If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
User:Mendaliv/TOV letter- a sample form letter that may be used when e-mailing authority figures to report threats of violence, under development. Comments and input welcome!Update: Rendered superfluous by the procedure laid out in WP:EMERGENCY, and the implementation of the Foundation emergency contact: emergencywikimedia.org
I have personally gone through Table 13 of The Bluebook and created redirects for as many of the arcane-seeming abbreviations used to refer to legal publications as there were articles for those publications.
Chikan Otoko- a 2ch story similar to Densha Otoko, wherein a VIP poster is mistaken for a stalker; later made into a manga, book, film, and possibly other media. See ja:痴漢男.
Good Offices (or possibly Good offices?) — a means of international dispute resolution similar to conciliation. (also note that the conciliation article only discusses the domestic ADR practice, not the IDR practice)
This is for all of your hard work reverting vandalism with the help of huggle! Keep it up!!! ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You had two recent changes entries in a row. Both were reverting vandalism! That was fast! Keep it up, keep it up! Call me Bubba (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending Wikipedia from someone who wished to use the site for advertising ;-) Patton123 16:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For telling me to fix my signature! ChromaNebula(talk) 00:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
For your great work expanding the stub article on the Corfu Channel case and making it very interesting and informative. Cheers. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 07:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Long overdue thanks for being the most prolific regular contributor to the now almost defunct WP:EAR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
... that overseas revenues rose tenfold during the decade that Richard Rompala helped to lead the paint and coatings manufacturer Valspar? (15 November 2008, old archive, archive)
Use {{tq}} not {{xt}}: The latter is for examples. The former is for quotations. While there is no visible difference, there are apparently accessibility considerations.
See Help:Link#External links: Don't put http: or https: before a hard link. Instead just leave // followed by the rest of the URL. People who use HTTPS will see a HTTPS link (and not be annoyed by an unsecured connection), while people who use HTTP will see a HTTP link (and neither tax server resources needlessly nor be confused by the padlock next to the link).
Wikipedia:What adminship is not - Especially, Adminship is not a trophy, Adminship is neither compulsory nor necessary to aid Wikipedia, Adminship is not a game
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - Namely, Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.
One's candidacy for adminship is likely to be the only time when the community will evaluate said candidate's ability to use the tools, and whether he or she has the responsibility to do so properly. As such, I personally consider it grounds for doubting a candidate's seriousness about adminship when his or her self-nomination statement and responses to standard questions are terse, non-responsive, or poorly crafted. Would you apply for a job without polishing your resume and cover letter until it gleamed? Then why should you not do the same when running for adminship?
WP:NOHARM/WP:NOGOOD; "the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable"
WP:ITSFUNNY; "Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor can they be kept because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous"
WP:NOTCLEANUP; "an article which may currently be poorly written[...] can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws"
WP:GHITS; "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number" (see WP:SET)
WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE; "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources"
WP:IKNOWIT/WP:IDONTKNOWIT; "Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources", "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions"
WP:NOTINHERITED; "notability of a parent entity or topic does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities"
wikimedia.org
