This user supports sustainable living.	This user is interested in issues related to religious pluralism.
This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree	This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

My user name, "Presearch", has many possible meanings. I use it because it is similar to "Research," which is needed for writing good Wikipedia articles (just no original research!). Pluralism interests me: some of what I do for Wikipedia might perhaps be called pluralism research, which shortens to p-research, or presearch. More broadly, the word "presearch" has been used for many years in many ways, with 3000+ hits in Google Book in 1980s and earlier, some going as far back as 1981, 1957, or even 1946.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 3 months and 20 days.

This user is ranked No. 4217 on the list of Wikipedians by articles created.

This user has created >150 articles on Wikipedia.

This user has written or expanded >25 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The Original Barnstar
		For your fine-tooth comb review work on Pitkin County Courthouse at T:TDYK. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

November 2017, soon after creation of Auguste de Pradines:

	The Original Barnstar
	Your contributions have made Wikipedia better. Thanks for all you do. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

18 November 2024
News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions" News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024 Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Please note that explanations are part of civility, and civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. According to the Wikipedia civility guidelines (from WP:CIV):

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative... and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.

In the "avoiding incivility" subsection, we are told to

Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.

and also told to

Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with [as well as to] newcomers.... Consider using a personal message...

See HERE-1 for one highly civil editor explaining to a recurrently uncivil editor why indiscriminate templating is wrong (see also HERE-2). Furthermore, Wikipedia's Editing Policy page (WP:EP) states:

Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it.

and also states:

Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot.

The Wikipedia article on Disruptive Editing (WP:Disruption) states that:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of

• disrupting progress toward improving an article, or
• disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.

Signs of disruptive editing (according to the same page include a:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles,... etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

and another sign is:

Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

For remedies, a section of the same article describes a stepwise

model for remedies, though these steps do not necessarily have to be done in this sequence. In some extreme circumstances a rapid report to WP:ANI may be the best first step; in others, a fast track to a community ban may be in order. But in general, most situations can benefit from a gradual escalation, with hope that each step may help resolve the problem, such that further steps are not needed.

• "Do not hesitate to let the other person know that you are not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way" (WP:EQ)

• From WP:Dispute Resolution: "Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not. It's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties."
• From WP:BRD_misuse: "There are essentially two ways to misuse WP:BRD: being an Edit ninja (or Revert ninja) and being a Filibusterer.... If the advice suggested doesn't work then... [a backup is to] seek outside community support elsewhere."

• Wikipedia Manual of Style
• Wikipedia cleanup templates
• Wikipedia Book article structure (nonfiction), Book covers, Journal article structure, "Works" templates (sidebars: Aristotle, Aurobindo, Tchaikovsky, Thoreau, Hagen; partial-width: Kurumada, Takahashi)
• Featured Books
• Wikipedia WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:NJournals; WP:WikiProject Days of the year and WP:Days of the year
• Wikipedia citation templates for book, journal, or list of many types (see also category of citation templates), Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists
• Wikipedia Help:Interlanguage and Interwiki links
• Wikipedia Help:Table, Tables Ready to Use
• Wikipedia Help:Using_colours, WP:COLOR, X11 color names
• Wikipedia showing/hiding tools: WP:NAVFRAME
• Wikipedia infobox for: Person, Scientist, Category of People Infoboxes
• Wikipedia article title naming conventions: general, and for books
• Wikipedia template for under construction.

• HTML characters
• Article database via Wikipedia: WP:HighBeam
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters; Working again (25 June 2012): Top Mainspace EditsOld version of Top Mainspace Edits
• Free conversion tool: ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 & ISBN-13 to ISBN-10 from the ISBN agency. Also shows correct hyphenation & verifies if ISBNs are valid or not.
• Category changes (example): Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:2008_books
• Mirror and for discussion board; listings: GV
• Expanded TOC (example: DYK): {{TOC limit|limit=5}} (new line) {{Template talk:Did you know}}
• Featured article requests, categories, book examples (1, 2)
• Submission to Did You Know? (DYK); Queue; WP:DYKLIST

• Need photograph? See Template:Reqphoto ({{reqphoto}}); see also photo request categories.
• Wikipedia notability noticeboard
• WikiProject guidelines, including delisting authority.
• Templates for using translated WP articles: {{Expand <<<source language>>>|<<<article name>>>|date=}} / Other translation templates: Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese
• Translation step-by-step protocol (from WP Medicine)
• Evaluation of machine translation (/back-translation, round-trip translation)
• Wikipedia:Unified login, Global User list, SUL cross-check, Confirmation link (box: "Advanced Usage")

• Wikipedia: Try to fix problems: preserve information
• Wikipedia: Don't revert due to "no consensus"
• Wikipedia: "Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that are cited or quoted" (from WP:PEACOCK)
• Researchers citing themselves: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy" (WP:NOR); "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies" (WP:COI)
• WP:OWN states that "if someone else is claiming 'ownership' of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process." Examples of ownership attitudes include "please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."
• Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)
• Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE)

• If DOIs are not fully hidden when placed in references, try using URL "percent-encoding"

• Including references on talk pages?: It is possible to generate multiple lists of references by inserting {{reflist|close=1}} - see Template:Reflist#Multiple_uses. Each reference section will be renumbered, starting with 1. This allows the talk page reference section to appear immediately below the text that generates it. Failure to include an argument, such as "close=1", will lead to simple duplication of the most recent previous instance of a reference section.

• To delete user subpages (see guideline): Insert template {{db-userreq}}
• Requests for Administrator Attention
• Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts, for uncivil behaviors by editors

• Churnalism briefly had a Wikipedia:Churnalism essay (in Wikipedia space) that was userfied in 2017. It now appears to reside in userspace at User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism, which in its header advises, "For the reliable sources guideline on churnalism, see WP:NEWSORG". The latter states that "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)," and that "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format" (citing WP:NEWSBLOG, which introduces its topic by stating that "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs.").

• Requests to archive webpages: [1]
• Decline in Wikipedia page views (analysis): [2]

Harder than a few years ago. See Wikipedia:Subpages, or Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 8.

This user participates in WikiProject Books.

• Signatures of religious figures: User:Presearch/Signatures
• Resources for dealing with scientism: diff or direct inlink
• Text shadowing: Presearch ^talk_contribs
• Highlighting: Create highlighted text with: <font style="background-color: yellow;">highlighted</font>

When making cites, might I (Ogress) suggest https://reftag.appspot.com/ ? (be sure to check the box for ref=harv). It does all the work. All you do is plug in a Google Books link. It autoformats everything:

• raw url: https://books.google.com/books?id=mmvzSw2igPUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Central+Philosophy+of+Buddhism:+A+Study+of+the+Madhyamika+System&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIu_zM1qbyxgIVTM-ACh0M2AzR#v=onepage&q=The%20Central%20Philosophy%20of%20Buddhism%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Madhyamika%20System&f=false gosh that's long
• parsed format after sticking that into the website and hitting "format":

{{harv|Murti|2013|p=}}

{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Murti|first=T R V|title=The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mmvzSw2igPUC|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=1-135-02946-6}}

There. Now just replace harv in {{harv|Murti|2013|p=}} with sfn and you get {{sfn|Murti|2013|p=}}. That makes a ref without needing tags! Here's page 15 cited:^[2]. Then stick the second one in the bibliography!

• Murti, T R V (2013). The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System. Routledge. ISBN 1-135-02946-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thought-provoking?:

Wikipedia is currently valued at 785 million dollars (and increasing).what!?