User:Dynamic IP from Chicago/sandbox

Caption

• Getting started
• Wikipedia tutorial
• The Missing Manual
• "Edit warring"
• To report edit warring
• Android - how to pipe something
• Useful pages - linking to a section
• Hello, World. - references and footnotes
• Wikipedia quick introductions (needs a colon at the beginning)

Useful pages

• Manual of Style
• Cheatsheet
• Annotated article
• How to edit a page
• Citing sources
• References and page numbers
• Explanatory notes
• Citation templates
• Tutorial video built in tools
• BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Revert only when necessary
• Ownership of articles
• Assume good faith
• Don't bite the newbies
• Be bold
• Wikilawyering

"In other words, a "wikilawyer" is an image drawn from a lawyer, and the term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution."

Essays

Watch out for the boomerang

Notes

• The forum may refer to me as he and I shall refer to the editor as she because she includes a female name as part of her username.
• WP:ROWN countenances reverting an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration.
• In fact the editor did subsequently edit addressing the issues raised after careful consideration, but only after reporting my "edit-warring"
• The editor was plainly not assuming good faith.
• WP:NEWBIES countenances editors to be welcoming to new editors and to encourage them to be be bold.

"We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"."

It's plain the editor made not the slightest effort to comply with the spirit of any of that.

• The editor clearly sees herself as steward at the page.But her stewardship should be disinterested in respect of the content and she should not be using her evident expertise in Wikipedia to manipulate the content to her personal satisfaction.

Flow of posts

1. 03:12 16 September: The editor posts at RSN querying the reliability of my source.
2. 01:05 18 September: No response from RSN so the editor blanks her request.

References: