Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, ImmersiveOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Misandry. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misandry. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Misandry. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
Calling another editor "notorious" and implying there is something wrong with their editing without giving specific evidence is inappropriate and unproductive. The comment has been removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Misandry. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
I meant "I doubt going with this consensus (as in the above wording proposal)". I made an error while typing out my text and it made it seem way worse than I meant, whoops. I never meant to say other people are so headstrong, we can't come to a consensus. It's why if you read my original text, it doesn't make sense if you read it out loud grammatically.
Also, I meant the extreme slant, on this site, towards downplaying hate of man, is creepy. And I said I would feel evil myself if I agreed to using certain phrasing. I didn't say someone's viewpoint was evil. ImmersiveOne (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same thing. Saying you would feel "evil" to agree with the present wording of the article basically means you think those who support it are evil. Per WP:NPA, insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. There is a pattern in your comments of going right up to the line of outright accusing others of malfeasance. If your goal is to have your account blocked, you're on the right track. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see why my comment heavily implied it, but it was ultimately not my intent to attack you or make you feel that way. I was talking about myself and how I would feel about the matter. I wouldn't think someone is "evil" if they used the phrasing, because I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I realize sometimes, they don't always use the best choice of words. I absolutely do not think you are evil, or would be, if you used the phrasing you suggested. Anyway, look, I apologize you seem to have felt attacked about it. I'll try to be more pleasant in the future. Let's just move on. ImmersiveOne (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't want to make a hasty judgement, assuming you were attacked. I feel talking to you is sort of like walking on eggshells. I apologize. I striked my comments out. I would appreciate an apology for your "have you heard of public libraries" comment, too. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly stated that you wanted to delete the 1989 source because you didn't have access to a copy, even after two different editors told you that convenience is not a factor in determining reliability of sources. In that context, I think the sarcastic quip about libraries was entirely warranted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please note that if you mention someone in the notice board you should notify them
Hi,
just a quick note that if you mention a specific user in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard you should notify them of the discussion - the template for the notification is at the top of the notice board.
I notified Grayfell as you mentioned them, but didn’t notify them. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
