User:Keilana/Deidra Adoption

Hi Deidra! This is your adoption page, where I'll be teaching you lessons about how to use Wikipedia and lots of different things you can do to help out around here. Your first lesson will be a quick introduction to Wikipedia and the Five Pillars that guide our community. You'll have tests after the lesson to make sure you've gotten it all. Ready? Let's go!

Lessons

Lesson 1: Welcome!

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.

How articles should be written

The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources

So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

Righto, here's the test. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?

A - No. I wouldn't because it's unessesary and the article doesn't require it.

Why don't you think it's unnecessary? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your follow up question. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, why do you think the information about the new version of the Escort is unnecessary? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Because you can't just throw random information into Wikipedia that you got from a friend. If it is true, you would still need to cite it, but that'll be very difficult.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?

A - Yes. Because it is an important issue, but I don't believe it should be discussed too briefly. It might be too profiling.

I'm confused, your answers are a little bit ambiguous. Could you clarify please? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I clarified it. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?

A- Yes i would. Because it is an interesting fact. I think it would be nice to include this.

Do you think it's relevant to the articles? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's relevant. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What about encyclopedic value? Do we need to include every little bit of information we can find on the subject? (There's really no right answer, some people like a lot of trivia and details and some try to kill it with fire.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I like a lot of those trivia info. I think that they're not important but it is something good to include.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?

A - For troubles, yes. For ITV, no. It might seem too competitive.

Okay, that's right, but there's a little more nuance. Could you think of a better source for information about The Troubles?

Not really. I don't know. All I know is that BBC news could be fine for troubles. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that part of the Troubles has to do with animosity towards England from the Irish. The BBC is an English newspaper, so it might not be 100% neutral. I think a better thing to do would either be to say "The BBC, an English newspaper, said 'blah blah blah', whereas the Irish Times said 'bloop bloop bloop'", or to use a non-British or Irish source entirely. If you're looking for a newspaper, something from America, Germany, or Japan would be a good choice. If you want a more historical source, there are a lot of historians writing about Irish history. Does that make sense? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol! Not in my eyes it doesn't! lol. RaidenRules! (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What part is confusing to you? I'll see if I can explain better. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A- Yes and no. Yes because it is a very good link. No because it is not a varifiable source in my opinion.

Yeah, it's not verifiable. A better source would be their website or, even better, a third party source.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A- Yes.

Why? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Because if you are going to talk about world hunger, and if we are talking about the Daily Telegraph, it is a discussion. It is good to include becuase in Wikipedia, it's good to include side information as well. This is what I feel is correct. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?

A - I would have a problem. I don't think that this source is intelligent and reliable enough to include in Wikipedia. Therefore, I wouldn't put it.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.

A - No. I think it is an ok source, Maybe not the best, but it could be fixed.

What do you think would be a better source? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"What do you think would be a better source?- (me)- I'm not good at these sorts of questions. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this - try doing a google search on "history of Xerox" and find a good source that's not from the company. That'll be a good exercise! And if you want, if it's not already in the article, you could add that information and improve it! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?

A - Well everyone knows the sky is blue, so if someone were to say otherwise, I would say that they need a source if they want to question it.

That works. One thing you may know is that presenting good sources that back up what you say can help resolve disputes. So, if you were to get in a dispute with bronze-sky-guy, you could bring up a bunch of references that explicitly talk about the sky being blue and why, and that should help. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That works for me too. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette (Lesson 2)

WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.

Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.

How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]

How's the soup? --John

It's great!! --Jane

I made it myself! --John

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane

I tend to disagree. --George

Don't forget to assume good faith
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Watch out for common mistakes.
Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Questions

Any questions?

Test

Have a look at the conversation below:

What's the best car in the world? -- Rod

Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie

Like what -- Rod's Mate

I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A

What do you want it for? -- Jane

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?

A- I think he's replying in position A.

He is, which person (Rod, Freddie, or Rod's Mate) is he replying to? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably Freddie. Raiden Rules!^{Talk to me!}

He's actually replying to Rod's Mate, because that is the response with one less indent. Does that make sense? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense because of the indent. I see now. RaidenRules! (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2) Position B?

A- Not B. If he were replying to B, he wouldn't be making any sense if he was. RaidenRules! (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Same as above, which person is he replying to? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he's replying to Rods Mate again. I don't know why.RaidenRules! (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here it's the same thing as above - he's replying to Rod because it's only indented once. Does that make sense now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I should've looked more carefully. I didn't see that at first. RaidenRules! (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?

A- As "possible" not "right away". I think they probablt should be investigated a little more before people start pointing the finger at him. If the edit count and templates seems suspicious than discuss it with a group of people and investigate him. If you find some hard proof that he's sockpuppeting, than he should be reported. RaidenRules! (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good answer, yes. You're absolutely right - it's not good to accuse someone before having really solid evidence. Here's a tip - if you need to report sockpuppetry, you go to Sockpuppet investigations. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary

There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Term	Explaination
Attribution	The identification of work by an author
Copyright symbol	© - used to show work is under copyright
Creative Commons	Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright.
Compilation	A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works.
Derivative work	A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting)
Disclaimer	A statement which limits rights or obligations
FACT	Federation Against Copyright Theft
Fair use	Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country.
Copyright infringement	Use of work under copyright without permission
Intellectual property	Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights.
License	The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used.
Non-commercial	Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling.
Public domain	Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired

Image Copyright on Wikipedia

Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.

Free images
Non-free images

Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.

Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)

In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations

If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)

There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.

I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

Commons

When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.

Copyright and text

So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.

Questions

This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

Yeah I know. I got one question. If I take a piece of text from something and change the words, add on, or fix up the words to display correct information but in different words, then will that be a bad copyright thing? 'Cuase I'm stuck on that? Yes. I briefly read through everything and as soon as you answer this question, I'll be ready for the test. In school, I've learned about image copy-right so I already knew about that, but I'm ashamed about the whole text copyright incident. (*Oh yeah- HAPPY NEW YEAR!*) I watched Times Square last night. Lol. In London, they were PARTYING!!! This year's celebration in our loud house in New Jersey, not the best 2012. It was not a good year. Hopefully 2013 is better. RaidenRules! (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a different problem called "close paraphrasing". You should definitely read through Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to help you understand. You have to summarize it, so just adding to it or using synonyms isn't ok. For example, if I saw the sentence in a source (from Green Day) "Green Day's three follow-up albums, Insomniac (1995), Nimrod (1997), and Warning (2000) did not achieve the massive success of Dookie, though they were still successful, with Insomniac and Nimrod reaching double platinum and Warning reaching gold status.", I couldn't just change the words around and use the same phrasing. I would have to express the same information in my own words. So, I'd summarize it and convey the same information in my own way: "After Dookie, Green Day recorded three less-successful albums: Insomniac, released in 1995 and certified double platinum, Nimrod, released in 1997 and also certified double platinum, and Warning, released in 2000 and certified gold." Do you see how that works? (Happy New Year to you too! I watched the ball drop and spent time with my family. I hope 2013 is good as well! :) ) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. Thankyou!!!! :-) I love green day (ps). lol. Please look at my user page. I added something to it that I want you to see. Thanks. RaidenRules! (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ready for the test, please! RaidenRules! (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I'll post it in a sec. And I saw the list on your userpage - my favorite is the one about standing up to the school bully. I was bullied in middle school too and it was terrible, even more so 'cause I didn't stand up to them. I believe in you! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Test

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A- Absolutely not. There are sooo many rules and strict orders. So many policies that you have to follow. Well, remeber everyone makes mistakes. but wikipedia is not free. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- When you know an article needs a picture and when you know it's not copyrighted. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?

A- I'm guessing, no because it's licensed by someone. I just think all because Wiki. is non-commerical, you must have something not copyrighting or copying. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.

A- I think he can't because I've heard from so many users that uploading album covers violates their album and shouldn't be here without permission. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?

A- I don't doubt if someone did. But I say no. I wouldn't because its a "press" image. If it was a regular picture like one that's NOT on a website, then yeah. But a press image is probably only used with permission. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?

A- Again, no. This is not appropiate. Same as above. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?

A- Inform this user about his act, instead of getting angry and throwing a fit. (like some people). If this user continues to do this or refuses the information, i'll block him from editing or try to offer him advice about avoiding this. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?

A- Of course not. If it's not a word-per-word thing then its not a problem. If you organize it and fix it up, then there is definitely nothing wrong with copy-paste. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)

A-

Advice

If there's a situation where you need advice, you can ask me here or on my talk. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been having crazy nightmares lately and I don't know why. I think its because of school and these dreams are affecting the way I work in real life. RaidenRules! (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds terrible. Have you considered talking to someone you trust in real life about them? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can. They are very strange and weird. I think I'll keep a dream diary about them. RaidenRules! (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Deidra, I'm sorry for interjecting, but perhaps you could talk to a guidance counselor at your school, or perhaps a religious leader (youth pastor, rabbi, pastor, etc.)? Even a trusted friend. You really should talk to someone in real life that you trust. Go Phightins! 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)t wi

Go Phightins is right. These things get better when you talk to people you trust about it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a school counselor. I don't know any religious leader. I just dont think I can. I'll see if I can fix it by relating it with real life. I'm writing a book that is similar in dreams........RaidenRules! (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What about a teacher that you trust? An older sibling? A friend? If there's really no one, keeping a diary is not a bad idea at all, but it's best if you can talk about it with someone in RL. Go Phightins! 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dream diaries really work. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding. Good for you, solving your problem. Initiative and independence are two qualities that are pivotal to success anywhere, especially Wikipedia. Go Phightins! 04:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working so much better in school because of the nightmares that I got rid of. It's really great. RaidenRules! (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm so happy to hear that! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm here! We can talk about whatever you want and continue with your lessons. You've still got the last copyright question to do, then we can go over that. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well....I wanted to say that I'm PROBABLY going to stay in Wikipedia for this month....but definitely in the summer i'll be here. I said I'll PROBABLY leave. There is a 64% chance I won't. So.....yeah. I forgot what else I was going to say...RaidenRules! (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here for now. Let me know when you've done that last copyright exercise! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)