User:J8079s/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second pillar

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

  • NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

  • In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.(This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.) When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
  • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

difs[edit]

commoms https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lightbreather at meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lightbreather

diffs[edit]

that he knows he is wrong and wants to disrupt https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas.W&diff=761978751&oldid=761717138 building the web https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_MCX&diff=734836294&oldid=734798168 Talk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felsic2&oldid=708878030 lightbreather https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=710220841&oldid=694170343 Banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Lightbreather further previos warnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#Herr_Gruber Both Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) and Felsic2 (talk · contribs) are warned against further battleground and disruptive behavior in the gun control topic area.

Topic ban[edit]

As a self declared [1] and [2] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles. There is ample evidence that your work is a violation of her ban for pov grinding [3] also you attack the editors and pages as she directs from off site. Additionaly I draw attention to your previous warning Both Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) and Felsic2 (talk · contribs) are warned against further battleground and disruptive behavior in the gun control topic area. This will serve as your only warning.

Project gun control[edit]

Gun control is a disrupted area on wikipedia. The disruption ring leader banned user claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Lightbreather further investigation shows it is the account of a sockepuppet cyber bully with an assigned gender for gender baiting. It continues to disrupt via meatpuppets from an attack site.(since changed) The dsiruption was aided by "frenimes"

Accusing others of tendentious editing[edit]

Shortcut

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR,WP:RS,WP:NPOV and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

in a nutshell Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.

Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work. Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic or viewpoint. When advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas, battling to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue. Wikipedia operates through collaboration between editors to achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Differences of opinion about neutrality, reliability, notability, and other issues are properly resolved through civil discussion aimed at facilitating a consensus.

Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general public use.

If you do not understand these points, then you are not here to work on the encyclopedia, and the project will be happy to show you the door if you engage in disruptive editing.

Pages of Interest or concern[edit]

Good news:"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware". Retrieved 9 January 2017. {{cite web}}: Text "Pew Research Center" ignored (help) rates up a little "Murder Rates Nationally and By State". Retrieved 9 January 2017. {{cite web}}: Text "Death Penalty Information Center" ignored (help)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:J8079s/Sandbox&oldid=763067697"