After which the numbering is dropped.[10]
THE FOLLOWING WIKI CODE is used to Cite a Book (using the nowiki display method):
{{cite book
|last=Weir
|first=William
|date=2003
|title=Written With Lead: America's most famous and notorious gunfights from the Revolutionary War to today
|url=https://archive.org/details/writtenwithleada0000weir/page/28/mode/2up
|location=New York
|publisher=Cooper Square Press
|chapter=Interview in Weehawken, Mystery in the West
|page=28
|isbn=0815412894
}}
citation to New York Time article used a footnote ref.[5]
Here is a reference to a New York Times article used in an "Also see" section:
"Taking Lessons From a Bloody Masterpiece". New York Times. May 28, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-04. American painting: a bloody masterpiece of pain and healing, made in Philadelphia nearly a century and a half ago. Thomas Eakins (1844-1916) was still a young artist when he completed "The Gross Clinic," an in-action, up-to-the-minute depiction of the vanguard of American medicine that feels particularly relevant right now.
Example of a footnote-type reference to an external website:
I have run across a wonderful essay entitled "Making The Memorial" written by Maya in the fall of 1982 which was "put it away" by Maya until she allowed it to be published in the November 2, 2000 issue of "The New York Review of Books".[6] It seems very likely that this essay was the source used for the blog entry.
Bickart, Barbara/; Fournier, Susan; Nisenholtz, Martin (March 1, 2017). "What Trump Understands About Using Social Media to Drive Attention". hbr.org. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 18, 2021. Trump's tweets are provocative because they strike raw nerves, speaking boldly to themes that people struggle to work through: race, nationalism versus globalism, financial insecurity, status inequity, sexism, and more.
Basler, Roy P. (1972). "Did President Lincoln Give the Smallpox to William H. Johnson?". Huntington Library Quarterly. 35 (3): 279–284. doi:10.2307/3816663. JSTOR3816663. PMID11635173.
Citing a journal in JSTOR
Murphy, Lawrence R. (June 1969). "Stanley R. McCormick: The Youngest Reaper". California Historical Society Quarterly. 38 (2): 113-123 (11 pages). doi:10.2307/25154348. JSTOR25154348.
Kepler-452b is a planet that closely resembles earth
Kepler-452b is about the size of 3 Earths (aka, the third rock from the sun known as Sol) or 1.63 times Earth's Radius. Kepler-452b, being almost three times the size of Earth means, that there is a lot more breathable air than on Earth.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now for the instructions for how to insert pictures into Wikipedia articles using wikitext.
There's a guide at Help:Pictures that shows you how to upload an image,
Suppose you wanted to add File:Example.jpg to an article. You would find the place where you want the image to appear. Then add
[[File:Example.jpg|Thumb|left|A caption for the example image]]
This will render as:
A caption for the example image
More details about inserting a picture on a Wikipedia page:
Detailed instructions can be found at Help:Pictures.
Essentially if you insert a link to a file then it will display as an image by default. For instance:
[[File:Duck-on-ground.jpg|thumb|right]]
will display the file File:Duck-on-ground.jpg as a thumbnail, floated to the right, which is how most images are displayed on mainspace wikipedia articles.
ORES - ORES (/ɔɹz/) is a web service and API that provides machine learning as a service for Wikimedia projects maintained by the Scoring Platform team
Label and tooltip: consensus for Learn to edit as the text and Learn how to edit wikipedia as the tooltip
Positioning: consensus for below Help
Current events tooltip: consensus for Articles related to current events
Community portal tooltip: weak consensus The hub for editors
Miscellaneous proposals: no consensus
There was additional discussion below that also did not resolve into any additional consensuses. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update was recently closed by Barkeep49 and DannyS712, and most of the results have been implemented. A huge thank-you to everyone who participated! Per the close, several items require follow-up due to low participation or lack of consensus. I am opening this discussion as a space for those discussions to take place. It is being transcluded to the WP:SIDEBAR20 page and will be moved there when it concludes.
Help:Introduction narrowly has the most support, followed by WP:The Wikipedia Adventure and WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, with a few editors opining that all of the present options are bad. Specific arguments in favor of H:Introduction were that it's easy to use, looks good, and is supported by WMF. Arguments against H:Introduction were that it's too long and that it's suppported by the WMF. Supporters of The Wikipedia Adventure argued that it's more engaging and gets people actually editing quicker (one argument that it's particularly well-suited for children seems ill-considered, as there's no reason to assume that this link will primarily be used by children). Editors opposed to The Wikipedia Adventure argue that its gamified format may be offputting to some prospective editors. Supporters of WP:Contributing to Wikipedia felt that it was a better, one-page version of the information that H:Introduction tries to communicate. Editors opposed to present options suggested that we can do better, and that we should prioritize introductions that more briefly explain what Wikipedia is.
In the absence of a status quo to fall back on, the outcome of this discussion is to adopt the frontrunner, although editors can continue to workshop better solutions. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RfC found consensus to add an introductory page for new editors, but asked for further discussion on the details.
Support Help:Introduction. To put it simply, this is our best introduction. It's where the deprecated Wikipedia:Introduction now redirects and was made the primary link in the standard welcome template. It covers all the basics without going into unnecessary detail. It is mobile-friendly and accessibility-compliant. It follows the usability best practice of splitting information into easily digestible bite-sized chunks, rather than a single overwhelming page (although it has an option to be viewed as such if one wants). It's the preferred choice of the WMF Growth Team's product manager. It's being actively maintained and is overall ready for inclusion on the sidebar.
The WMF Growth Team is literally the team in charge of new user retention. They're not trying to force anything on us (I was the one who sought out their opinion), but I trust that they know what they're talking about when they say We think that help pages are better when they have a fewer number of links and options -- too many can be overwhelming. In that vein, I think that WP:Contributing to Wikipedia would likely overwhelm, and Help:Introduction would be better. As for the traffic stats, most people come to the page looking for help doing a specific thing and then click on the page relevant to that. Since there are 13 pages linked, of course none individually will be getting as much traffic as the portal. There's also the general 1% rule of the internet to consider. Even the custom-designed newcomer tasks feature only results in 9% of newcomers coming back after 3 days (compared to a baseline 4-5%), so keeping them around is a huge challenge. The stats for the Wikipedia Adventure are similar, and while we don't know how many people who visit WP:Contributing to Wikipedia actually read to the bottom of the page, my guess is that it's shockingly low.
Yup same team that brought us VE.--Moxy🍁 15:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The team was formed in 2018, so no.
I guess I should have been more specific..old timers will understand--Moxy🍁 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Help:Introduction. Although I don't disagree it is quite voluminous, it covers all the necessities in a fairly well-structured manner and I used it myself for getting started. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure as I did in the previous discussion. I'm aware of accessibility criticisms and I'm even aware of data that suggests TWA doesn't improve editor retention (though I can't find the place where I read that a few years ago). However, the purpose of the link should be to get people thinking about becoming an editor—it's before the retention period, the part where we need to show them something just interesting enough to get them to make an account. I don't want another dry link with 400 subpages, none of which actually give me something to start editing or give me enough information to have my first edit not be immediately reverted. Barring TWA, I don't believe we have a page suitable for purpose but I would supportHelp:Introduction as a second and support any other page as better than nothing. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia Its a one page, one stop wonder. Already well trafficked, lots of videos (which new users are always asking for), and long enough to be actually useful. I would also support Help:Introduction to Wikipedia, but would strongly oppose just Help:Introduction, as it is full of ...meaningless links for newbies, and already confuses folks with the VE/source distinction, and there are plenty more useful pages. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
I informed all that were in prior discussions even the ones that like your page. If I missed any fell free to inform..--Moxy🍁 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. I find this to be the most beginner friendly page on Wikipedia because it goes in depth into what contributing is like. The majority of editors who help out the newcomers recommend that particular tutorial and I agree with them. Interstellarity (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia Adventure as I think Bilorv makes the best case. As the most prominent link for readers, we want to convert them to editors as fast as possible. For all the problems of TWA, it's best feature is that it gets readers editing quickly without having to read an entire manual. We can fix the other problems as we go along, and with added urgency given its prominent placement. Support the others as better than nothing. — Wug·a·po·des 19:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia:TWA. It's where I'd send new editors, without a doubt; it's clear, concise, to-the-point, and engaging as a tutorial of how the site works technically as well as in policy, working with both in a hands-on environment. This approach is well-tested on other sites - indeed, it's what the onboarding experience looks like on many popular social media platforms - and it works in keeping people engaged throughout, making people less likely to skip the "boring policy bits" because they're actively doing something. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried TWA recently and had high hopes for it, since the graphics are definitely nice and the interactivity is a plus. But I came away from it concluding that there are just too many problems, and those problems are too hard to address given how rigidly it's built. To list them out:
The JavaScript that keeps track of where you are is very buggy; several times it lost my place and I had to go back to the start of the module. Every time that happens, it's a potential exit point for someone to decide to give up.
It displays terribly on mobile, which loses us half of all potential editors right off the bat (and probably more in developing areas).
It's not accessibility-compliant, which introduces further issues of discrimination.
It's longer than Help:Introduction without really covering anything important that H:I doesn't, and it doesn't touch on all the most important things right off the bat the way H:I does. I don't think most newer editors will have that much patience.
There's no instruction on VisualEditor, and while that may not be what we all use, for newer editors it's a very important transition aid.
The juvenile tone seems to be okay with some people but very off-putting to others. We can be friendly without being juvenile, and I think H:I strikes a better balance.
Putting all those together, they add up to a dealbreaker for generalized use, and they would require a ton of work to solve. By comparison, expanding the sandbox elements for H:I into something more fully interactive would not be hard (I might work on it later today).
As I said in my original comment, I'm aware of its problems. These are all things that can (and should) be fixed. Despite that, the most important function of this link is getting readers to make an edit, not teaching them rules. For its problems, TWA's really good at that. — Wug·a·po·des 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree on that point. I think the very best thing is to present newcomers with easy edits to make on Wikipedia itself, since it's infinitely more satisfying to make a live edit than one to a sandbox. That's what the Newcomer Tasks feature the WMF is developing will hopefully do extremely well, and we'll want to integrate it once it goes live. For some things, though, a quiz/sandbox environment is best. I've opened up a discussion at H:I and we'll work on adding more of those features; help is welcome from anyone who wants to contribute.
I think the points you raise here are definitely important ones. It ought to be possible for an interface admin to add code to MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js that would automatically redirect mobile users from TWA to H:I, and for accessibility, it might be a good idea to add markup to the top of the page offering H:I as a more accessible alternative. One other option might be to have a choice - something like the below:Welcome to Wikipedia! Would you like to read a short, accessible introduction to editing Wikipedia, or learn interactively how to edit Wikipedia by taking a tour of the site?
That could then redirect mobile users automatically to H:I as described above. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Closer's note: I had to remove a template from the above comment because it was interfering with archive templates. The code of the original comment was {{Quote frame|{{fake heading|sub=1|Welcome to Wikipedia!}}Would you like to '''read a short, accessible introduction to editing Wikipedia''', or '''learn interactively how to edit Wikipedia by taking a tour of the site'''?}} signed, Rosguilltalk 22:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Help:Introduction - TWA's format makes it difficult for a new editor to jump to exactly the information they need. Plus, the whole concept of an interactive "adventure" would be offputing and distracting for many newcomers. While Help:Introduction is far from perfect, it is clearly the better option, and it's a lot easier to iterate on and improve. - AxisixaTC 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The proposals are dreadful—design-by-committee with every second word linked and pointless decorations. • Help:Introduction might be ok if each button led to a single page of information. However, few people want to dive into a labyrinth where you never know if you've missed vital points, and later you can never find anything you vaguely recall seeing. • WP:TWA would be suitable for, umm, certain levels of potential editors but a sidebar link should be for useful information you might want to see more than once. • Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is the best but has too much waffle. There should be a short page with core facts and many fewer links (something that can be searched after a first read), with links to the proposals here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
H:E is shorter then WP:CTW and just about additions ...not sure why so many think new editors will read over 50plus pages to learn anything considering the data we have about them ...odd very odd to me.-Moxy🍁 12:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Only support something that makes it clear in the first few sentences that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based upon what reliable sources say about a subject and that editors' opinions and knowledge/expertise are not to be used. This could be followed by something short about reliable sources, being a mainstream encyclopedia and about original research. Doug Wellertalk 11:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Quickstart – not sure about anybody else, but I just try out my new phone, program, tv remote, without reading the manual, or only after briefly scanning it. Maybe later, after I can't turn the phone off, or find Netflix, will I go to the manual (and then, slightly annoyed that the user interface is so poorly designed, that it isn't self-evident). I support an introduction that can fit on 3/4 of a laptop page and takes about a minute to scan. As a new Wikipedia editor, I just want to edit something, anything, to see how it works, and then learn by doing; not spend time reading endless explanations, and trying to remember what I read forty pages ago, and whether that was more important. I'll get to reading all that later, after I've got some experience. Remember learning to ride a bike? The manual is for explaining how to adjust your seat height, attach a lamp, or change a tire; it's not about teaching you how to ride on two wheels. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia Adventure great for younger editors. — 104.249.229.201 (talk) has made no other edits. The preceding unsigned comment from a Canadian IP address was added at 05:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
Update: Following up for those here who haven't clicked through to the Help:Introduction discussion, we've added a slew of interactive components, including custom sandboxes, quizzes, and invitations to make easy live edits to articles through tools like Citation Hunt. We're planning on adding a few more quizzes, and as mentioned above the interactivity will get a further boost once the new Growth Team features are implemented, but I hope the present efforts will be enough to satisfy the concerns of some of those who opted for TWA above and perhaps resolve the deadlock we seem to currently be at.
Support Help:Introduction, other pages have too many paragraphs, poor structure, and are too daunting. It keeps annoying me how we have dozens of introduction/"read this" pages, which are all so long, and then we try to create simplified versions of these but they're also so long, but also not comprehensive enough so you end up needing to read the even longer one anyway. Help:Introduction pretty much gets the point across and looks less scary. And as a sidenote, would like to say thanks to Sdkb's for their broad and important work to make Wikipedia easier to access for new editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of this discussion was broad support for Learn to edit as the text and Learn how to edit wikipedia as the tooltip signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed label options: "Tutorial" and "Editing tutorial". Previously discussed tooltip option: "Learn how to edit Wikipedia".
Support Tutorial, with "Learn how to edit Wikipedia" as tooltip. The renaming of the section where this will presumably be located to "contributing" makes it clear that this is an editing tutorial, not a tutorial on how to read Wikipedia, so we should go with the shorter label for conciseness. No one has raised any concerns about or suggested any alternatives for the previously discussed tooltip.
Support Tutorial, with "Learn how to edit Wikipedia" as tooltip per Sdkb's reasoning. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
In the new condensed sidebar there's less chance of the link getting lost, but I'd still prefer something very in-your-face as a label. I like an idea alluded to by here: "Start editing". Or "Learn to edit". (As a tooltip, "Learn how to edit Wikipedia" or similar would be fine.) As a last resort, I'd prefer "Editing tutorial" to "Tutorial". (Who reads the section title? People navigate much more non-linearly than that. I want to know what a link is the instant I look at it, no contextual clues needed.) — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I like "Learn to edit" a lot — it gives a nice call to action. "Start editing" would imply that you're making actual edits during the tutorial, which isn't the case apart from the sandboxes.
Support - first preference: "Learn to edit", then "Tutorial". MER-C 16:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Learn to edit for label since it's short and actionable; no strong opinions on the tool tip. — Wug·a·po·des 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Learn to edit per Wugapodes seems best to me. Tutorial isn't quite as clear - tutorial of what? Especially for an educational site, for people for whom English is not their native language, that could potentially lead to confusion. "Learn to edit" is clear in intent and action. For the tooltip, "Learn how to edit Wikipedia" seems good. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support "Learn to edit" with "Learn how to edit Wikipedia" as the tooltip. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Learn to edit. Simple and straightforward --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for placement below "help" with 5 suppporting and 1 editor for above help. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed option: Contribute section, just below Help.
Support previously discussed option. This seems like the logical placement, and no one has raised any concerns about it or suggested any alternative.
Support placement below Help as the logical spot. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Above help, as the first thing under "Contribute" should be something that leads me somewhere where I will learn to contribute. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Immediately below help, please. MER-C 16:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Below help. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Articles related to current events" received unanimous approval from four editors this time around signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed options: "Find background information on current events" (status quo, 0 !votes), "Articles related to current events" (2 !votes), and "Articles on current events" (1 !vote).
Support "Articles related to current events", since "on" would imply that we're writing news articles, which we're not, especially in cases like recent deaths.
Support "Articles related to current events", per Sdkb and for clarity with WP:NOTNEWS. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support "Articles related to current events" as above. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Per above — Wug·a·po·des 19:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment as previous closer: As I had indicated to Sdkb when discussing the close previously their reducing discussion to a strict vote (as indicated in the summary introduction to this section) is not consistent with policy or practice. I would encourage anyone considering a close of this section to read the previous discussion - it's short so won't take long - rather than merely accepting the !vote summary produced here as a vote summary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Articles related to current events. This is a very clear description of what the page contains. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The hub for editors" has weak support, despite editors having mixed feelings about that tooltip in the prior discussion. No alternatives have been suggested. Given that this has already been raised for discussion twice, I think that the current weak consensus will serve for the time being, pending someone objecting strongly. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed options: "About the project, what you can do, where to find things" (status quo, 0 !votes) and "The hub for editors" (2 !votes)
Support "The hub for editors". This concisely sums up the portal's role.
Weak support for "The hub for editors", since I have no viable alternative. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment as previous closer: As I had indicated to Sdkb when discussing the close previously their reducing discussion to a strict vote (as indicated in the summary introduction to this section) is not consistent with policy or practice. I would encourage anyone considering a close of this section to read the previous discussion - it's short so won't take long - rather than merely accepting the !vote summary produced here as a vote summary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus for proposals made in this section. Editors were roughly evenly divided on the suggested proposals
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There were several other proposed tooltip changes that got very little discussion and closed as no consensus. I don't want to overwhelm this discussion by creating a section to follow up on each of them, but I'll just throw them out here, and if they turn out to be uncontroversial, perhaps we can find consensus to implement them. They are:
For Special pages, change from "A list of all special pages" to "List of automatically generated pages for specialist purposes"
For Page information, change from "More information about this page" to "Technical information about this page"
For View user groups, change from nothing to "view the permissions of this user" (for non-admins) and "manage the permissions of this user" (for admins)
How do those sound?
The suggested extra wording for special pages and page information does not help, the original wording is good. For user groups, I don't see why different text for admin/non-admin users is needed, just "Permissions of this user" would be fine (that's all that is needed for a hint about what groups do). Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Johnuniq regarding special pages. Although the current tooltip is pretty useless, the proposal seems far too long. I would instead propose "List of pages for specialised purposes" to cut out some unnecessary elaboration and to clarify that special pages are for particular uses, not particular users. I support the proposed changes for page information and user groups, they seem to clarify their respective purposes quite well. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like "List of system pages" for "Special pages", because that's effectively what it is. Support the other suggestions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"List of system pages" sounds good to me.
Support all three: "A list of automatically generated pages for specialist purposes" ,"technical information about this page", and "view the permissions of this user." All three proposals make it more clear and are more accurate about what the targets do. In the past I have been confused by the titles and I think these tooltips would have helped. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of the discussion on the sidebar has been about the sidebar in desktop view. I think we should also discuss how we can improve the sidebar in mobile view. Do you have any opinions on how we can do that? Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we could certainly have a discussion analogous to WP:SIDEBAR20 for mobile. My sense is that the WMF has been more heavily involved with that than they have been with the desktop view, so it might be good to start at the idea lab and research the background. There are also other discrepancies such as the fact that mobile makes it very easy to see a user's edit count whereas desktop mostly hides it; we could talk more about those at WP:Usability.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About bibles involved in American History, there is a Washington Bible page, there is a Jefferson Bible page, and there is a Lincoln Bible page. So, for fair and balanced coverage, there should be a Trump Bible page. People will want to know the details concerning its history and its use during President Trump's term of office. Osomite (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
JJMC89 your rule indicates, "Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started" won't work in this situation, because you or your bot minion deleted the Trump Bible page.
I made the following post on the talk page for "Trump Bible" proposing a new page
Here is a Wikipedia Page Proposal - A Trump Bible Page Needs To Be Created
About bibles involved in American History, there is a Washington Bible page, there is a Jefferson Bible page, and there is a Lincoln Bible page. So, for fair and balanced coverage, there should be a Trump Bible page. People will want to know the details concerning its history and its use during President Trump's term of office. Osomite (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You deleted my entry without any comment to me apparently only because it fit the Wikipedia criteria of CSD G8. Why so brusk? What was the situation that it had be done so speedily without any consultation? Did you do any diligence prior to your deletion? Did you delete it because you did not like the subject matter? Was it done by JJMC89 bot in blind obedience to its ones and zeros logic?
I put info on the talk page that I intended to use subsequently to create the Trump Bible page. And now it is gone.
Oops—Trump Brought the Wrong Bible to His Church Stunt
As Hendrickson notes, the Bible that Trump held over his head was a Revised Standard Version (RSV). Every English-language Bible is obviously a translation from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, but there are vast differences among the versions. Not only is the RSV outdated (the New Revised Standard Version, NRSV, was published in 1989 to replace it), but it’s not a Bible that evangelical Christians consider authoritative.
“It would be pretty much rejected by the vast majority of evangelicals. It would be seen as a deficient translation of the Bible. A distinctly liberal one,” said Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical clergyman, the president of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, and the author of Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope, and Love. “And for many, especially in the very conservative or fundamentalist wing, they might see it as not a version of the Bible at all.”
JEissfeldt is on the WMF Board (paid position) and his role is to help the WMF to organize and improve strategic and programmatic planning and operations.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
This webapp provides a collection of tools and services that make the maintenance and use of InternetArchiveBot more enjoyable. To begin simply login, with your Wikipedia account, and pick a tool you would like to use from the navigation bar.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
^
Posey, Sam (August 6, 2015). "The Thrill and Pride of Driving a Ferrari at the Limit at Le Mans". www.roadandtrack.com. Road & Track. Retrieved October 5, 2020. For a few minutes on a beautiful afternoon in France, Sam Posey "felt the exhilaration of total control in a place where a mistake would be fatal.
^Basler, Roy P. (1972). "Did President Lincoln Give the Smallpox to William H. Johnson?". Huntington Library Quarterly. 35 (3): 279–284. doi:10.2307/3816663. JSTOR3816663. PMID11635173.
Caption1
