User talk:Majorly

Welcome to the Alex9891 talk page, where you can leave me a message.

• Click here to add a new section to this page, or here to use an existing section.
• Please sign with four tildes (~~~~) and use correct Wiki formatting.
• If I'm online, I'll usually reply straightway, and you can also e-mail me.

Also, please do not revert any vandalism on this page - I will deal with it. Thank you. --Alex

My welcome message

Welcome!

Hello, Majorly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kirsten Cassidy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kirsten Cassidy.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of preview button

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. — FireFox 20:31, 30 June '06

Wow

A one-minute revert to vandalism on Tourette syndrome -- Thanks !!! Sandy 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable revert

Excuse me, but could you tell me why you reverted my edits? Your reason was "nothing notable was added". I see you are new to this site, and I'm sure you are well aware of the wiki nature of this site (anyone can edit, etc.), and would like to make you aware of the problematic nature of this. Please, read Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and see if you can tell me what was wrong with what you did - Jack (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

These are the reasons:

"This over-reaction to anything and everything led to her becoming popular outside the house, but not particually within it." I believed this is opinionated, and anyway she can't have been that popular, as she was evicted.

"outside the house's front door" I didn't think this was really notable, and also she was inside the front door.

"(heavily pregnant) was forced to climb a flight of stairs in order to collect the hyserical girl." Davina may have been heavily pregnant, but I didn't think it was necessary to say it. Also saying "hysterical girl" is opinionated. I also think saying "forced to climb a flight of stairs" makes Nikki sound worse than she is, and Davina as some sort of hero, which she is not.

I'm sorry, I can't find anything wrong with what I did. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, your first point is fine, it is a bit POV, but it is extremely difficult to maintain an air of neutrality when talking about a TV show that is based on opinion. Inside the front door? Excuse me for not rushing to review my extensive archives of everything I watch on TV, just edit it, that really didn't justify a revert. Davina, by the way, makes the series, saving the trainwrecks that are the contestants. Nikki was enjoyable to watch, but only because of her selfish, spoilt brat ways. The kind of morbid curiosity that forces you to turn your head as you drive by a car crash. So I think, yes my edits were slightly POV, edit away, please, but do not revert without a very good reason. Reversions are reserved for people writing "nikki likes it up the bum", otherwise known as vandalism. Always remember, obey the three revert rule and to assume good faith - Jack (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. I can see now that I shouldn't have reverted it all in one go, but in the future I'll know not to. Once again, thanks for pointing this out to me. --Alex9891 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: How???

Is there any specific reason you need to know? :) — FireFox 19:25, 18 July '06

No just wondering where it could possibly say it --Alex9891 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to know though! --Alex9891 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself get confused as to how my "source" knows who voted for who, but they're reliable, so I'm happy. — FireFox 19:35, 18 July '06

Fawlty Towers WikiProject

Thanks for joining the Fawlty Towers WikiProject. I've seen you are contributing far greater than any other member has already! See you around Foxearth 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Colleen Mccabe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cheadle, Greater Manchester Margot Bryant Standard solution William Roache Stockport railway station Boron group Bradley Walsh BMW M20 Radek Bonk Young Enterprise Elizabeth Dawn Toby Sawyer ITV2 ITV3 BMW M51 Cheadle Hulme railway station Amanda Barrie WCWM Keith Duffy

Cleanup BMW M70 Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth House System at the California Institute of Technology Merge Big Brother 6 nominations table Comprehensive System Descriptive linguistics Add Sources Stromboli Ken Morley Thad Luckinbill Wikify Daryl Kwan Jousting Multi-Function Center Expand List of Little Penguin colonies Iraqi Intelligence Service Media effects theory

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Positioning on housemates article

Please don't keep reverting my edits, the positioning that I edited in was more aestetically pleasing and practical. If you want to make a thing out of it, do it on that article's talk page. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bramall Hall

Thanks for your work on the History, can you please reference the information you included. Olive Oil 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Dates

I had the same problem a few months back when I was new. Not that you're new, but yeah.. Just gunna paste what somebody told me:

Hi there

I noticed you made some edits on Big Brother (UK series 7) changing the formatting of dates. The reason that dates are wikilinked is so that they can be displayed according to each reader's preferences (as set via "my preferences" at the top of each page). So you can choose to always see, for example, 3 March 2005, regardless of whether it is wikilinked as 3 March 2005 or March 3, 2005. You should therefore resist the temptation to change dates to a preferred foramt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikay (talk • contribs)

Heh, yeah.. at first I was like "HEY! WHY ARE YOU REVERTING ME!??!?!", So I can just imagine how you'd feel. But yeah, it's pretty helpful. :) I dunno why I even reverted, because my settings make the date look like the way they were in the first place. Mikay 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Majorly, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jennie's surname

Why have you changed it? It's quoted as Corner here:[1], here: [2], here: [3], here: [4], here: [5], here: [6] and a google sponsored link here: [7]. Need I go on? Her surname's Corner! godgoddingham ³³³ 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Her surname should remain as Corner. Using the Google check, 899,000 results are returned for "Jennie Corner" [8] as opposed to 337,000 for "Jennie Conner" [9]. The BBC quotes it as "Corner" [10] and they're the BBC! Please leave it as Corner until she has come out of the house and there will be a chance to know what her surname is. godgoddingham ³³³ 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your most recent message: "Yes, definitely Corner! And would you believe it, her middle name's Marion!", Sorry? Are you now saying you were wrong or was that a typo?? godgoddingham ³³³ 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex... You are a bad man... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.61.132 (talk • contribs)

Big Brother nominations table (UK series 7)

Please see this comment. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:53, 14 August 2006}

"No nominations" is normal for the final week, we don't need to say it again because it isn't a twist. — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:27, 14 August 2006}

Not everyone will know this --Alex^{talk here} 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there aren't nominations in the final week. Nominations for what, exactly? — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:30, 14 August 2006}

Perhaps a mid-week eviction? You never know... --Alex^{talk here} 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's been confirmed no more evictions until Friday, the final night. If there was a mid-week eviction, the table would say so, but there isn't (which is normal). There has never been nominations in the final week of Big Brother UK. — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:32, 14 August 2006}

Holiday

this is America, we have to be politically correct. Christmas is known as Holiday here and it should be called that. 142.176.56.151 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the birth of "jesus" in America is absolutely banned, and should not be available to the American public. We must change the "nativity" and "jesus" references to Menorah and Santa to be PC. We can not offend non christians by using the term christmas or jesus. We must reference only Jewish traditions in "A Charlie Brown holiday". 142.176.56.151 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sir, you must understand. Saying those "christian" words is damaging to the eyes of non-"christians". We have Holiday Trees over here and anyone who calls them "christmas" trees is kicked out. We also ban Easter, see here and here. We must eradicate "christmas" now! 142.176.56.151 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, the humanity!Can we at least pretend that they are Jewish traditions so Jews and atheists wont be offended!? It's very scary to see an American website like Wikipedia using the word "christmas" and "christian"! 142.176.56.151 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have a very hard time believing you're atheist when you defend "christians" like this. Anyway, the American holiday season consists of Thanksgiving Day in November, Holiday on 25 December, Hanukkah on 16 December, and New Year's Day on 1 January, and we should not have to see the term "christmas" (which has the word "chr**t" in it) in the public websites. 142.176.56.151 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Work

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar I have noticed your name appearing very often while RC patrolling since you have been granted with VP. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by all. :-) --Porqin 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Odin says ...

"El Niño shall rise again!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.42.15 (talk • contribs)

November 28

Hi, I think you warned the user who added a non-notable birth to November 28, but I reverted his/her edit. Generally, you're not supposed to warn a user unless you're the one who reverts his/her edit(s). It can create confusion. Sorry about this! Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) VP slows my computer to a crawl, so I don't know anything about its glitches - good old JS for me! :) Srose (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My explanation

I can explain my edits. For the one that changed Padme Patil and Ernie McMallen, Padma doesn't have dark hair and a reliable fan site (therogue.net) had Mandy Brocklehurst with blond hair, so I thought that was her and with Ernie McMallen, he doesn't have brown skin in the film adaptation. With the USA, I have never heard of Gianni or Shianni or any other name like that, and I LIVE IN THE USA. I thought it was Jonny and Federle doesn't sound like Fidelei, What I hear is Fay-del-ay. And I never heard of Mots ever.I heard of Morris though. And the thing with England is, Foster isn't pronounced fos-tar, But Fostarr is. And Fliknee, Flitney I don't hear. Fliknee, I do. And why I edited the UK to England is that ENGLAND is what the team is called, not the UNITED KINGDOM. Hope that covers that I didn't intentionally vandalise. Sincerely, Wikiuser98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser98 (talk • contribs)

88.110.76.239

User 88.110.76.239 is actively hating/vandalising Tupac pages (the albums). — Preceding unsigned comment added by License2Kill (talk • contribs)

Verifiability

Hey Alex. I was just popping by to make sure you were aware of WP:VER, and WP:CITE; as in your articles and edits, you never seem to have any references, rendering the articles themselves pretty useless. I'm just about to start cleaning up Cheadle Hulme High School, and I'm afraid quite a lot of data must be removed because it will be difficult to find citations for most of the data. Should you know of any links or books of such, could you send them to my talk page so we can start to look at improving the article.

Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 01:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, you do really need to have references, its not optional, and they are required.

"WP:V" redirects here. For discussing particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The four types are:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Responsibility for providing citations

"WP:PROVEIT" redirects here. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:ProveIt.

"WP:CHALLENGE" redirects here. For challenging closes, see Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closing.

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.

Reliable sources

"WP:SOURCE" redirects here. For how to reference sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. For the wikitext tag previously labeled <source>, see Help:Wikitext § syntaxhighlight.

What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
• Reputable newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria (see details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test).

Best sources

The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text 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. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Sources that are usually not reliable

"WP:NOTRELIABLE" redirects here. For Wikipedia's own reliability, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.

Self-published sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources, Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.

"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it

"WP:CIRCULAR" redirects here. For links on a page that redirect back to the same page, see WP:SELFRED.

See also: WP:COPYWITHIN, Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents, Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.

Accessibility

Access to sources

See also: Wikipedia:Offline sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Non-English sources

See also: Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions

Citing

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)

Quoting

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.

The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

"WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

Main page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles

If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles here. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles

Copyright and plagiarism

Further information: Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Wikipedia:MOS § Attribution, and Wikipedia:CITE § In-text attribution

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright.

Neutrality

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say.

Notability

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability

If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). However, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST).

Original research

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research

The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

See also

Guidelines

• Reliable sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Citing sources

Information pages

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Core content policies
• How to mine a source
• Independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Identifying and using self-published works
• Video links
• When to cite

Resources

• Backlog – links to articles that need citations added
• Template index/Sources of articles – maintenance templates for articles with sourcing problems
• The Wikipedia Library – free access to newspapers, journals, and magazines for experienced editors
• WikiProject Resource Exchange – where you can ask for help with checking an individual source

Essays

• Citation overkill
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Verifiability, not truth
• Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source

Further reading

• Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.

Thanks T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to add that to the article then. WP:CITE. Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Alex hi,

I errased those comments on Lebanon-Israel war as they were, without any doubt, unbased and biased. Wikipedia should be an objective media and source of information and not used for propaganda purposes of any kind. The truth well documented is what should be written and not opinions based on yellow news papers.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.253.123 (talk • contribs)

Reporting to AIV

Per the AIV rules, you need to have recently given a test3, test4, or testblatant warning to someone, and they need to have continued vandalizing, before you report them to WP:AIV. I agree that User:70.88.81.116 is being a pest, but I've found that the test4 warnings actually do stop the vandalism a lot of the time with no need for blocking. Thanks, NawlinWiki 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

How in the world did i mess up the Muppets artical?, By adding a link to a Muppet website that is useful to other Muppet Fans?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.197.126 (talk • contribs)

• Rolls eyes* You guys are wikipedia are rude stuck up and just nasty. Who cares about the stupide site?, Well let me tell you something you can forget me adding to the Muppets like picture which most of them have been taken off by orphanbot oh i found i home for him in a dumpster... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.197.126 (talk • contribs)

Pete Bennett

Just to elaborate, I removed the second link to Big Brother (UK series 7) from the Pete Bennett article because it already appeared earlier in the article. WP:MOS-L states "an article may be considered overlinked if a link is excessively repeated in the same article; however, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence is appropriate." As the article is fairly short, I don't think it's worth repeating. However, I'm not that precious about it... so if you'd prefer to include, then add it back in. It just seem a bit superfluous to me! Robwingfield ^(talk) 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother UK 7 housemates

The housemates aren't in reverse order for the sake of reverse order. They're in order of successfulness in the game - the longer you stay in the House, the more successful you were, therefore you appear higher in the article. Pete was the most successful housemate, then Glyn and so on, down to Shahbaz who was the least successful. Michael and Spiral were equally successful, therefore their tie should be broken on conventional alphabetical lines with Michael first. Jess Cully 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The order isn't a 'reverse' order at all. It's an order based on a positive criterion (longevity in the game). Therefore the tie-breaker should be standard alpha, not reverse alpha. Jess Cully 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Nonetheless it does appear to me that the most persuasive reason for having them in reverse-eviction order is because that is an 'order of success'. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that that justifies reverse alpha. Shall we put it to a straw poll on the talk page? Jess Cully 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zephyr2k

I do disagree with the reversion, because he does have a penis for a nose and an umbrella for a penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.85.231 (talk • contribs) And get off my ass for not signing my comments! Go to hell, gaylord!