User talk:Eyezee
|
March 2009
[edit]Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects. | |
Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. | |
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. | |
Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,904,416 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. | |
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. |
See also
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Coincidence do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Q.E.D.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ... reply ... I added one word 'that' ... "your edits appear to constitute vandalism"??
Regarding your edits to William Colby
[edit]Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines requiring that statements of fact be attributed to reliable sources, that defamation of living persons shall not occur, that original research be avoided, and that articles should not be turned into a coatrack for alternative agendas. Please adhere to these policies in the future, and happy editing! RayTalk 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, with these basic principles of wiki, most honest and fair wiki editors hold this priciples very dear. An Encyclopedia is the record of facts, and only agenda ought be the facts. However, I interested in how deleting the deletion of a whole entire subsection that carries published facts and claims from Doctors and a Congressmen is not a coatrack for alternative agendas in itself. Please be explicit.
It is also odd that this offensive facts, according to you, have been on wiki since 2007. And, you look at the history, have been reviewed and edited by many, and yet you alone seem to be the authority? It seem to negate the principle of consensus. Is the solution not to simply publish all facts and reliable claims, and reliable counter-claims?