User:TransporterMan/Notes

Placeholder^[1] more text or (see code) can be on a single line

== Notes [or, more commonly, References] == (you insert this title)

{{reflist}} does the same thing as <references /> but in a smaller font:

Placeholder^[1] more text or (see code) can be on a single line

== References ==

Note how making the footnotes appear cause them to reset and not reappear later.

Pre-formatted templates to use to format the footnotes (they go between <ref> and </ref>) can be obtained from general citation forms and specific sites (like Structurae, above).

Incivility

• Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• Racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, or derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities.
• Belittling a user or a user's work.
• Taunting or baiting.
• Lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information.
• Quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.

Legal threats

• Making any threat of legal action against any other user, or against the community, other than a report of copyright infringement or defamation made through the means provided for those claims (which does not include claims or threats made directly to other users).
• Making any statement which can be reasonably understood or interpreted to be a legal threat.

Personal attacks

• Insulting or disparaging a user, no matter how it is done.
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) in reference to or toward any contributor, if any possibility exists whatsoever that the person to whom they are directed or any person viewing them will find them offensive, insulting, or disparaging or if used to offend, insult, or disparage.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream, save and except pointing out an editor's known, relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand.
• Accusations or speculations about impropriety, wrongdoing, bad faith, or other personal behavior that lack evidence.
• Threats of violence.
• Threats of vandalism to article, talk, user, user talk, or other pages.
• Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other negative consequences by government, their employer or any others.
• Other threats.
• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material which would be unacceptable if placed on a page here.

Harassment

• Singling out of one or more users, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the user (wikihounding).
• Posting or speculating about of any other user's personal information.
• Placing warnings, accusations, annoying, or embarrassing material on another user's user page or user talk page.
• Replacing any material on a user's user page or user talk page which has been removed by the user.
• Engaging in harassment off-wiki or in the real world.

WikiBullying

• Asserting ownership of all or part of a page (other than the user's own user page and talk page).
• Issuing do-not-edit, do-not-remove, or do-not-delete orders, demands, or threats for all or part of a page.
• Inventing or stating guidelines and branding them as policy without obtaining consensus.

Vandalism

• There are too many forms of vandalism to list here. See the vandalism article.

Applicable to Wikipedia, but not to WikiChat:
Bots
Editing policy
Edit warring and 3RR
Ownership of articles
Sock puppetry
User accounts

Based on inquiries with Blueboar, I'm now pretty confident that the process is:

• Asserting editor has burden to provide a source. (The best practice is to find a source if none is provided, but the WP:BURDEN is on the asserter if someone objects to the absence of the source).
• If a source is provided, but another editor objects to the reliability of the source then there is no burden, it's a matter to be worked out by discussion and consensus. (It is also best practice, not an obligation, to say why you are objecting, though I can't believe that in the real editing world you'd ever see an objection to reliability without some statement of justification.)
• Once the objection has been made, then the asserting editor has the obligation to defend the reliability of the source or to replace it with a better one, but at this point the decision of who wins becomes a matter for consensus.

When an objection is made to a paper, non–online source, or an online pay–only source, WP:SOURCEACCESS applies and note 2 of Burden says that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." That also makes that a best practice, not a requirement, and [I would add] there are obvious limits imposed by copyright considerations.

Finally, in light of the answer at the bottom of this page, also by Blueboar, WP:REDFLAG only applies to truly extraordinary claims.

{{gbmapping|ST679803}} = grid reference ST679803
clicking on the link will take you to GeoHack with conversions at top

See the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#When_should_I_use_prose_attributions.3F — a FAQ for a failed policy proposal that died in April, 2007, but which was (the policy proposal, not the FAQ) retained per Jimbo as a "canonical summary" for the reasons stated here; the status of the FAQ is less certain: it was marked as {{historical}} until 17 Sept 2009 when it was, without discussion, changed to {{essay}}
2. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_21#Prose_attributions
3. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_22#Phrasal_attribution
4. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_33#Is_detailed_attribution_good_or_bad_practice.3F
5. Only reference to it I've found so far in policy is Wikipedia:V#cite_note-3 about blogs, mentioned in #3, above.