This is a Wikipediauser page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mendaliv.
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.
Since it has come up lately, I think my approach to editor disputes merits some discussion. I do not usually play the neutral mediator. Most disputes I work in are simple enough that the correct outcome is a matter of straightforward application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In more complex ones, especially ones involving behavioral disputes, I find it more efficient to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. This usually winds up with my supporting one side or another, sometimes to the opposite side's consternation, which asserts as an outsider I should have adopted a more neutral stance. I do not believe I am unreasonable. When wrong, I am quick to admit it, quick to apologize, and if necessary, quick to move along.
If you have a problem with another editor and come to me civilly, without pretense of being absolutely and obviously in the right, or at least without pretense that my prior support of the "other side" somehow renders me dishonest or disqualifies my opinion, I will almost without exception take the time to reconsider my stance. My method and goal might be best summed up by part of one of Sgt. Joe Friday's famed speeches:
I'm here to try to get to the bottom of this thing, and we're gonna do it my way, you understand? If you're telling the truth, I'll sweat it all the way with you and try and get you cleared. But if you think you're gonna do any table-pounding to convince me you're leveling, you're dead wrong.
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)
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"