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.

excerpts from Jimbo Wales
WikiEN-l e-mail 2003-09-29
quoted in WP:UNDUE

Cunningham's Law: The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer.

Steven McGeady
Posting of 28 May 2010
Defining Cunningham's Law

I am Mendaliv (English pronunciation: /ˈmɛndəlɪv/, MEN-də-liv), a male American Wikipedian on English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia involvementEdit

 This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
34,000+This user has made more than 34,000 contributions to Wikipedia.
  This user has been on Wikipedia for 14 years and 3 days.
CNThis user's alignment is Chaotic Neutral: the "Free Spirit."
UIUCThis user is or was a student at the University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign.
This person attends or attended
Notre Dame Law School.

Special involvementEdit

  • User:Mendaliv/TOV letter- a sample form letter that may be used when e-mailing authority figures to report threats of violence, under development. Comments and input welcome! Update: Rendered superfluous by the procedure laid out in WP:EMERGENCY, and the implementation of the Foundation emergency contact: emergency wikimedia.org
  • User:Mendaliv/Dispute advice- a page of advice for editors seeking dispute assistance but having trouble, compiled from my experiences at WP:EAR and WP:ANI
  • 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.

Articles to comeEdit

  • 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)

Articles createdEdit

Listed in order of creation:

Articles improvedEdit




Useful stuffEdit

This section is a sort of quick list of things I like to have at hand and things I like to link to frequently.

Resource pagesEdit

Stuff to rememberEdit

On quotations in discussionsEdit

  • Use {{tq}} not {{xt}}: The latter is for examples. The former is for quotations. While there is no visible difference, there are apparently accessibility considerations.
  • {{tq2}} provides a blockquote version of {{tq}}.

Hard linksEdit

  • 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).

General adviceEdit

  • DefendEachOther - You don't have to fight personal attacks yourself, and in fact it may not be the best choice
  • Skills of a catalyst - A list of useful advice for helping disarm disputes and move arguments to a beneficial conclusion

Good stuffEdit

Article writingEdit

For RfAsEdit

  • 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?

For AfDsEdit