Drrichardpaul

Welcome

Hello, Drrichardpaul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

September 2024

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source as you did here [1]. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t need to cite sources. The provided information was not relevant, or missing context. When citations are needed, I will always provide them. However, this isn’t one of those cases. Eliminating non relevant information is part of the overall editorial rights. Drrichardpaul (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-07-09%20Lawfare%20-%20How%20the%20Manhattan%20District%20Attorneys%20Office%20and%20a%20New%20York%20State%20Judge%20Violated%20the%20Constitutional%20and%20Lega.pdf Drrichardpaul (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I didn't revert your removal of irrelevant information [2]; that edit still stands. I reverted your edit just before that one [3], which added new information that did not appear in the existing source, and for which you did not provide a source. Also, you marked both your edits as "minor", but they would not be considered minor here. Wikipedia has a special "house rule" as to what is considered minor. You can find the guidance at Help:Minor edit. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I gave the citation. I am sorry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence_against_men&oldid=1076150287 Drrichardpaul (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don’t know why it put the edit on minor. I used my phone. It’s not supposed to let me make minor changes. Drrichardpaul (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)