User:Mr. Squidroot

Formerly known as Squidroot2

Just here to help in any way I can. I love the mission of the Wikipedia and love that everyone is able to contribute to make it better.

If I'm on Wikipedia, there is a good chance there is a cat on my lap. This is the superior Wikipedia experience.

I tend to believe that most sentences should be cited. It makes the moving ideas around to different sections so much easier.

There is a subtle form of original research very prevalent on Wikipedia where an editor has something they want to add to the article, so they add it with a reference to a reliable source that sort of looks like it might support the statement being added. I'm sure in most cases, this isn't even malicious; it is simply one's intuitions and preconceived notions coloring the interpretation of the source. A lot of improvements can be made to Wikipedia by simply reading the cited source to see how it lines up with the statement being sourced.

It is bad form to bring up someone's edit count or account age in a content dispute. Many people edit while logged out or have old accounts they lost the password to. It is also possible (and advisable!) for a user to spend time reading the policies & guidelines, talk pages, and edit histories before they start making edits.

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong", and it's often better to keep that second step in your head.

I am not a fan of bundling citations. Sometimes, I see it used as a way to work around WP:OVERKILL, but there are usually better ways. If multiple parts of a statement are supported by different sources, put a citation on each part of the statement. If multiple sources support a single statement, remove the excess, moving them to Further Reading if necessary. You should never need more than one or two high-quality sources to support a single claim.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!