DoctorJoeE

• World traveler
• Double agent
• Last of the big-time spenders
• Riverboat gambler
• Soldier of fortune
• Soft-shoe dancer
• Singer of sentimental ballads
• Finalist in Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes 28 years in a row

• Wars fought
• Rebellions incited
• Bridges destroyed
• Virgins converted
• Slow lorises tamed
• Bars emptied
• Governments run
• Orgies organized
• Uprisings quelled
• Revenge wreaked
• Games fixed
• Inheritances from deceased Nigerian relatives laundered

		The Original Barnstar
		This is presented for your contributions to the Stade Roland Garros article. WOW! The Ink Daddy! (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

	The Good Article Barnstar
	For your efforts in promoting Hack Wilson to GA. Your hard work should be rewarded! ♦ Orsoni (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I can't believe no one acknowledged the phenomenal job you did to resolve the conflict over the lead sentence in Shroud of Turin, which would have continued ad infinitum with ad nauseum personal attacks, had you not interceded and focused hotter heads on solving the problem at hand. Bravo. 108.5.41.218 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 

personal health
Thank you for quality articles on people, such as Hack Wilson, for dispute resolution, copy-editing, new page patrol, treatment of articles' talk pages, and for thinking "Sounds like that scale -- the one that balances user contributions with user issues -- needs some serious recalibrating", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For a remarkable display of restraint. PPP 05:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Ted Bundy (estimated annual readership: 2,581,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for all the copy editing you did on Red Skelton! Being there to fix the mistakes of my mind and often foolish fingers helped make the article an FA. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your patience with fools and knowledgeable rebuttal of idiocies. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 

personal health
Thank you for quality articles on people, such as Hack Wilson, for dispute resolution, copy-editing, new page patrol, treatment of articles' talk pages, and for thinking "Sounds like that scale -- the one that balances user contributions with user issues -- needs some serious recalibrating", - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 454th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles Created or Substantially Rewritten

So Many Articles, So Little Time

(articles in dIre need of creation or improvement, to be addressed as time and spouse permit)

Lists of Policies: Five Pillars • List of Policies • Policies and Guidelines • Simplified Ruleset

Wikipedia Guidelines: Verifiability • No original research • Neutral point of view • Copyrights • Resolving disputes

Behavioral Guidelines: Be civil • Assume good faith • Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point • Wikipedia etiquette • Gaming the system • Please do not bite the newcomers

Content Guidelines: Notability • Verifiability • Reliable source • Identifying reliable sources • Burden of evidence • Exceptional claims require exceptional sources • Avoid mission statements • "In popular culture" content • External links normally to be avoided • Fringe theories • Common knowledge

Editing Guidelines: Help editing • Be bold in updating pages • Vandalism

Style Guidelines: Wikipedia Manual of Style • Manual of Style/Lists • Manual of Style/Tables • Manual of Style/Capital letters • Laying out a typical basic article • Writing better articles • Use English • Lead • Standard appendices and footers • Citing sources • Avoid peacock terms • Avoid weasel words

Templates • Template help

Article tags: {{abbreviations}} • {{cleanup}} • {{external links}} • {{No footnotes}} • {{Citations missing}} • {{Citation needed}} • {{Cleanup}} • {{copy edit}} • {{copypaste}} • {{Confusing}} • {{Inappropriate tone}} • {{incoherent}} • {{multiple issues}} • {{Notability}} • {{Not verified}} • {{original research}} • {{overlinked}} • {{peacock}} • {{POV}} • {{primary sources}} • {{puffery}} • {{refimprove}} • {{tone}} • {{Unreferenced}} • {{inline citations}} • {{unreferenced}} • {{verify}} • {{weasel}} • {{Wikify}}

Section tags: {{Disputed-section}} • {{POV-section}} • {{copy edit-section}} • {{expand section}} • {{fictionrefs}} • {{off-topic}} • {{in popular culture}} • {{ref improve section}} • {{unreferenced section}} • {{trivia}}

Inline tags: Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates • {{citation needed}} • {{clarify}} • {{failed verification}} • {{or}} • {{request quotation}} • {{syn}} • {{verify credibility}} • {{who}} • {{whom?}}

By subject

Delete: {{delete}} • {{db-bio}} • {{db-attack}} • {{db|...}} • {{afd}} • {{cfd}} • {{ifd}} • {{tfd}} • {{rfd}} • {{mfd}}

Dispute: {{POV}} • {{disputed}} • {{Disputed-section}}

Bibleverse : {{bibleverse||John|3:16|KJV|}}

Bibleref2  : {{bibleref2|Hebrews|12:24}}

Superscript : {{bibleref2c|Mt|28:19}}

Spelling Style: {{Varieties of English templates}} • {{American English}} • {{British English}}

Citing sources • CiteEx • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite journal}} • {{Cite book}} • CITET

<ref>{{Cite news | first=John | last=Doe | title=News | url=| work= | newspaper=[[Florida Today]] | location=Melbourne, Florida | pages= 1A | date=April 1, 2011 | id= | accessdate=}}</ref>

<ref>{{Cite web |url= |title=News |accessdate= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2010-05-01 |year= |month= |work= Florida Today |publisher=Florida Today |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}</ref>

<ref>{{Cite book |first = George |last = Weigel |authorlink = George Weigel |coauthors = |title = The Truth of Catholicism |publisher = [[Harper Collins]] |date = 2001 |location = New York City |pages = |url = |doi = |id = |isbn = 0-06-621330-4 }}</ref>

<ref>{{Cite journal |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= |journal=Vermont's Northland Journal |volume= |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}</ref>

<ref name="shortname">reference.</ref>

<ref name="shortname"/>

The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise, you know. All else is random noise.

--Tim Trent

Good response (stolen from Dennis Brown and modified) to pushy editors:

You have to remember that articles are written by a large number of people, some better than others at being neutral. Don't assume that everyone disagrees with you. When you get combative and start monologuing, people tune you out, or ignore you; or worse, conclude you have some POV agenda that you are trying to force on the rest of us. You will find that you get a lot more done around here by being patient, and building a consensus. It only takes a day or two, typically. This isn't a full time job for any of us, after all. It sounds like you have some good ideas; now try politely presenting them in a more pithy way, and you will probably find others who agree with you. (If you don't, that's a clear signal that you might simply be wrong.) Most people WANT an article to be 100% accurate; very few have their own agenda. Make it easier for the rest of us to agree with you by being a little nicer and a little less aggressive.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work.
(Øth law of Wikipedia, Author unknown; nicked from Raul's Laws.)

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
(attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Yogi Berra)

• How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Most of them, unfortunately, since everything depends on consensus.

• A few tongue-in-cheek definitions for newbies (oops - new editors):
  • Wikipedia: The largest and most comprehensive collection of arguments in human history
  • Meat puppet: An editor who disagrees with you
  • Sock puppet: An editor who agrees with an editor who disagrees with you
  • Vandalism: An edit you disagree with
  • Non-notable: A subject of no interest to you
  • Neutral point of view: Your point of view
  • Consensus: A mythical state of utopian human evolution; some scholars of Wikipedian theology speculate that if a Wikipedia argument is ever actually resolved to everyone's satisfaction, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear.

• Consensus is an elusive WP concept—less a resolution than a fragile stalemate—that is often reached more passively than actively, and is subject to change at any time. Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
  • Corollary 1: If you disagree with an edit, the onus is on you to say so.
  • Corollary 2: It is anathema to Wikipedia editing for anyone to insist that other editors obtain consensus for edits prior to making them. There's a good essay at Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" that explains why that attitude is antithetical to the way we edit at Wikipedia. Imposing one's own editing requirements on others is disruptive editing.

• The oft-quoted mantra that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." is widely misinterpreted. It is NOT intended as a license to strive for the former at the expense of the latter. The ideal situation is verifiability AND truth, but verifiability is intended to elevate the bar above truth, to make it a higher standard rather than a lower one. In other words, it is not sufficient for content to be true — a source must be cited verifying that it is true. In other situations, it may not be possible to determine the truth of a statement, but it still may merit inclusion if it is verifiable (and, of course, notable). Example: Someone claims credit for inventing or discovering something; it may not be possible to definitively establish the truth of the claim; but if it's a notable claim, and you can verify via reliable secondary sources that the person made it, it can be included — along with an appropriate disclaimer that there is no reliable source establishing either its truth or falsity. All of that said, just because a bit of trivia is verifiable, or even notable, does not necessarily mean it merits inclusion in an article. The heart of WP:NOT is that we don't indiscriminately include every single verifiable/notable tidbit.

• Wikipedia says of itself that it is "not a democracy" and "not a bureaucracy." That is half correct.

• All NPOV cynicism aside: Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. NPOV is the glue that holds the project together, and as such is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.
  • Corollary 1: An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the authors' sympathies lie.
  • Corollary 2: At the end of the day, NPOV will always triumph over the tendentious distortions of the moment.

• Creating articles at Wikipedia is a bit like conceiving and rearing kids: You do your best to set them up on a good foundation and hope that they'll develop and progress without getting mixed up with the wrong people; but in the end, all you can do is turn 'em loose, wave goodbye, and hope for the best.

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia has "solidified" in the last few years; no one is around except people who have a vested interest in the status quo - or at least it feels that way. It has become almost impossible to change anything.

• Since most vandalism is committed by IPs, all IPs tend to be treated like dirt; which is why anyone interested in making a genuine contribution to the project should open an account. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like wandering the countryside in a moose costume on the first day of hunting season.
  • Corollary: Yes, "anyone can edit" is a fundamental WP principle; but in view of the ineluctable fact that most vandalism is IP-generated, wouldn't it make more sense to require all editors to open an account, since "anyone can register" as well, without sacrificing anonymity?

• Any display of humor within WP represents an egregious lack of respect for those editors who have no sense for it. Taking deep offense when someone cracks a joke is a marker for intellectual insecurity.

ON WP's STRUCTURE

The thing about WIkipedia is that there is no top to take it to. That alone is a hard thing to grasp. No hierarchy, no one in charge, just the alleged wisdom of crowds. Sometimes that is good, other times it sucks badly. I understand the place perfectly, or, rather, I understand that Wikipedia is wholly imperfect. I simply know how to work within it and accept its limitations. I hope you are not under the illusion that it is an encyclopaedia, though. It may produce one, but it is a social experiment. "We" created it along with a load of rules, some of which are rubbish. The thing is a loose collection of folk, some of whom have great brains and some of whom are sharing a single brain cell with an amoeba. And each of us is equal. Scary or what?

(nicked from Tim Trent's talk page)

FACT vs. OPINION

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is a Good Thing." -- WP:FLAT

ON EXPERTS

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise, who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. (Lore Sjöberg, "The Wikipedia FAQK" – Wired, April 2006)

ON VERIFIABILITY

Per WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" — and in some circumstances (BLPs, for example) must be. While there is certainly a spectrum, my view is that {{cn}} tags are appropriate for uncontentious material; but for anything important (eg health information), dubious/unsupported material needs immediate deletion. Regarding such decisions, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:PROVEIT).

ON SOURCING

WP discourages the use of primary sources and user-generated source material; newcomers tend not to understand the reasoning behind this. WP:PSTS explains in detail the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and why the absence of conclusions in primary sources is problematic for WP editors. We try not to rely on primary sources because they nearly always force editors to draw their own conclusions, which is a basic WP no-no. By drawing your own conclusions you are doing original research, which is not allowed here.

While use of self-published source material is discouraged, a self-published source can qualify as reliable under certain circumstances; the two are not mutually exclusive. Per guidelines: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources; if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

User-generated Web material typically lacks any significant fact checking, and therefore fails WP:RS. IMDb is probably the worst offender in this category; the reliable sources guideline specifically addresses the reliability of IMDb in the WP:USERGENERATED section. Find-a-Grave is a close second-worst.

While adequate citation of source material is a fundamental WP requirement, there is also such a thing as citation overkill. See WP:CITECLUTTER.

ON RULES

 

WP:IAR is a touchy concept, subject to widely varying interpretation, and mine continues to evolve. My current one—as of this writing—is that overall article quality trumps the rules, in nearly all cases. If it comes down to making a distinct improvement in an article versus obeying a rule, I will make the improvement. In applying that policy I manage to annoy the community's compulsive rule followers every so often — but so be it. I'm not a blind rule follower in real life, either. If some of WP's self-appointed specialists in the enforcement of the finer details of esoteric rules were to instead devote some of their seemingly inexhaustible energies to contributing a bit of content on occasion, the encyclopedia might be completed considerably sooner, and with considerably less aggravation.

ON CIVIL DEBATE

When someone is constantly making subtle uncivil comments with a particular bias that slide under the block radar, the immediate victim is editor participation; the ultimate victim is neutrality. The law of holes also applies here: If you have dug yourself a hole, stop digging. And once again, taking deep offense when someone cracks a joke is a marker for intellectual insecurity.

ON TAGGING

In general (except as noted above), don't.

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that he or she has done his/her encyclopedic duty by sticking a tag on it. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

WORDS OF WISDOM

The universe does not revolve around you

Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Your ego is not on the line while you are here. Editors are human; they are prone to errors, labile emotions, and stress. The goal of the project is to assemble reliable, encyclopedic information; set aside your ego and work toward that goal.

While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regard to writing articles. To that effect, editors should set aside their conflicting egos and points of view, and work together to create neutral content. Through collaboration, and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view in every article, Wikipedia achieves its aim of sharing reliable information with its readers.

The Old Testament says that "the Messiah will come astride a white ass across a bridge of paper", and the lion will lie down with the lamb, swords will be beaten into plowshares, and "we shall make war no more". That will happen before blocked and banned users realize that they have only themselves to blame for being blocked or banned.

ON WIKIPEDIA AND THE CABAL

 

A common complaint here is that there are groups of users — usually longtime members of the community — who have all the power, make all the decisions, police the behavior of everyone else, and disclaim any responsibility for such actions; in short, cabals. Typically, the accuser will string together a chain of outcomes that s/he did not desire, and assign a common causation to them. The outcomes may be unrelated, or related only in the sense that they are in line with generally accepted community practices (typically, policy pages) or evolving consensus. It is true that respected editors are influential in the latter; it is not true that they can bend the entire community to their will. Moreover, since experienced editors tend to be fluent in the same policy pages, they may take on the appearance of an organised unit.

When a newer user starts accusing everyone of conspiring against him or her, and established Wikipedians band together in defense, it will be seen as confirmation of his or her misplaced suspicions. It is much more effective to refute the arguments of the majority through reasoned discussion than to imply that they are wrong because they are the majority, or that disagreement constitutes some form of repression. If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then they will certainly become one. There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you create it yourself.

The basic truth here is that if all or most editors involved in a discussion disagree with you, in most cases you are simply wrong — or in violation of site policies (such as WP:UNDUE) — or both. Unfortunately, virtually all campaigns referencing "corrupt admins" and "cabals" arise from the same inexhaustible source of folly: I can't possibly be wrong, so everyone else must be.

ON "FREE SPEECH"

Another common argument used by people attempting to add wacko theories or push their POV here is that they are being "censored" or "deprived of their right of free speech". First of all, this is a private web site; you have no inherent "rights" here; secondly, the First Amendment right to "free speech" is widely misunderstood; it means that the government cannot arrest you for what you say, though there are limits even to that. (You do not, for example, have the right to erroneously shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.) It does not mean that anyone else has to listen to your rantings, or host you while you share them. It does not shield you from criticism or consequence. If you are blocked or banned here, your First Amendment rights are not being violated; it's just that the people listening think you're an asshole — and they are showing you the door.

ON RIGHTING GREAT WRONGS

Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

• Expose a popular personality as a child molester,
• Vindicate a convicted murderer whom you believe to be innocent,
• Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
• Spread the word about a hypothesis or miracle cure-all product that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community,

on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia is behind the ball; that is, we don't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements, and then find neutral ways of presenting them when needed.

Had Wikipedia existed in the fourth century BCE, it would have reported the then-prevailing view that the Earth is flat as a self-evident fact, without qualification. It would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's actual shape and calculated its circumference in 240 BCE) as a fringe view. Similarly, in Galileo's time it would have documented the prevailing view that the Sun (and everything else) orbits the Earth as fact; Galileo's solar system model would have been rejected as "original research".

If there were, today, a popularly held or notable minority opinion, supported by reliable sources, that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia would report it — but not as a fact. It would describe the minority view (clearly labeled as such), its history, and its notable or prominent adherents, and it would cite the sources. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought; which — for the purposes of this particular project — is a good thing. (For additional examples and a more substantial discussion, see WP:FLAT.)

DEFEND EACH OTHER

If you are personally attacked, don't defend yourself. Instead, allow other community members to defend you; if they don't, it usually means that the attack was too absurd to even merit a response. When a response is merited, responding is not your job; it is the job of the other members in the online community.

Reasons:

• A response from an uninvolved third party is much more credible to the reader.
• It's too hard to stay emotionally balanced while defending against personal attacks.
• The experience of being defended is incredible. It is pure joy; enjoy it!
• To defend and be defended creates strong emotional bonds among members; it builds trust.

Remember, most personal attacks need not be defended at all, because the attacker only hurts his/her own reputation and credibility; but if you run across a personal attack against a fellow editor, and you feel that a response is necessary, by all means, respond.

While conflicts are never fun, they hold opportunities to grow as a community, to build trust among its members, to gain valuable experience. Observe and learn for the next time. (See Meatball:DefendEachOther)

GOOD NOTE FOR USERS WHO ADD UNSOURCED CRAP TO MEDICAL ARTICLES

 

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

COI TEMPLATE

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read the following; it's important.

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, WP:COI for short, address the inherent problems that arise when individuals and organizations edit Wikipedia articles about themselves or their products. Please read that entire policy; there will be a quiz. You have identified yourself as an employee of ______________ and therefore you must abide by WP:COI in articles about that company and its products, as well as articles that reference the company or its products‎. What this means, specifically, is as follows:

1. You cannot edit those articles yourself, except to make these non-controversial edits.
2. If you would like content added, removed, or changed in any of those articles, you should make a request to that effect on the article's talk page. There is a template for that specific purpose, here. One or more unconflicted editors will review your proposal. If it is acceptable, the requested changes will be made; if not, they will state their reasons for declining to make the changes. Discussion can then ensue, when necessary.
3. Please post a formal Declaration of interest here, if you plan to continue contributing to articles about your employer, or its products. See this example.
4. If you continue to add content -- particularly promotional material -- to articles in which you have a COI, you will draw the ire of WP administrators, and probably an editing block as well.

That's it. Please take the time to read WP:Welcome to Wikipedia and WP:Five pillars. Armed with that basic information, you will be well prepared to help improve articles in a non-promotional manner, using reliable third-party verifiable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message here (I've put your user page on my watch list), or on my talk page. Again, welcome, and happy editing,

THE "BRITISH" vs. "ENGLISH" THING

"English" is a descriptor of ethnicity, in terms of international law, as opposed to "British", which is a nationality, or demonym, describing residents of a specific sovereign state, in this case the UK. Common sense, consistency, style, and MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH suggest that sovereign nationality, not ethnicity, be mentioned first in the lede — in this case, "British". Subsequently, ethnicity (English, Irish, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc.) can be specified, if necessary, and known. Some have argued that "English" can also be considered a more local demonym, i.e. a resident of England; even so, "British" should still be the first descriptor used. Citizens of the USA, for example, are primarily described in ledes as "Americans", not "Texans", "North Carolinians", "Californians", "North Dakotans", "Chicagoans", and so on.

• Good and bad cultural reference examples
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Lamest edit wars
• WP:OFCOURSE
• 500 recent changes
• New page patrol
• New user edits
• New user accounts
• Linksearch
• Sortable article history
• Plagarism checker
• Edit summary search
• Interaction analyzer
• Stalker
• Suspected copyright violations
• Userspace spamsearch
• Speedy criteria
• User templates
• All multi-level templates
• Text copyvio
• Image copyvio
• Duplication detector
• User information
• Rangecontribs
• Reversewhois
• Godaddy
• Lots of handy tools, etc.
• WP:GEVAL
• WP:SARCASM
• Inflation example: {{Inflation|US|800|1942|fmt=eq|r=-3}} → equivalent to $15,000 in 2023