User:Missionedit/Adoption/Hisashiyarouin
|
Missionedit's Adoption Homepage • Discussion || Current Adoptee Pages: Ploreky ||
Inactive: Scribbleink • Jtamad • Elsa Enchanted • Molly's Mind • Ntomlin1996 • Venustar84 • Acj1 • AmazingAlec • Faiz7412 • Hisashiyarouin • Marcus1093 • WelshWonderWoman || Graduates: FiendYT
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A few questions to start off with: 1) Would you prefer to be called Hisashiyarouin, Yarouin, or something else?
Lesson 1: Wiki markup[edit]Wiki markup Since you like collapse tables, I decided that I'll put all the lessons in some to keep it more organized :) If you can think of another way you'd like this page set up, just let me know, or do it yourself if you are able. This lesson mostly is taken from WP:MARKUP, so you can also take a look there if you need some more help. Headings[edit]If you edit this page, you can see how the "Lesson 1" heading above has two equal signs to either side of it, like this: Line breaks[edit]Using the Enter/Return key once changes nothing visibly on saved page, however, this can help the page code look more organized. Entering twice creates a new paragraph. You can use Indenting[edit]Instead of using the tab key or spacebar to indent on Wikipedia, colons ( Lists[edit]There are two main kinds of lists: bullet points and numbered. Numbered lists are generally for anything ranking or order-related, and everything else (such as bibliographies or award lists) should be bulleted lists. You use an asterisk to ( Text formatting (italics and bold text)[edit]Adding two singular apostrophes ( Enclosing text between Links[edit]To link to a page inside Wikipedia's domain name, simply put two brackets to either side. For instance, if I wanted to link to the Wikipedia article about Tetris, I would put This will work even if the text on the right side is unrelated to the link, for instance, if I wanted to make the word "apple" link to the "Pumpkin" article, the code would appear as follows: There are also external links, which link to pages outside Wikipedia. To do that, you place only one bracket on each side of the URL. Then you put a space and type in what you want it to be called. For example, linking to the official Taiko no Tatsujin website homepage would mean posting End of Lesson 1[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Did I explain everything in a way that is understandable? Any questions before we move on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Lesson 2: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia[edit]The Five Pillars of Wikipedia These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
@Hisashiyarouin: Any questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Lesson 3: Reliable sources[edit]Reliable sources For more information on this topic see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now, you may know a little about this already, and if you do then it will be a breeze for you. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be hard for you. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it. On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :) Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration". Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source. End of lesson 3[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Questions before the test? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Test[edit]1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?
2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?
8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?
End of test[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: If you are confused by a question, feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything in particular you would like to cover, Hisashi, tell me and we can do it in the next lesson. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Lesson 4: Copyright[edit]Copyright Copyright is one most important lessons to learn, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. We'll be focusing on images, but 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[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] 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 those licenses if you want, 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. There are basically two types of images on Wikipedia. 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 practice, 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
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.
Commons[edit]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 encyclopedias in every language. Copyright and text[edit]Let's see how copyright 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
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. End of lesson 4[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Thanks for being patient and waiting for the lesson :) Now is a great time to ask about any tricky situations. Copyright is definitely not my forte, but I'll do my best to answer. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Test[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one, but be sure to explain your answers. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC) 1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
2.) Q- List three instances in which you can upload a picture to the Commons.
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Can you upload it to Commons?
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
9.) Q- Go have a snoop around some Wikipedia articles and 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 put a colon : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Lesson 5: Vandalism[edit]Vandalism This lesson has been ruthlessly pinched from the vandalism lessons of User:Brambleberry of RiverClan and User:Hersfold, with a few of my own touches. What we're going to do now is get started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, many people prefer to do other things. But it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia, and you are likely to run into some. Should you ever wish become an administrator, you will be expected to deal with vandalism at least in some respect. Some background on vandalism[edit]Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse: while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work being done 24/7 by well-intentioned editors to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy Wikipedia. Fortunately, with the enormous amount of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. Various tools aid our cause and help us "revert", or remove, vandalism within minutes or even seconds. What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is deliberately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism. However, you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases. The tool most commonly used to combat vandalism is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across Wikipedia within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left of any page on Wikipedia. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
Terminology[edit]I'm going to explain what all these terms mean. Many of these terms are used across the project
Your assignment[edit]Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.) IMPORTANT WARNING[edit]Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC) How to Revert[edit]Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I would suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. Then save your preferences and refresh the page. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more information can be found at WP:TWINKLE. Warning vandals[edit]There many different templates available to warn vandals after you've reverted their edit. I would recommend using Twinkle. If you are, the first step will be under the "Wel" button, while the rest will be under "Warn":
If someone has a level 3 warning on one charge (such as vandalism), but doesn't have one on another (like using a talk page as a forum), start with a level 1 warning on the new charge. I've found that some vandals have multiple charges. Occasionally, you'll get an editor who won't stop vandalizing even after the final warning. When this happens, there is no choice left but to block them, which is something only an administrator can do. AIV, or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is just for this specific purpose. You can report them using Twinkle, as Twinkle has the option "ARV", which allows you to fill out a form that get sent to WP:AIV. Once it gets sent, there is no more left for you to do; let the admins handle it. However, if I were you, I would keep track of the editor and what the admins decide on for punishment. Different vandals[edit]There are multiple kinds of vandals. Scared vandals. There are those kinds of vandals that make one kind of unhelpful edit (like replacing a heading with "muahaha" or some type of gibberish) thinking that everyone on Wikipedia does that. They then get a warning and are scared straight immediately. They either choose not to edit ever again or become upstanding editors. Repeat vandals. The repeat vandals are bored and looking for a little fun. Once again, most of their vandalism is gibberish replacing good text. You can give them as many warnings as you want, but they won't bother. Once you get past the level 4 warning for them, you report them to WP:AIV and the admins deal with them. Belligerent vandals. These vandals are similar to the repeat vandals, except the belligerent vandals will often leave a nasty note on your talk page or vandalize your user page when you give them a warning. Then you can give them two warnings: one for vandalism and one for personal attacks. If something like this happens, you just have to take it in stride. Personally, being a Christian, I find vandals forgivable. But without that factor, I guess you just have to remember that there will be mean people in the world, and that you can't let them get you down. Just revert their offence and hand them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. Malicious vandals. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. You don't have to escalate level warnings in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. In this case, you can give them {{uw-vandalism4im}}. If they continue vandalizing (which they probably will), report them to WP:AIV. End of lesson 5[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Tah-dah! You have just successfully read through one of the longest and most tedious lessons of this course. If you have problems with Twinkle or any other questions please tell me. The point of your assignment is to get you familiar with finding vandalism. After you find a couple instances, we can then move on to reverting vandalism. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 6: Deletion[edit]Deletion Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion. This lesson will have a test. WP: CSD[edit]WP:CSD, short for "Criterion for speedy deletion", is, in its most practical form, a tag which you place on articles that need to be deleted "speedily", or as soon as possible. These are the following criterion for speedy deletion in article space (you rarely need to use it in any other space):
You should wait at least ten minutes after an article is created before tagging an article with either A1 or A3, because the author may add more information in that time that would render the CSD templates void. WP:PROD[edit]
PROD, short for "Proposed deletion", is what you use f the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue. Someone can always contest your PROD, in which case you should take it to AfD. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how to use in a moment. PRODs also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}. WP:XfD[edit]WP:XFD (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allows users to debate the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what to do with it. This does not involve voting - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are (or should be) considered when concluding the debate. We will do the next lesson specifically on this subject, votes! and consensus. The template to the right shows all the different types of deletion debates. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures. The most frequently used XfD is AfD, Articles for Deletion. WP:AfD[edit]WP:AFD, short for "Articles for deletion", is where you go if you think something should be deleted but want to be sure. You can list it at AfD using Twinkle under the XFD button and then say why you think it should be deleted. Then the usual consensus debate process is followed. If you ever want to become an administrator, AfD is a great thing to be involved in. End of lesson 6[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Questions? I hope you found this lesson useful. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Test[edit]Questions 4-7 are hypothetical scenarios. Answer what CSD criterion (if any) you would tag these articles under. 1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you would use PROD.
2.) Q- You tag an article for CSD under A7. The creator then blanks the page. What should you do?
3.) Q- Why should you wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3?
4.) Q- You find an article which says: Joe Garrison is so nice and awesome and the best person I've ever met! He always has a beer and a hot dog for you! His fiancée Ashley is really cool too!
5.) Q- You find an article which says: ajdflajsdlfjalghaiefjalsfj
6.) Q- You find an article which says: Mike Smith is a trumpeter in the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. He used to be in the Boston Pops. He likes to read and swim when he's not playing the trumpet.
7.) Q- You find an article which says: On the night of 22 April 1941, during the the blitz, over 70 civilians were killed, including a mother and her six children, when a bomb fell on the shelter near the Planetarium. The bomb shelter consisted of a series of underground tunnels which many had long-presumed lost but were rediscovered in 2006. The bomb blast was so big that human remains were found in the tops of trees. In 2006 an appeal was made to raise money for a public sculpture to honour those who lost their lives. (This one's a tricky one, but ask yourself: do you know what the article is talking about?)
8.) Assignment- find an article worthy of deletion (CSD, PROD, or AFD), and tag it/begin the process. Please explain what you did and why you did it below.
End of test[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: I saw that you very nicely reverted that nasty vandalism to your talk page. Keep up the good work! I know many an experienced editor who do not deal as calmly as you did with personal attacks :) Good luck with the test, and feel free to refer to the lesson. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 7: Consensus and "voting"[edit]Consensus and "voting" Since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, when we have a disagreement on something, we go by consensus. You can add your opinion to the debate by "voting". However, this type of voting is not like holding an election or a poll. It is more like a debate, with each comment contributing a new idea to keep the consensus discussion going. (Interesting fact: WP:Articles for Deletion used to be called Votes for Deletion, but the name was later changed so that a better consensus could be reached.) "Voting"[edit]As I am sure you know by now, a "vote" usually begins with Support or Oppose. However, just saying "Support" is very different than saying "Support: - User has been a loyal host at the Teahouse since its inception, shows a good article track record, and has enough experience in the administrative work they intend to participate in that I have no concerns with them using the tools." You see, it is necessary to explain why you have "voted" support or oppose, otherwise, it will just be a stack of votes with no reasoning behind them. Articles for deletion[edit]These are the following "votes" you can use at AfD:
Requests for adminship/bureaucratship[edit]These are the following "votes" that you can use in RfAs and RfBs:
You can add "Strong" or "Weak" to "Support" and "Oppose". Or you can also go for a more humorous approach, eg. "Oh my goodness yes". It's usually in better taste to have a humorous vote for a support than an oppose :) Bad arguments[edit]There are many bad arguments that you should avoid on Wikipedia when participating in discussions. Please read these pages:
End of lesson 7[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: There's no test on this one, just an assignment: participate in 3 AfDs and in any RfAs or RfBs that they have around. You can vote in AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can vote for RfAs or RfBs at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 8: Templates[edit]Templates This lesson is mostly taken from User:Hersfold/Adopt/Templates. Template basics[edit]Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. All templates have "Template:" as a prefix (eg. Template:Cite web or Template:User Sandbox). Templates work similarly to regular links, but instead of using [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly brackets}}. To "call" a template, just type the title of the template between the curly brackets. Whenever you call a template, the content of the template page will be displayed. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace (has different prefix), such as "User:" or "Wikipedia:", do you need to specify it. See below:
In that last example, I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. A named parameter looks like this: |(parameter name goes here) = (value goes here) and an unnamed parameter looks like this: |(value goes here) Parameters allow you to change certain aspects of a template. One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, meaning that you have to specify what the name of the parameter is when you use it by putting something after the equal sign. If you set the parameter "anon" to "true" in this template: There are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling a template as I showed you above: {{exampletemplate}}. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly bracketed call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call: {{subst:exampletemplate}}. When you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes all the content of the template to virtually be copy-pasted to your page. This makes it more difficult to remove, because instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article/page. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require transclusion. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted.
End of lesson 8[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: These are only the basics of templates. We can cover more advanced stuff later if you want to. Any questions? Please tell me if you had any problems understanding, and we can try to work them out together. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 9: Manual of Style[edit]Manual of Style The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect to touch on it, but I think the MOS a very important and necessary part of Wikipedia, and deserves its own lesson :) Here are the main points of it: Article titles, headings, and sections[edit]
Spelling and grammar in different forms of English[edit]There are many different kinds of English from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. To make sure the English style used throughout an article is consistent, sometimes an invisible template such as {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}}, or {{Use Irish English}}, is placed at the top. Otherwise, it's best to try and follow the style the rest of the article is written in to keep it consistent. Capital letters[edit]
End of lesson 9[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Any questions? I have included only the very basics; there is much more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There'll be a test for this lesson—don't worry, it won't be too hard :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Test[edit]1.) Q- Capitalize the following article titles accordingly:
2.) Q- Put the following in the correct order according to the Manual of Style. The title of the article is "Peter Laufer"—do not refer to the actual article:
3.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with this if it were an article title:
4.) Q- What type of English should you (most likely) use in an article if this is a sample sentence from it?
5.) Q- Capitalize the following accordingly as if they were in the middle of a sentence. If correct, write "correct":
End of test[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Here you go. Feel free to refer to the lesson and WP:MOS during the test. Good luck! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 10: Dispute resolution[edit]Dispute resolution No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This is especially likely to happen if you take to editing in the more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.  I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth following through. This lesson will have a test. Simple Resolution[edit]I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe in your side of the argument, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you should do, though, is attempt to resolve the dispute. First, assume good faith: remember the person you are in a dispute with is (most likely) also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise. Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, and it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to make your point by editwarring (repeatedly reverting someone else's same work) to keep your preferred version there is a chances that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead, follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss rule - one editor makes a bold edit which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor reverts the edit because they disagree. Then, these two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. When it comes to discussion, try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right; this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Something you should never do is use personal attacks to try to get your way; attacks on the character of an editor will only make thing worse. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that. If it continues, report them to admin. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor you are talking with is likely to respond, you realize that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways:
Accusing the other editor of attacks, bad faith, ownership, vandalism, or any number of negative things are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, use the following dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of racketball. Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia dispute resolution process[edit]If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution. Assistance[edit]If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation. Third opinion[edit]You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. Third opinion has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP Mediation[edit]If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try the more formal route of Requests for mediation. The editors here specialize in sorting out debates. Request for Comment[edit]You can use Request for Comment to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than with a Third Opinion request. Request for comment is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified. Arbitration[edit]I really hope you'll never have to go this far with a dispute. It's the last resort; the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated and serious cases. Have a read of WP:Arbitration Committee if you like, but try not to end up there. Reporting misconduct[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realize you are flogging a dead horse. End of lesson 10[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: This is a tricky area. Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Test[edit]1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, each level of dispute resolution:
2.) Q- Editor A adds something that he believes is helping Wikipedia. Editor B disagrees and reverts it, so Editor A re-adds the content only for Editor B to revert again. What should the two editors do instead of this edit warring (repeatedly adding and removing content)?
3.) Q- You mark a particular article for deletion. The creator of the article then leaves a message on your talk page, calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How should you react?
4.) Q- You find information saying that the island fox is making a comeback and decide put it in the article with a proper citation. Then another editor reverts it as patent nonsense. What should your next step be?
5.) Q- When you are in the middle of a dispute with someone, they insult you on the basis of gender and religion. What should you do?
6.) Q- OPINION: Is there any way to make the dispute resolution process easier?
End of test[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Here you go! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal break[edit]Personal break You're about half way through the course (congrats!), so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian. 1.) Q- Why did you begin editing Wikipedia? Why did you decide to become adopted?
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
3.) Q- What are your major interests? What type of things do you like to do on Wikipedia?
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
End of lesson[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Do have any preference for topic of the next lesson? If not, we'll move on to semi-automatic tools. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 11: Page protection[edit]Page protection This will be a short lesson, especially since I am limited in both knowledge and experience with this subject, as I am not an admin nor do I plan on becoming one :) Most of this information is taken from WP:PP. Protection policy[edit]Even though Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, in some particular circumstances, because of the extreme likelihood of damaged occuring if editing is left open, some pages may need to be subject to technical restrictions on who is permitted to modify them. The placing of such restrictions on pages is called protection. Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner; different color padlocks represent different protection types. Types/levels of protection[edit]Here are the majority of page protection types. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time period. Most common[edit]
Other types[edit]
Requesting protection[edit]Protection can only be applied to or removed from pages by Wikipedia's administrators. However, any user may request the protection of a page via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. To do this, you must explain all your reasons for wanting the page protected; persistent vandalism is the most common reason. Make sure you specify the type and length of protection in your request. All the guidelines can be found on the page. End of lesson 11[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: That's pretty much it. Anything else you want to know while we're on the subject? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Lesson 12: Permissions[edit]Permissions In order to keep Wikipedia running efficiently, some users are allowed additional abilities, or permissions, beyond those of basic users. These permissions are used for maintenance of the site, but because of the potentially dangerous nature of these permissions, they are only given to certian trusted users. The page here shows a table listing the rights of all types of users. I'll briefly cover the abilities of each type here, as well as how people get these abilities. Unregistered / New Accounts[edit]Unregistered users have the lowest access levels. Because this is a wiki, they can still edit the site, but they are only able to edit pages which have not been protected or semi-protected. They cannot move pages (rename them) and they cannot create new pages that are not in their own userspace or in the Talk: namespace. These same restricted permissions apply to new accounts, those that have not been "autoconfirmed". For security reasons, an account must be at least four days old to make use of the privileges granted to registered users. Registered accounts[edit]Registered users have normal access levels to the site. They can edit any page that is not fully protected, they can move and create pages, and upload files. Again, users must hold an account for four days in order to use these features. Rollbackers[edit] Account Creators[edit] Those who actively volunteer at Wikipedia account creation have their accounts "flagged" with the account creator permission. This enables them to create more than 6 accounts every 24 hour period which is currently restricted for those who don't possess the sysop (see below) or account creator privileges. This 6 account a day quota was implemented to prevent the problematic use of multiple account creations. Additionally, account creators can override the anti-spoof check enabling them to create accounts that are similar to existing usernames another task that the average user is unable to perform. This tool can be granted by administrators to non-administrators at WP:PERM. IP block exemption[edit]Occasionally users who are in good standing will be affected by a block that was applied to another user. This is called an autoblock, and is automatically placed by the software to the IP address a blocked user last edited from, and any additional IP addresses they use while blocked. These are intended to prevent the blocked user from evading their blocks, but can affect others on a shared IP. If this happens to a user on a regular basis, or they are caught in a hard rangeblock, or for some exceptional reason need to edit from a blocked proxy, they can be granted an IP block exemptionIP block exempt right if they meet certain conditions outlined at WP:IPBE. This permission is usually requested through an unblock request, and is removed as soon as it no longer becomes necessary. Users with the right may be "checkusered" (see below) occasionally to ensure it is not being abused. Administrators / Sysops[edit] Administrators have much greater access compared to the average user. When approved to use the sysop tools, they have the ability to delete and restore (undelete) pages. In order to combat vandalism, they have access to a wider range of access tools - Automatic access to the rollbacker, account creator, and IP Block Exempt permissions described above; The ability to grant those permissions to other users; A special page called "unwatchedpages", which shows a list of pages not on anyone's watchlist; the ability to protect and unprotect pages, locking a certain revision in place until someone with the authority to do so edits it (sysops can edit any protected page); the ability to view deleted contributions; and the ability to block a user for a defined or indefinite amount of time. They are also able to make changes to the MediaWiki interface, changing what users see when they edit a page or view special pages. Users obtain a sysop flag by entering and passing the Requests for Adminship process, where registered users decide by consensus if a user can be trusted with the tools. Generally, a minimum of 70% support is required to pass, however the exact amount varies for each request. Alternate names for administrators: sysops (system operator), mop wielders, glorified janitors  Bureaucrats have control over the "nuts and bolts" of permissions, hence the crossed wrenches in their logo. They retain the ability to alter a user's permissions, but only when promoting users to admin or bureaucrat status. They are not able to demote users or grant further access levels. They can also alter a bot's access levels and rename accounts. Bureaucrats are selected through a process similar to that of admins, Requests for bureaucratship, although the process is much more rare and requires a significantly higher consensus. Stewards[edit]Stewards have full access to a user's permissions. They have the ability to grant and revoke any higher access level, including sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, steward, and bot access, on any project in any language. Stewards are elected by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees (with one exception, Chair Emeritus and Steward Jimbo Wales, who was simply appointed) annually or as needed. Stewards will generally carry further access levels on their main project, but the access level of "steward" only grants them the ability to mess around with permissions. Checkuser[edit] The checkuser tool allows a user to check if an account is a sockpuppet of another, by being able to access which IP address an account has accessed the project from and when. The tool is only to be used when there is a specific need for it - a controversial and disruptive case of sockpuppet abuse. Requests for checkuser is where people may request use of the tool, however the ability to use it is generally granted by invitation only, or in rare cases by the Arbitration Committee. This is a special permission only granted to specific users and is not included with other access levels. Oversight[edit] The oversight tool allows a user to hide a certain revision from public view - essentially deleting that one specific revision from the page history. This is done for very rare cases, generally pertaining to legal reasons such as private personal information, libelous content, or copyrighted information. This tool is only granted to users with a particular need for the tool, generally current or former members of the Arbitration Committee, as use of the tool requires a very good legal reasoning, as it is essentially an "oversight" of the requirements of the GFDL. This is a special permission only granted to specific users and is not included with other access levels. These permissions are all critical to the operation of the Wiki, however it should be kept in mind that not having (or having) one of these access levels really is no big deal. The important thing about a wiki is that you are able to edit it as needed, not that you can limit the ability of others to do so. If a higher access level is granted to you, however, you should always remember that it was granted in the spirit of trust, and that you are expected to use the tools only as needed and always fairly. End of lesson 12[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: That's that! I thought we might as well do a lesson on permissions after doing one on page protection. Any questions before we move on to our last couple lessons? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Lesson 13: Policies, guidelines, and essays[edit]Policies, guidelines, and essays This lesson has been mostly ripped from Brambleberry of RiverClan's adoption course. It will have a test. Policies[edit]A policy is a page describing a topic whose views have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that editors should normally follow. Examples of policies are WP:NOT, describing things that Wikipedia is not and therefore should not lead to pages of, and WP:Verifiability, saying what counts as a reliable source. These are commonly described as being "rules". However, there are usually exceptions to these rules. Guidelines[edit]A guideline is a page describing a best practice as supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines to the best of their abilities, although exceptions probably apply and everything should be treated with common sense. Examples of guidelines are WP:Assume good faith, which tells you to always assume that editors are working for the good of Wikipedia, and WP:Citing sources, which outlines the best way to cite sources on Wikipedia. Essays[edit]An essay is a page describing the opinion of an editor or group of editors. Essays are not rules or even guidelines to follow, and they do not represent the entire community's view. They are, however, worthy of consideration when you are editing. Examples of essays are WP:Existence ≠ Notability, which says that just because something exists doesn't mean that it deserves a Wikipedia page, and WP:Just drop it, which says that if things get heated, you shouldn't continue arguing. Misconceptions[edit]
Ignore all rules[edit]The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". It basically says that you should ignore a rule that keeps you from improving the encyclopedia. Some people try to apply it in bad situations, and it rarely works to their favor. There's an essay about it called Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. It basically says that if rules keep you from wanting to enjoy participating in the wiki, ignore them and go about your business. Everyone has their own interpretation of this pillar, and that's how it should be. End of lesson 13[edit]@Hisashiyarouin: Questions? Hope your graduation goes well :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
