User:BrightR/Scrollingwindow

WP:OWN

I want to revert a change that was made to a Wikipedia article!

Is the change leading toward improvement of the article? → yes → Please do not revert it. Even if the change is not perfect, it may still prove beneficial with further edits.  ↓ no  ↓ Can you explain how the change is detrimental to the article according to Wikipedia policies or guidelines? → yes → Edit the article to correct or revert the change. Explain your reasons in the edit summary and, if your edit is disputed, elaborate in the talk page.  ↓ no  ↓ You might be engaging in ownership behavior and reverting the change based on personal reasons rather than reasons pertinent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not revert the edit and instead, try to parse your reasons through the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing further. {{User:BrightR/Flowchart/WP:OWN}}

WP:DE

I want to include material in a Wikipedia article!

Does this material verifiably come from a reliable source? → no → It cannot be included in an article.  ↓ yes  ↓ Does the material, as added, follow all other relevant Wikipedia content policies? For example:  • Is it in proper context?  • Is it given due weight?  • Is it free of legal issues? → no → It may be included in an article, but it needs to be put in context, placed in a different section or article, cleared of legal issues, and edited to follow any other relevant policies and guidelines.  ↓ yes  ↓ Is it free of disputes that are made in good faith? → no → The disputes must be resolved before the material is included.  ↓ yes  ↓ Congratulations! Barring any other issues, this material may be included in an article. {{User:BrightR/Flowchart/WP:EDITING}}

I want to cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as a justification for my actions!

Were you being disruptive? → yes → Do not cite WP:IAR.  ↓ no  ↓ Were you being uncivil? → yes → Do not cite WP:IAR.  ↓ no  ↓ Were you addressing an exceptional situation that isn't properly addressed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? → yes → You should cite WP:IAR and explain which circumstances make the existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines unfit for this particular case.  ↓ no  ↓ Do not cite WP:IAR. If you find yourself habitually citing "ignore all rules" and claiming Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply, perhaps it is because you have an entrenched sense of entitlement. Such feelings of entitlement impede the ability to work collaboratively. {{User:BrightR/Flowchart/WP:IAR}}

WP:V

{{User:BrightR/WP:V}}

All material in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Any material whose verifiability has been challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Wikipedia · Verifiability policy

WP:CONSENSUS

{{User:BrightR/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}}

Local consensus Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Wikipedia Arbitration Committee · Levels of consensus Local consensus Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia · Consensus § Levels of consensus

MOS:PLOT

{{User:BrightR/WP:PRIMARYPLOT}}

{{User:BrightR/MOS:PLOT}}