Contents 1 What is tendentious editing? 2 Characteristics of problem editors 2.1 One who is blocked for violating the three revert rule more than once 2.2 One who repeats the penalised edit 2.3 One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism 2.4 One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt 2.5 One who accuses others of malice 2.6 One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources 2.7 One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements 2.8 One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit 2.9 One who repeats the same argument without convincing people 2.10 One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others 2.11 One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors 2.12 One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages 2.13 One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject 2.14 One who never accepts independent input 2.15 One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page 2.16 Righting great wrongs 3 How to pull back from the brink 3.1 Accusing others of tendentious editing 4 See also 5 References


What is tendentious editing?[edit] Got an axe to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog. Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions. Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they may be banned from certain articles or topics or become subject to probation. It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate. Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding the neutral point of view and verifiability. Content within articles must be based on reliable sources and thus be verifiable; article content must not include editors' own personal opinions or theories.


Characteristics of problem editors[edit] Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: One who is blocked for violating the three revert rule more than once[edit] You have been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule (3RR); you argue about whether you in fact reverted four times or only three, or whether 3RR applies to a calendar day or a 24-hour period. 3RR exists to prevent edit wars. Wikilawyering about the precise details is unproductive and probably means that you have missed the point: edit warring is bad, and even one revert can be disruptive. Even a slow-motion edit war, such as reverting an edit once a day, which does not violate 3RR is still edit-warring. If your edits are reverted or rejected, you should take the dispute to the talk page, remembering to cite your sources, and if that fails you should try one of the various consensus-determining processes (e.g., WP:RfC) or dispute resolution processes. One who repeats the penalised edit[edit] On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. On Usenet and web forums you can get away with repeating something until nobody cares enough to contradict you any more; on Wikipedia, that is unacceptable. A variant of returning to the same edit is returning to the same talk page to make the same arguments. On returning from a block, if you go to the talk page of the article you were penalized for, do not repeat the same arguments that led to the block. Instead, try to find different arguments, different policy rationales, and better sources. As well, you may wish to compromise on the position you are arguing for, in the interests of proposing an idea which is more likely to get a consensus. If your earlier attempts to have the phrase "Film XYZ is widely viewed as the worst film in the genre" did not lead to consensus, and in fact led to disruptive behaviour on your part and a block, you may want to propose a more moderate position: "While Film XYZ was widely praised by critics, critic Sue Smith of the New York Times called it 'the poorest example of the genre in 2015'." Repeating the exact arguments you made before your block may be viewed as disruptive. One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism[edit] You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others. Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slowly, but they do so surely. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt[edit] You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them. Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all – to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a jerk. One who accuses others of malice[edit] You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts". This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance. One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources[edit] You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements[edit] You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added, or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial or negative material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit[edit] Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw. The policy against adding original research to Wikipedia expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources. A simple example of synthesis is when an editor takes cited fact A and cited fact B, and then uses these two facts to arrive at newly thought-up–and unsourced–interpretation C. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people[edit] Shortcut WP:REHASH You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both. One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others[edit] See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Instead of removing pertinent, referenced statements, you should remove off-topic statements. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors[edit] You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages[edit] You neglect to thread your posts on talk pages. Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst, because instead of making your posts follow "next in line" under the previous post, it puts your posts flush with the margin. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject[edit] Shortcut WP:BALASPS A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. For example, you might know that there is some controversy surrounding a particular politician’s behaviour with regard to a property dispute. You may be very interested in that dispute, and be keen to document the politician’s role in it. So you would create an article on the politician which goes into detail about that, but includes little or no other data. This is unacceptable because it gives undue weight to the controversy. If there is already an existing article about the politician, you may seek to add information about the property dispute to the politician's article. However, even though the politician's involvement in a property dispute may be verifiable in reliable sources, other editors may revert the addition of a paragraph about the property dispute on the grounds that it places undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the subject's personal life. Similarly, if a single author says that a particular country is a state supporter of terrorism, then adding that country to the article state-sponsored terrorism would be to place undue weight on that one author's view. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view – our article on Adolf Hitler does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother – but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities. One who never accepts independent input[edit] Some editors may find that any independent input through a third opinion or request for comment is always biased against their sources, wording or point of view. The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute (despite no other editors agreeing). If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose. One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page[edit] Some editors routinely tell other editors that they disagree with to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned." Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others. Righting great wrongs[edit] Shortcuts WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS WP:GREATWRONGS WP:RGW WP:RIGHT WRONGS WP:NOTLEAD See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and Wikipedia:Advocacy Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear 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 artist as a child molester; or Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent; or Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb 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 or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.


How to pull back from the brink[edit] Shortcut WP:BRINK A Wikipedian who couldn't resist the allure of jumping off the brink. Even though you may be tempted by the dark side–slipping into tendentious editing–you can resist! First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you should have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? Are you trying to place undue weight on a certain viewpoint or issue? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It’s fine to précis the arguments of other authorities, but it’s not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute undue weight, or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority. A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ask, in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of: According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion? It may become clear that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing, or it may be that you have a hill to climb and will need to work with other editors to find a compromise wording. This may take a great deal of patient, civil discussion on the talk page. Once you have done that, however, and hammered out a consensus-supported wording, this text will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits. If you feel that you are "on the brink" of becoming a tendentious editor on a certain article, it can often help to take a break. Don't edit or even look at the article for a day–or even a week. It will still be there when you get back. After all, there are 4.9 million other articles to edit, and countless articles which still need to be written. With a bit of time off from a contested, disputed article, you might see things from a new perspective when you return. Accusing others of tendentious editing[edit] Shortcut WP:AOTE 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.


See also[edit] Wikipedia:Blocking policy Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic Wikipedia:Edit warring Wikipedia:How to lose Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments Wikipedia:Single-purpose account Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy Wikipedia:Tag team Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing


References[edit] ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive v t e Essays about Wikipedia Essays on building, editing, and deleting content Philosophy Articles must be written Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Cohesion Concede lost arguments Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Don't lie Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Product, process, policy Purpose There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Construction 100K featured articles Acronym overkill Advanced source searching Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced table formatting Advanced template coding Advanced text formatting Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Bare URLs Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant Cherrypicking Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Law sources Link rot Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Nothing is in stone Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles There is a deadline There is no deadline The deadline is now Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles Deletion Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete the junk Does deletion help? Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Immunity Liar Liar Pants on Fire Nothing Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use Essays on civility The basics How to be civil Compromise Accepting other users Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks Thank you Apologizing Truce Divisiveness Encouraging newcomers Relationships with academic editors High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors Obsessive Compulsive Disorder editors Philosophy A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right Of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Wikipedia is not about winning Writing for the opponent Dos Argue better Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Deny recognition Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Just drop it Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Don'ts Don't give a fuck Don't be inconsiderate Don't be rude Don't call a spade a spade Don't call the kettle black Don't take the bait Do not insult the vandals Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't be ashamed Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't spite your face Don't call things cruft No angry mastodons No, you can't have a pony Don't be an ostrich Don't template the regulars Don't be a fanatic Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't fight fire with fire Don't be prejudiced Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't throw your toys out of the pram Don't help too much Passive aggression Don't cry COI Don't be obnoxious Don't be a WikiBigot Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't eat the troll's food You can't squeeze blood from a turnip Wiki relations WikiLove WikiHate WikiCrime WikiBullying WikiPeace WikiLawyering WikiHarassment POV Railroading Essays on notability Notability Alternative outlets Articles with a single source Bare notability Bombardment Businesses with a single location But it's true! Citation overkill Clones Coatrack articles Common sourcing mistakes Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Every snowflake is unique Existence ≠ Notability Fart Google searches and numbers High Schools Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Inherent notability Insignificant Masking the lack of notability Make stubs News coverage does not decrease notability No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability No big loss No one cares about your garage band No one really cares Notability/Historical/Arguments Notability cannot be purchased Notability is not a level playing field Notability is not a matter of opinion Notability is not relevance or reliability Notability means impact Notability points Notability sub-pages Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability Offline sources One hundred words One sentence does not an article make Other stuff exists Pokémon test Read the source Run-of-the-mill Significant coverage not required Solutions are mixtures and nothing else Subjective importance What notability is not What is and is not routine coverage What to include Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause General notability guideline Independent sources Significant coverage Trivial mentions Humorous essays Humorous material Assume bad faith Assume faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Avoid using preview button Avoid using wikilinks BOLD, revert, revert, revert Boston Tea Party Barnstaritis Don't-give-a-fuckism Edits Per Day Editsummarisis Go ahead, vandalize How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you Please bite the newbies R-e-s-p-e-c-t Shadowless Fists of Death! The Night After Wikimas The first rule of Wikipedia The Five Pillars of Untruth Things that should not be surprising The WikiBible Watchlistitis Why not create an Account? Inactive historical references Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails About essays About essays Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay Policies and guidelines About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing&oldid=826329165" Categories: Wikipedia supplemental pagesWikipedia essaysWikipedia cultureWikipedia dispute resolutionWikipedia neutrality essays


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages भोजपुरीفارسیPortuguês Edit links This page was last edited on 18 February 2018, at 14:33. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.332","walltime":"0.449","ppvisitednodes":{"value":1449,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":216772,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":27701,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":13,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":13,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 257.720 1 -total"," 32.70% 84.263 1 Template:Wikipedia_essays"," 30.78% 79.330 1 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups"," 18.97% 48.897 5 Template:Shortcut"," 17.73% 45.706 1 Template:Supplement"," 16.54% 42.635 1 Template:Ombox"," 12.88% 33.195 1 Template:For"," 8.45% 21.768 5 Template:Navbox"," 8.19% 21.118 1 Template:Reflist"," 5.19% 13.372 1 Template:Ombox/shortcut"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.103","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":2678389,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1254","timestamp":"20180221162927","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":608,"wgHostname":"mw1254"});});


Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing More Links

Wikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:Template EditorWikipedia:Project NamespaceDisruptive EditingWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:PROPOSALWikipedia:ShortcutEnlargeWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:CONSENSUSWikipedia:EWWikipedia:DISRUPTWikipedia:NOTWikipedia:GAMEWikipedia:LAWYERWikipedia:POINTWikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHATWikipedia:SPAWikipedia:HEREEnlargeWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:Blocking PolicyWikipedia:Beware Of The TigersWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Don't Be InconsiderateWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A SoapboxWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:RSWikipedia:ORWikipedia:Three-revert RuleWikipedia:WikilawyeringWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:RfCWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionProof By AssertionUsenetWikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:VandalismWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:There Is No DeadlineWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Assume The Assumption Of Good FaithWikipedia:Censorship IssuePrima FacieWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Reliable SourcesWikipedia:Reliable SourcesWikipedia:BURDENWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:SynthesisWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:Be BoldWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeBad FaithWikipedia:TPGThreaded DiscussionWikipedia:TPGWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Undue WeightWikipedia:VWikipedia:RSState-sponsored TerrorismAdolf HitlerWikipedia:Reliable SourcesWikipedia:3OWikipedia:RFCWikipedia:P&GWikipedia:COMMUNITYWikipedia:ENCWikipedia:WIKIHOUNDINGWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:AdvocacyWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewMainstream MediaWikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:ShortcutEnlargeDark Side Of The ForceSecondary SourceWikipedia:Undue WeightWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Edit WarWikipedia:NPAWikipedia:HARASSMENTWikipedia:NORWikipedia:RSWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:3RRWikipedia:AOHAWikipedia:ASPERSIONSWikipedia:Blocking PolicyWikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:Don't Be A FanaticWikipedia:Edit WarringWikipedia:How To LoseWikipedia:Not Here To Build An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Notability (science)/Irrelevant ArgumentsWikipedia:Single-purpose AccountWikipedia:Specialized-style FallacyWikipedia:Tag TeamWikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:Civil POV PushingWikipedia:Requests For Arbitration/HkelkarTemplate:Wikipedia EssaysTemplate Talk:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Articles Must Be WrittenWikipedia:Vague IntroductionsWikipedia:Be A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Coherence And CohesionWikipedia:ConcessionWikipedia:Eight Simple Rules For Editing Our EncyclopediaWikipedia:Don't LieWikipedia:ExplanationismWikipedia:External Criticism Of WikipediaWikipedia:Here To Build An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:Wikipedia Does Or Does Not Need That ArticleWikipedia:Neutrality Of SourcesWikipedia:Not Editing Because Of Wikipedia RestrictionWikipedia:OversimplificationWikipedia:ParadoxesWikipedia:Close ParaphrasingWikipedia:POV And OR From Editors, Sources, And FieldsWikipedia:Product, Process, PolicyWikipedia:PurposeWikipedia:But I'm An Administrator!Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules For Editing WikipediaWikipedia:The Role Of Policies In Collaborative AnarchyWikipedia:The Rules Are PrinciplesWikipedia:TrifectaWikipedia:Wikipedia In BriefWikipedia:Wikipedia Is An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A CommunityWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/Article WritingWikipedia:100,000 Feature-quality ArticlesWikipedia:Acronym OverkillWikipedia:Advanced Source SearchingWikipedia:Adding Images Improves The EncyclopediaWikipedia:Advanced Article EditingWikipedia:Advanced Table FormattingWikipedia:Advanced Template CodingHelp:Advanced Text FormattingWikipedia:Alternatives To The "Expand" TemplateWikipedia:Amnesia TestWikipedia:A Navbox On Every PageWikipedia:An Unfinished House Is A Real ProblemWikipedia:Article Half-lifeWikipedia:Autosizing ImagesWikipedia:Avoid Mission StatementsWikipedia:Bare URLsWikipedia:Be Neutral In FormWikipedia:Beef Up That First RevisionWikipedia:Blind Men And An ElephantWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Children's, Adult New Reader, And Large-print Sources Questionable On ReliabilityWikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Citation UnderkillWikipedia:Concept CloudWikipedia:Creating Controversial ContentWikipedia:Criticisms Of Society May Be Consistent With NPOV And ReliabilityWikipedia:Dictionaries As SourcesWikipedia:Don't Demolish The House While It's Still Being BuiltWikipedia:Don't Hope The House Will Build ItselfWikipedia:Don't PanicWikipedia:Editing On Mobile DevicesWikipedia:Editors Are Not MindreadersWikipedia:EndorsementsWikipedia:Featured Articles May Have ProblemsWikipedia:Fruit Of The Poisonous TreeWikipedia:Give An Article A ChanceWikipedia:Ignore STRONGNAT For Date FormatsWikipedia:InaccuracyWikipedia:Introduction To StructurismWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (law)Wikipedia:Link RotWikipedia:How To Mine A SourceWikipedia:Merge TestWikipedia:Minors And Persons Judged IncompetentWikipedia:"Murder Of" ArticlesWikipedia:Not Every Story/event/disaster Needs A BiographyWikipedia:Not Everything Needs A NavboxWikipedia:Nothing Is In StoneWikipedia:Organizing Disambiguation Pages By Subject AreaWikipedia:PermastubWikipedia:Potential, Not Just Current StateWikipedia:PrintabilityWikipedia:Pruning Article RevisionsWikipedia:For Publicists Publicizing A Client's WorkWikipedia:Put A Little Effort Into ItWikipedia:Restoring Part Of A Reverted EditWikipedia:Robotic EditingWikipedia:Sham ConsensusWikipedia:How To Run An Edit-a-thonWikipedia:Temporary Versions Of ArticlesWikipedia:There Is A DeadlineWikipedia:There Is No DeadlineWikipedia:The Deadline Is NowWikipedia:Walled GardenWikipedia:What An Article Should Not IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A Work In ProgressWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Being Written In An Organized FashionWikipedia:The World Will Not End TomorrowWikipedia:Write The Article FirstWikipedia:Writing Better ArticlesWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/DeletionWikipedia:Adjectives In Your RecommendationsWikipedia:Articles For Deletion Is Not A War ZoneWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion ReviewsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Image Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Make In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Avoid Repeated ArgumentsWikipedia:Before Commenting In A Deletion DiscussionWikipedia:But There Must Be Sources!Wikipedia:Confusing Arguments Mean NothingWikipedia:Content RemovalWikipedia:Counting And Sorting Are Not Original ResearchWikipedia:Delete The JunkWikipedia:Does Deletion Help?Wikipedia:Don't Overuse Shortcuts To Policy And Guidelines To Win Your ArgumentWikipedia:Follow The LeaderWikipedia:How To Save An Article Proposed For DeletionWikipedia:I Just Don't Like ItWikipedia:ImmunityWikipedia:Liar Liar Pants On FireWikipedia:NothingWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:Relisting Can Be AbusiveWikipedia:Relist BiasWikipedia:The Heymann StandardWikipedia:Unopposed AFD DiscussionWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Whac-A-MoleWikipedia:Why Was The Page I Created Deleted?Wikipedia:What To Do If Your Article Gets Tagged For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:When In Doubt, Hide It In The WoodworkWikipedia:No Encyclopedic UseWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/CivilityWikipedia:How To Be CivilWikipedia:NegotiationWikipedia:Accepting Other UsersWikipedia:Enjoy YourselfWikipedia:Expect No ThanksWikipedia:Thank YouWikipedia:ApologyWikipedia:TruceWikipedia:DivisivenessWikipedia:Encourage The NewcomersWikipedia:Relationships With Academic EditorsWikipedia:High-functioning Autism And Asperger's EditorsWikipedia:Obsessive Compulsive Disorder EditorsWikipedia:A Weak Personal Attack Is Still WrongWikipedia:Advice For HotheadsWikipedia:An Uncivil Environment Is A Poor EnvironmentWikipedia:Be The GlueWikipedia:Civility WarningsWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:FailureWikipedia:Forgive And ForgetWikipedia:It's Not The End Of The WorldWikipedia:Nobody CaresWikipedia:Most People Who Disagree With You On Content Are Not VandalsWikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian ValuesWikipedia:Staying Cool When The Editing Gets HotWikipedia:The Grey ZoneWikipedia:The Last WordWikipedia:There Is No Divine Right Of EditorsWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:CLEARLYWikipedia:The Rules Of Polite DiscourseWikipedia:What "Ignore All Rules" MeansWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not About WinningWikipedia:Writing For The OpponentWikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Assume The Assumption Of Good FaithWikipedia:Assume No ClueWikipedia:Avoid Personal RemarksWikipedia:Avoid The Word "vandal"Wikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:CandorWikipedia:Drop The Stick And Back Slowly Away From The Horse CarcassWikipedia:Deny RecognitionWikipedia:Encourage Full DiscussionsWikipedia:Get Over ItWikipedia:How To LoseWikipedia:Just Drop ItWikipedia:Keep It Down To EarthWikipedia:Mind Your Own BusinessWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Don't Be InconsiderateWikipedia:Don't Be RudeWikipedia:Don't Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:Don't Call The Kettle BlackWikipedia:Don't Take The BaitWikipedia:Do Not Insult The VandalsWikipedia:Don't Come Down Like A Ton Of BricksWikipedia:Don't Be AshamedWikipedia:Don't Drink The Consensus Kool-AidWikipedia:Don't Spite Your FaceWikipedia:CruftcruftWikipedia:No Angry MastodonsWikipedia:No, You Can't Have A PonyWikipedia:Don't Be An OstrichWikipedia:Don't Template The RegularsWikipedia:Don't Be A FanaticWikipedia:Don't Accuse Someone Of A Personal Attack For Accusing Of A Personal AttackWikipedia:Don't Fight Fire With FireWikipedia:Don't Be PrejudicedWikipedia:Don't Remind Others Of Past MisdeedsWikipedia:Don't Throw Your Toys Out Of The PramWikipedia:Don't Help Too MuchWikipedia:Passive AggressionWikipedia:Don't Cry COIWikipedia:Don't Be ObnoxiousWikipedia:Don't Be A WikiBigotWikipedia:Do Not Confuse Stub Status With Non-notabilityWikipedia:Don't Eat The Troll's FoodWikipedia:You Can't Squeeze Blood From A TurnipWikipedia:WikiLoveWikipedia:WikiHateWikipedia:WikiCrimeWikipedia:WikiBullyingWikipedia:WikiPeaceWikipedia:WikilawyeringWikipedia:HarassmentWikipedia:POV RailroadWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/NotabilityWikipedia:Alternative OutletsWikipedia:Articles With A Single SourceWikipedia:Bare NotabilityWikipedia:BombardmentWikipedia:Businesses With A Single LocationWikipedia:But It's True!Wikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Wikipedia ClonesWikipedia:Coatrack ArticlesWikipedia:Common Sourcing MistakesWikipedia:Discriminate Vs Indiscriminate InformationWikipedia:Every Snowflake Is UniqueWikipedia:Existence ≠ NotabilityWikipedia:FartWikipedia:Google Searches And NumbersWikipedia:Notability (high Schools)Wikipedia:Inclusion Is Not An Indicator Of NotabilityWikipedia:Inherent NotabilityWikipedia:InsignificantWikipedia:Masking The Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:Make StubsWikipedia:News Coverage Does Not Decrease NotabilityWikipedia:No Amount Of Editing Can Overcome A Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:No Big LossWikipedia:No One Cares About Your Garage BandWikipedia:No One Really CaresWikipedia:Notability/Historical/ArgumentsWikipedia:Notability Cannot Be PurchasedWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Level Playing FieldWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Matter Of OpinionWikipedia:Notability Is Not Relevance Or ReliabilityWikipedia:Notability Means ImpactWikipedia:Notability PointsWikipedia:Notability Sub-pagesWikipedia:Obscure Does Not Mean Not NotableWikipedia:Offline SourcesWikipedia:One Hundred WordsWikipedia:One Sentence Does Not An Article MakeWikipedia:Other Stuff ExistsWikipedia:Pokémon TestWikipedia:Read The SourceWikipedia:Run-of-the-millWikipedia:Significant Coverage Not RequiredWikipedia:On Wikipedia, Solutions Are Mixtures And Nothing ElseWikipedia:Subjective ImportanceWikipedia:What Notability Is NotWikipedia:What Is And Is Not Routine CoverageWikipedia:What To IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Here To Tell The World About Your Noble CauseWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Identifying And Using Independent SourcesWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Trivial MentionsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Assume Bad FaithWikipedia:Assume FaithWikipedia:Assume Good WraithWikipedia:Assume StupidityWikipedia:Assume That Everyone's Assuming Good Faith, Assuming That You Are Assuming Good FaithWikipedia:Avoid Using Preview ButtonWikipedia:Avoid Using WikilinksWikipedia:BOLD, Revert, Revert, RevertWikipedia:Boston Tea PartyWikipedia:BarnstaritisWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Edits Per DayWikipedia:EditsummarisisWikipedia:Go Ahead, VandalizeWikipedia:How Many Wikipedians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?Wikipedia:How To Put Up A Straight Pole By Pushing It At An AngleWikipedia:Newcomers Are Delicious, So Go Ahead And Bite ThemWikipedia:No Climbing The Reichstag Dressed As Spider-ManWikipedia:Please Be A Giant Dick, So We Can Ban YouWikipedia:Please Bite The NewbiesWikipedia:R-e-s-p-e-c-tWikipedia:Shadowless Fists Of Death!Wikipedia:The Night After WikimasWikipedia:The First Rule Of WikipediaWikipedia:The Five Pillars Of UntruthWikipedia:Things That Should Not Be SurprisingWikipedia:WikiBibleWikipedia:WatchlistitisWikipedia:Why Not Create An Account?Wikipedia:Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Unblock EmailsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:The Value Of EssaysWikipedia:The Difference Between Policies, Guidelines And EssaysWikipedia:Don't Cite Essays Or Proposals As If They Were PolicyWikipedia:Avoid Writing Redundant EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Quote Your Own EssayWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:How To Contribute To Wikipedia GuidanceWikipedia:Policy Writing Is HardHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia Supplemental PagesCategory:Wikipedia EssaysCategory:Wikipedia CultureCategory:Wikipedia Dispute ResolutionCategory:Wikipedia Neutrality EssaysDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link