It is approximately 10:26 PM where this user lives.
A few questions for you to begin this adoption:
1) Would you prefer to be called Jtamad, Juan, or something else?
Either is fine. Juan I guess. I sign with this juanTamad 03:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
2) What is your goal in contributing to Wikipedia?
I'm a retired medical journal editor, med writer/editor (with educational background in medically related fields), so I'm interested in contributing to medical and related science articles mostly, but will help where help is needed. I've done some minor changes and additions over the last few years, but now I can spend more time on it. Also, I'm American and speak native English.juanTamad 07:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
3) What time zone do you live in?
I'm in Thailand, Indochina Time Zone. Retired American living in Thailand, near Bangkok, on the coast.
4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship?
@Jtamad: Great! I forgot about the adoption badge, I'll change that right away.
The proper way to respond on talk pages is with colons (:) instead of indenting. The first person to post uses no colons at the beginning. The person responding uses 1 colon at the beginning of their reply. If the first person wishes to reply to that, they use 2 colons at the beginning, and so on with more replies. For example, I'll use this (rather dull) conversation:
Hello, how are you?
Doing well, thanks. How are you?
I'm great, thank you!
The text in the editing box (the code) would look like this:
Hello, how are you?
:Doing well, thanks. How are you?
::I'm great, thank you
I'll get the lesson on citations up soon as I can. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the intro. I came across a page that I think needs work and I wanted to make an addition. I use wikiwand; the page is http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Akaike_information_criterion Has a mixture of ref styles, both numbered superscript and Author, Year in text. I wanted to add, probably in the history section, that the original Akaike paper (1974) is the 73rd most cited paper of all time (Nature 2014 - http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews). I saw a template for citations I think. Not good as I understand it, to use a "naked" reference (only the URL). I just posted this same comment on the "Talk" page, next to the User page on the left. Guess that's not correct. What is the Talk page for? juanTamad 04:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Sorry, I forgot to explain. Talk pages are always used only for conversations, but since we are using the main "userpage" for conversations, we don't need to use the talk page at all. I blanked the talk page for you.
I recommend that you put this page on your watchlist so that you know when I edit it. I'm no sure how it works in Wikiwand, but with the default Wikipedia interface to add a page to your watchlist you just click the little star icon at the top of the page. To take it off your watchlist, just click the star again. Another useful way to let someone know that you have responded to them besides the talkback template is by using the ping template. When you place this at the beginning of the reply, it sends a little notification to the person named. If you were sending a notification to me, the code would look like this: {{ping|Missionedit}} and show up like this: @Missionedit. You can use these if you want when responding to me on this page, but you don't really need to as I check my watchlist daily.
Yes, it is considered very bad referencing to use a bare url without a full citation included. I'll try to get up the lesson on citations ASAP, but am very busy with work right now. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Anastasia - how did you create that 'hello' box at the top of the edit page on your user page?juanTamad 05:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: If you want to make one of those for your user page, first click on the edit button like you are going to edit the page. You will see immediately under the heading of "Editing User:Jtamad" it says "Page notice" in rather small lettering. Click on this, and it will lead you to User:Jtamad/Editnotice. This where you can create your own page notice. Anything you put here will show up whenever you edit that page. This works for other pages as well. Questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see "Page Notice" yet but will keep looking. What I wanted to do is place a box exactly like the one you have that appears when you click edit next to "About me" The "Hello, this is a Wikipedia user page. I'm trying to clean up and re-design my user page. Must be some tutorials somewhere. juanTamad 09:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad:Perhaps it looks different in Wikiwand. Anyhow, to make a box like the one on my user page, go to User:Jtamad/Editnotice. Whatever you put on this page will appear above your user page whenever you edit it. See mine at User:Missionedit/Editnotice to understand what I mean. Also, the page that explains about these boxes is at Wikipedia:Editnotice. If you want some ideas on what to do with your user page, maybe you should check out the Wikipedia:User page design center. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As you have mentioned, there are many types of citations acceptable on Wikipedia. Here are a few of them:
Full citation: A citation fully identifying a reliable source. Let's use a source from the Akaike information criterion article to demonstrate: Brockwell, Peter J.; Davis, Richard A. (1987). ''Time Series: Theory and Methods''. New York: Springer, pp. 238-9. ISBN 0387964061. You may notice that this citation is not in MLA or APA format. The format used for citations on Wikipedia is different and specific to Wikipedia
Inline citation: An in-text citation which is added after the material that it supports. It is usually in the form of a footnote and placed after a sentence or paragraph. The actually citation is found in section near the bottom of the page under a heading like "References" or "Footnotes".
General reference: A citation to a reliable source given at the bottom of the article to support it as a whole, but is not linked to any particular piece of material. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "General references" section, similar to a bibliography. These may be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed by author alphabetically in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.
Short citation: An inline citation with an abbreviated form of the whole source, like parenthetical documentation. e.g. Brockwell 1987, pp. 238-9.. These are usually used when different pages of the same book are cited in different places, or as an alternative to named refs, which we will learn a little later in this lesson.
In-text attribution: This is usually used when citing opinions and quotations of individuals. An example would be a sentence beginning In his 1987 book ''Time Series: Theory and Methods'', Peter Brockwell claims....
Wikipedia cite sources to maintain verifiablity. If a source is verifiable, that means that facts can be backed up by other reliable sources to make sure that the source (in this case, Wikipedia) does not have faulty information. Sources should not be included for common knowledge (e.g. "If you jump off a cliff you will get hurt" or "The sky is blue"), but should always be provided for controversial topics. We will go over this more in the next lesson, reliable sources. The idea is to write articles based off of sources, not to write articles off your own knowledge and then find sources to support them. This is a big no-no; however, many people still do it.
Inline citations help Wikipedia become even more verifiable by linking directly to the information which specifically supports a line of text or a fact. As a general rule, an article should have more inline citations than any other kind, and the more the better! The most simple and common way to an create and inline citation a Wikipedia article is by using ref tags. To use this method, we put the full citation in the text of the article where you want the footnote to go and add <ref> before the reference and </ref> after. Under a section at the bottom called "References" we type {{Reflist}} and nothing else. This will automatically list the citations in the order they are placed in the text under that heading. For example, we could write A fitting mathematical model, or set of models, must always first be chosen before analyzing a time series.<ref>Brockwell, Peter J.; Davis, Richard A. (1987). ''Time Series: Theory and Methods''. New York: Springer, pp. 238-9. ISBN 0387964061.</ref> Then we would put
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
at the bottom, and the article would show up like this:
A fitting mathematical model, or set of models, must always first be chosen before analyzing a time series.[1]
== References ==
1. ∧ Brockwell, Peter J.; Davis, Richard A. (1987). Time Series: Theory and Methods. New York: Springer, pp. 238-9. ISBN0387964061.
Wikipedia has a different style of citation format, so it's best not to try to use MLA or APA. An easy way to make sure all citations are formatted correctly is by using citation templates. Template:Citation Style 1 contains a list of citation templates for different kinds of sources. For this example, let's use {{cite book}}. Go down to the section on the page titled "Full parameter set in horizontal format" and copy it. Paste it where you want the reference in the article to go, and then add the ref tags to both sides so that it shows up under "References" at the bottom. To create the citation, fill out everything you can in the template (you can delete the sections, called parameters, which you don't use). Voilá! The reference shows up correctly formatted!
To maintain text-source integrity, do not construe information so that that the information appears to come from a source it doesn't. Consider the following (assume the source is the one we've been using):
A fitting mathematical model, or set of models, must always first be chosen before analyzing a time series.[1]
Now consider the following sentence:
A fitting mathematical model, or set of models, must always first be chosen before analyzing a time series, especially ones in the field of science.[1]
Nowhere in the book does it mention that science time series need a model more than any other kind of time series, so you would need to move the reference or the added information so that it does not appear that way.
Sometimes people add the same source citation over and over so that even though there are only a few sources to an article, the reference list is very long, full of repeated citations. Although this is technically acceptable, it is not very efficient. The "ref name" template shortens the reference list to only a few citations, each connected to multiple footnotes. It's much simpler than it sounds :) To use this style, replace the opening/front <ref> tag with <ref name="source nickname">. For the source we've been using, you could call it <ref name="Brockwell">, or <ref name="TimeSeries">, or really any name that helps you remember which source it is. After this first citation, if you would like to use the source again for another sentence, you can put <ref name="Brockwell"/> (or with whatever other nickname you've given the source) and that footnote would lead to the first source. This can be confusing at first, so feel free to ask questions. Also, sometimes the best way to learn is to do it :)
I have showed you the most common referencing techniques in use on Wikipedia, but there are many other acceptable ways which are not used as often. Here are some pages which may be useful:
@Jtamad: Any questions? I know this stuff can be confusing. Sorry I didn't get the lesson up earlier :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. Finally got back to this. I added the sentence and information for the Akaike information criterion citation but it needs further correction. Looks like this page started out with the author-year method inline with references at end alphabetical by author (nonstandard for wikipedia I think), then additional references were added using the number inline and numbered-at-end style, but the numbered refs are not showing up at the end. Seems to be a different method of citing and coding. I don't have time to explore now but will come back and fix it. juanTamad 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: The citation style used in the article is not unusual and is found in quite a few Wikipedia articles, but it is definitely not the most common style. It uses Template:Harvnb (short for "Harvard citation no brackets") to automatically create shortened citations. This is a perfectly acceptable way of citing sources. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I replaced all the in-text citations with the more common style, but the list at the end is not generating. Will have to fiddle with it some more later. The older alphabeta list is under Notes. Never mind, looks like it' ok.
@Jtamad: Be careful that if you change the citation style of a page to change it on the whole page, and not just part of it. These edits are considered not helpful and may be deleted, especially if the formatting was fine before you made your edit. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but it was not fine before. There was a mix of regular numbered style and the author-year (alphabetatized list), so I changed it all to the numbered style. Someone changed it back, claiming it was easier for the reader. I don't understand how it's easier but won't contest it (still learning). With the numbered style, you get a pop-up box when you scroll over a ref number, which I find very nice. You don't have to scroll to the end to see the citation. At present, there's numbered refs in the History section, but I see they seem to be using a combination, with the numbers being additional cites to a previous one, and showing page numbers (and listed under notes at the end). Is that on purpose? Will have to explore that a bit. Here's the email on the reversion: Dear Jtamad,
Editor's summary: Undo changes by Jtamad, which harmed Notes
Actually, Jtamad, the reference style in this article is fine, as I have said before. Using shortened citations (what you call a "a mix of regular numbered style and the author-year alphabetatized list") is just another way of reference formatting on Wikipedia, and is quite common. If you really think it would be better to use the full-length inline citation style on this particular article, and you want to change it, start a discussion on the talk page of the article asking a general opinion if you should change it. Ask User:86.181.144.244 to participate in the discussion, since he was the one who reverted your attempts in the first place. If this is successful, you must either change the reference formatting all in one edit, or copy-paste the article to your sandbox and work on it there. The only thing required of a citation style is that it must remain constant throughout the article. The thing is, Jtamad, I don't see why you are so adamant about changing the reference style in this article when it is already perfectly sound. Please enlighten me :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I thought it was messed up, but I see the hybrid style now. I wrote back to the person who reverted my changes and acknowledged the error. juanTamad 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: OK, great! I'm glad you've figured that out all by yourself. And you did just the right thing in this situation: you acknowledged your mistake and moved on.
I'll try to get the next lesson on reliable sources up in the coming week. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that the only way to do it? The word is appearing like this: It is considered moderately wikt: piquant in India and Pakistan
@Jtamad: If you place a pipe at the end of the link inside the brackets ([[wikt: piquant|]]), this will make the link appear like this: piquant. However, it is not normally acceptable to include inter-wiki links in Wikipedia article text. A link to the Wikipedia article Piquant would be more appropriate in this instance. Sorry it's taken me so long to get the next lesson up. The thanksgiving holiday swamped me, leaving little time for writing. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad:@Missionedit:No problem with the delay, I have plenty to do. I try to look these things up myself first. Stuff on interwiki links didn't seem to address my question; guess that's why. I used this: "is considered moderately piquant in India and Pakistan" -- which fixed it. This led me to the excellent page on the Scoville scale. The only thing I thought needed work is the image of the stand in Houston; needs cropping. I didn't even notice the Scoville scale in it. Now I want to see what happens when you ping yourself.
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 can add that information in a section called "Inspiration and origins".
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.
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?
Absolutely not. The friend may have misheard it, made it up, whatever. I would look for a news item about it, preferably in a "newspaper of record" such as the NYT (which I subscribe BTW), and then might wait a few days in the event there was some error in the story (typically they errata within maybe a week) since it's hardly an event of significance. If it were more significant as "breaking news" then I would certainly only use a highly reputable news source or official pronouncement. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y It's always a good idea to use multiple reputable/official sources to support facts about a famous person. Never add something to Wikipedia just because your friend told you it.
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)
No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original "research" which includes original ideas or analyses. Also, that would violate NPOV if presented in such a way that you were offering an opinion on the NYT. If added to WP it should in a "just the facts" style, not as your own opinion but as a newsworthy item if others had the same opinion and that were reported in reputable sources. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y This is because your personal opinion really has no place on Wikipedia. If there was a public outcry about racism in the NYT, it would be appropriate to include info about that, but is this is just your personal opinion.
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?
It sounds ridiculous, so I were assess the sources first, which would have to be reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals. If true, it would be more important on the pages related to health, not the politics. This sort of referencing is where I have experience as a medical writer/editor. I noticed a post on the talk page of the medical group about med students using wikipedia for class assignments, but they actually screwed it up more than helped. Part of the problem was poor sourcing. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y First of all, this fact is very random and and isn't really relevant to Wikipedia. Second of all, it may not be true.
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
Well, I might, but I'm an apple fanboy. But no, they have an obvious COI. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y :) Definitely not a reliable source on that topic.
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
No. again that would be using a company advertising as a source of straightforward info. I noticed someone using a pharmaceutical website as a source of info on a drug adverse effect. The information is probably correct since they are FDA regs that apply, but there are many better sources, neutral sources of drug info that are unlikely to be influenced by business decisions. At the same time, I'd question whether some "citizen" groups like Public Watch I think it's called, don't have a bias also, although I think they are correct in most cases, I would look for published medical research reports that support there statements. And then only report only analyses by reputed sources, not my own if I analyze the information.
Y Yes. The problem is that generally tweets don't contain that much information. They can be good as preliminary information, but not long-standing info.
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?
No, I would say comments on news article are not RS. They may be opinions, facts not sourced. It might lead you to good RS, but is not a citable source itself. Especially unnamed, which might make it more difficult to discover where the information came from. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y The unnamed "forum official" may or may not be an authorized representative of the Chicago Tribune. Besides, forums are generally not considered reliable sources because of their unverifiablity.
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?
it might be a place to get started on compiling a history of burger but I would still treat it as a tertiary source, and only use info where I could find a reliable secondary source. Obvious COI. They are not going to publish anything about scandals, etc. I worked for a time (25 year ago) for Hoover's Reference Press doing company profiles of this nature, when they launched their first book. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hoover
juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Y You are right. This source can be used to a point because it contains information probably not found elsewhere. But it should not be used by itself, other reliable sources should be included in the article.
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?
I would say ignore the one editor, maybe report him to admin if necessary. Or refer him to a site on rare color blindness gene mutations maybe. BTW, I signed each of these posts as a reminder to sign my posts, for which I've been trout slapped once.
Y Yup. If you were to explain why the sky was blue, you would need a source, but you aren't. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the test. I'm familiar with it, but always good to refresh skills and maybe think about something you haven't done in awhile. I'm reviewing the MEDRS and talk page. juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Feel free to ask questions if a question is confusing. I noticed you corrected some grammar in the lesson I wrote, thank you very much :) I am wondering why you removed my question about you finding a picture to use on this page. I'm not sure if you're aware, but it is considered very rude to remove another person's comment from a talk page, unless the comment is disruptive. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall correcting any grammar (not something I would typically do on a talk page) or removing a picture. Anyway we already discussed. If I did, must have been by mistake. I wouldn't remove comments unless maybe in some sort of admin role in the future, but I don't think I'm interested in that. I'd rather work on articles. I've taken an interest in antibiotic resistance and have posted some comments on the talk page. I see the medical group now and will get involved with that juanTamad 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'll get to the test later today I think. Just had a question. I got a message about a nomination to be a GOCE Coordinator. I'll gladly do it, but not sure how to place my name in nomination. This is the message:
GOCE coordinator elections[edit]
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Writing Magnifying.PNG GOCE Coordinator.png
Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you.
Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Re this: I am wondering why you removed my question about you finding a picture to use on this page.-- I don't recall removing anything, maybe by mistake. I'll get back to the pic laterjuanTamad 02:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Where did you get this message? I couldn't find it. About your removing the message I left, don't worry about it if you didn't mean to. Just watch out and be careful what you delete, some people aren't very forgiving :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Are you referring to this question?: 5) What would you like a picture of on this page to represent you? It can be a picture of anything, and it doesn't have to be one that you've uploaded yourself.
Copyright is one most important lessons 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
@Jtamad: Thanks for being patient and waiting for the lesson :) Questions? Copyright is definitely not my forte, but I'll do my best to answer. What happened with the GOCE coordinator nominations? I apologize, I should have talked to you more about that. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jtamad: 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) 03:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: done juanTamad 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to remember to sign posts juanTamad 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A-Yes, by definition. But, as they say, there's no free lunch. Lots of hours go into so the cost to contributors is the time they put into it versus alternative uses of that time, like making money. In a sense it is a Really, Really Free Market between writers/editors and readers/learners.
Y Good point.
2.) Q- List three instances in which you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A-
A picture of your own, which you've assigned the CC-BY-SA license, and that is appropriate for wikipedia. See the image at the very bottom of Copyright.
If the image is very old (≥ 150 years).
A company logo, used judiciously, since it cannot be recreated for the purpose of claiming ownership so as the assign a CC-BY-SA license.
Y We especially need to be careful with the company logo, and only use it in article space where necessary.
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Can you upload it to Commons?
A- Yes. Should then be used under the wikipedia MOS for music.
N Non-commercial or fair-use content cannot be uploaded to the Commons. See Commons:Licensing.
4.) Q- A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A- No, if the Beatles artwork is copyrighted or licensed with the condition that it not be reworked in any way.
Y Copyright is a problem, and even then, the poster probably wouldn't be of much use in an article anyway.
5.) Q- Are there any issues with doing a copy-paste move from another website to Wikipedia?
A- Yes. Work cannot be copied verbatim since this might violate copyright and constitute plagiarism.
Y There are some exceptions to this rule, but pretty much.
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
A- No, because "The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia.". Go take a picture of the pope yourself, or get someone else to take it and then license it under CC-BY-SA.
Y Well put.
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A- No, press pictures are usually copyrighted.
Y In some cases the image may fall under fair use, because not just anyone can take a picture 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)?
A- Best not to upload unless you are very sure of permission to use it. Or it would be ok if fell under a fair use provision.
Y Copyrighted images must fall under fair use to be uploaded, no matter what permission is granted. Fair use is a rare case, so you should not upload the image unless it completely meets the Non-free content criteria.
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!)
A- File:Thai_money.jpg Use is based on: For the purposes of Wikipedia, their use is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself.
@Jtamad: Good job. You might want to look into the questions you missed. Any preference on the next lesson? Otherwise we will continue with templates. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Little confused about fair use. According to COM:FAIR seems to be never allowed for media. juanTamad 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) from iPad juanTamad 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Fair use images/media are not allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but they can be uploaded to Wikipedia if they meet WP:Non-free content. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I'm really swamped with work right now :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: No problem. I'm trying to make some contribution every few days at least and whenever I come across something. My main project is upgrading benign prostatic hypertrophy to GA status, maybe even FA. Thought I might get into an edit war over one matter on the page, and may yet. The previous presentation of the minimally invasive therapy on the Israeli technique seemed to me clearly in violation of WP:RSUW and promotional. I revised, they reverted, then I reverted, with my explanation. So far they haven't re-reverted. If they do, I'll get some experience in resolving a conflict. Thanks for your help. juanTamad 03:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
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.
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, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. Well, 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:
1) It will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand.
2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Missionedit: I'm ready juanTamad 10:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a "real time" example of a dispute (sort of, I don't really have that much invested in it). I uploaded the photo (below) on an earlier version of this page http://www.wikiwand.com/en/All_rights_reserved). Another editor has recently removed it, about 2 months after I uploaded. He/she says its irrelevant and only for apparent amusement. They're right, but there's also nothing wrong with it, it is amusing I think. I haven't responded yet (thinking of a comment like - "what? No sense of humor?" - but I'd like a second opinion on it. Questions in addressing this issue (for me) are: 1) is there any wiki guidance that addresses the issue of adding edits for humor (if harmless and appropriate, and done sparingly, ie should I have done it in the first place?), 2) is this something worth getting another opinion on?, 3) should I reply as indicated?
I would not recommend adding the photo to the article again; it's not necessary to the article, and it doesn't really add to it at all. If you really want to keep the image in there, you could start a discussion, but I would say it's not worth it.
There is a precedent for posting humorous material. See WP:Dragon ("This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.") juanTamad 01:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, each level of dispute resolution:
A- Editor assistance: A place to go to discuss potential disputes with editors with more experience. I think I might try it with the edit over the "all rights reserved" photo and see what others think. 223.204.249.239 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC) whoops. I was logged out juanTamad 08:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion: A request for a 3O can be done if there is no resolution on the talk page. It should be preceded by an attempt at a fair summary of the arguments, as a sort of last attempt to resolve an issue. IA request for a 3O may be made if the second party disagrees, but the outcome is not binding. If the second editor does not agree with the 3O, then the dispute will have to be taken to a higher level juanTamad 11:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Mediation: This is a formal process that might be undertaken if previous attempts at resolution of article content on the talk page have failed, or through discussions with A 3rd editor or other means described on the dispute resolution page. Issues that reach this stage are probably very complex, judging from several current mediation cases.juanTamad 06:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment: This is also a formal process that would probably be undertaken before an RFM. As I understand it, an RfC might be used before a change is made, if you think it might be controversial. I was thinking of making a change to the page on Crossett, Arkansas to add mention of the town in a documentary about the Koch's brothers, but I expect some might prefer that it not be included.
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)?
A- Discuss the issue on the talk page, starting with a civil request that assumes good faith.
Y Yup.
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?
A- Ask the person politely why they think the article should not be deleted. Be prepared to state your case for deletion. juanTamad 08:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Y Yes, but you should also leave a warning on their talk page telling then that it is not acceptable to call people names on Wikipedia. A list of such message templates can be found at WP:User warning templates. We'll go over this more in our next lesson on vandalism.
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?
A- Emphasize that you have a proper citation. Explain why it is a good citation if necessary. Try to find out why they disagree.
Y Exactly.
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?
A- Ignore the comments. If it continues, maybe point it out, or link to wiki guidelines on proper behavior and dispute resolution.
Y Again, you should not ignore personal insults, which are not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. This is a very serious matter, so you should warn them once on their talk page, and if it continues, report them immediately to WP:AIV.
6.) Q- OPINION: Is there any way to make the dispute resolution process easier?
A- Seems to me it's been well constructed. I don't have much experience with it, so cannot recommend anything different. It all relies on the five pillars. juanTamad 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Y
I've sort of adopted the page on benign prostatic hyperplasia and have made several improvements, addressing deficiencies noted. I'll be done soon and plan to nominate it for a higher status. Please take a look and let me know what you think. juanTamad 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Nice job with the test! We'll be going over how to deal with vandalism next, so don't worry about some of the questions you had a problem with. Sorry I forgot to respond to your above comment about the "all rights reserved" image: about what you called the "precedent for posting humorous material", this precedent is for non-mainspace pages only and does not apply to articles. Did you ever get that resolved?
These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.
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 double curly brackets. Whenever you call a template, all the content on 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:
This calls Template:User en. Everything on that page (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the page title between double curly brackets.
Infoboxes, short for "information boxes", are little boxes to the side of articles that give quick details about the article. For example, on Justice (sculpture), the box to the side shows a picture and tells you the artist, year, type, material, dimensions, location, and owner. On José Maria Larocca, the box to the side shows a picture and tells you his full name, nationality, discipline, birth date, birth place, height, weight, and horses. You can find a grand list of every kind of infobox at Category:Infobox templates, where you can narrow it down to a specific type of infobox. For example, the infobox for a specific species would be Template:Taxobox. Template:Infobox animal is for a specific animal.
Navigational boxes, or "navboxes", are templates placed at the bottom of a page that allow you to easily jump between related articles. Some examples are Template:Welsh folk music, Template:Harry Potter, and Template:Arthurian Legend. These are also the easiest to create. You can follow the instructions at Template:Navbox to create one by filling in the parameters and then putting the result at [[Template:Name of the navbox]]. Then you put {{Name of the navbox}} at the bottom of all the articles listed in the navbox.
If you see a problem with an article, e.g. it has no citations, bare urls, or contradicts itself, you can "tag" it with one of the article message templates provided. These go at the top of the article, and need a |date= parameter to be sorted properly.
@Jtamad: These are only the basics of templates. We can cover more advanced stuff later, if you really want to. Any questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What type of infobox is the one at the top of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? Maybe that's for later. I'm ready juanTamad 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: That would be Template:Infobox event. The advanced lesson on templates is really hard, and more for editors who want to make a lot of their own templates. If you don't do computer programming, most of the stuff in that lesson won't be useful to you, so I only cover it in this adoption program if you really want to learn it. Unless you do, how about a lesson on dealing with vandalism next? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit:I think I'd like to learn some more about infoboxes. If it becomes more than I want to know, I'll let you know. I learned HTML once upon a time, been awhile since I've used. Know the basics of XML, and I program in R, especially graphing with ggplot2. juanTamad 05:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In this lesson, we're going to learn about how parameters and some of the main ParserFunctions work. Both of these (especially the former) are used when making infoboxes.
This calls Template:User en. Everything on that page (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the page title between double curly brackets.
When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work.
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: {{w-basic|anon=true}}, the template will generate a message directed especially towards anonymous users, rather than just the normal message. The advantage to named parameters like these is that they can be placed in any order, however, they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, a parameter which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a number to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly.
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.
Code
Displays
Comments
{{CURRENTTIME}}
15:26
Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page.
{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}
19:26
Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page.
{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}
15:26
Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Hersfold/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on your adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown.
"ParserFunctions" are templates built into the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia is based on. Because of that, you can't edit these templates by going to their template page (there isn't one), and they also are called in a unique way.
The most basic function available is {{#if:}}. #if: probably looks fairly strange to you - since when do we start templates with a # sign? And what's with the colon? Actually, the colon and # are what tells us and MediaWiki that we're calling a ParserFunction instead of a normal template. Here's how #if: works:
{{#if: <text that either is or is not blank> | <what you want to appear if it isn't blank> | <what you want to appear if it is> }}
Huh?
#if: works a little differently than most "if... then..." structures work. #if: is set up like this: "If this space has something in it, I print this. If it's blank, I print that." How does this help us? Well, remember how we could set our parameters to have a blank default value? Imagine what would happen if I wrote this code:
{{#if: {{{1|}}} | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
Now, when I call the template that uses this code, I will do one of two things. I will either enter a parameter or I won't. If I don't, this code will display "Goodbye!" because there is nothing displayed between #if: and the first option; we set our parameter 1 to be blank by default, so there is nothing but blank space for #if: to look at. However, if I do enter a parameter, regardless of what it is, that code will display "Hello!". This is because when #if: looks at what you gave it, there's something between it and the first option. It doesn't care what that something is, it just cares that something exists. But now, here's why we had that short review on parameters:
{{#if: {{{1}}} | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
The difference between these two sets of code is minor, but causes the whole thing to bork up. This time, there is no pipe in our parameter, so there is no default value. As a result, when we don't set the parameter in the template, #if: still sees {{{1}}} right after its colon. So, regardless of what we do, we're always going to get "Hello!" as a result of this function.
#ifeq: is a bit more useful. #ifeq: stands for "If equal" - instead of just checking to see if something exists, #ifeq: checks to see if that something is equal to something you specifically told it to look for. Here's how it works:
{{#ifeq: <text you input> | <text you want to compare against> | <what you want to appear if it they match> | <what you want to appear if they don't> }}
{{#ifeq: {{{1}}} | foo | Hello! | Goodbye! }}
In the sample above, I want to see if the user typed "foo" as a parameter to my template. If they did, #ifeq: will see that and print out "Hello!". If they enter anything else, though, or in this case, nothing at all, #ifeq: will compare whatever they enter to "foo", see that they don't match, and print "Goodbye!" instead. ( bar =/= foo; {{{1}}} =/= foo ) This code is a bit more "secure" - if you want the template to do something if the user enters "yes" as a parameter, #if: is not what you want to use. If you use #if:, it'll do whatever you told it to do even if the user enters "no". By using #ifeq:, the function will only do this thing if they enter "yes", exactly like that. It won't work even if they enter "YES", because uppercase letters and lowercase letters aren't the same.
But what if you don't want to risk confusing the user? What if you do want "YES" to work? It's pretty pointless to make an #ifeq: for every single different capitalization of "yes". There's two options available to you. One is to use another ParserFunction, which we'll get to shortly, which acts like a super #ifeq:, checking for multiple different parameter values at once. Another, much easier way, is to tell the parameter to use all uppercase or lowercase letters. How? Magic. Observe:
Code
What comes out
{{lc:foo BAR}}
foo bar
{{uc:foo BAR}}
FOO BAR
{{lcfirst:BAR foo}}
bAR foo
{{ucfirst:foo BAR}}
Foo BAR
You can use these codes (which are examples of some Magic words) on just about anything - including your parameters. Obviously, it won't have much of an effect on {{{1}}}, but when your user types in "YES" when your #ifeq: is expecting to find "yes", adding the code {{lc: {{{1}}} }} will solve all of your problems.
This is the "super #ifeq:" I mentioned earlier. #switch: allows you to check a single line of text for a practically unlimited number of possible results. It works like this:
{{#switch: <text you input>
| <possible value 1> = <what is displayed for possible value 1>
| <possible value 2> = <what is displayed for possible value 2>
| <possible value 3>
| <possible value 4> = <what is displayed for possible values 3 AND 4>
| #default = <what appears if the value you input doesn't match any possible value>
}}
What this template does is this: It takes the value you enter (which is probably a parameter, which is probably forced to be either lower or upper case for the same reason it would be in #ifeq:) and moves down the list, comparing it to each possible value in turn. As soon as it matches something, it stops, and looks for the next equals sign. It then prints whatever you have between that equals sign and the next pipe. Let's look at an example, based on the above format:
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{1}}} }}
| foo = bar
| ice = cream
| french
| burnt = toast
}}
If I enter "foo", #switch: replies with "bar". Likewise, "ice" gets "cream" as a response, and "burnt" gets "toast". But "french" also gets "toast". This is because "french" doesn't have anything set specifically for it - there's no equals sign after "french". Because of this, #switch: is going to keep looking for the next equals sign, which is after "burnt". This makes sense for me, because I want that to happen. "burnt toast" and "french toast" both make sense. However, I do have to be careful about what order I put things in; this code may look similar, but will cause "french" to come out with a different result:
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{1}}} }}
| foo = bar
| french
| ice = cream
| burnt = toast
}}
Now, entering "french" will return "cream", because "ice = cream" is the next value in line for #switch: to find. For both of these, anything not listed in the ParserFunction will not return anything - nothing will be printed, because there is no default value. For #switch: to print something out regardless of what I type in, I would need to specify "#default = <something>" at the very end of the template. There's really no technical reason why #default has to be at the end, but it just makes it easier for other users.
@Jtamad: I know this might be a lot to absorb and understand, but best of luck getting it to stick :) Any questions? I see you are now involved with the WP:Co-op. How's that going? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this lession. When I came across the co-op thought I'd try and see. Got assigned to someone interested in science and infectious disease outbreaks, like me, but haven't done much yet. I'll work on the lesson, maybe this week. Signing with five tildes to see what that looks like. 02:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is start learning how to do 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.
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 malevolent 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, we can keep it under control. Various tools can aid our cause and help us "revert", or remove, vandalism within seconds.
Vandalism is an edit to an article or other page which deliberately attempts to harm the encyclopedia. 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 isn't helpful at all to an article is considered vandalism. However, you should always remember to assume good faith in 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:
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
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.)
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 somewhat possible that your own user pages may be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore, remove it, and simply warn the user on their talk page. I don't say these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible. In many cases, these attempts to attack you can be somewhat amusing. If they do occur, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you have something better to do with your life than insulting people. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:juanTamad (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you're using any web browser 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.
To revert vandalism, you go to "View history" on a page. Now click the "Compare selected revisions" button and find the vandalism reversion. Since you now have Twinkle, you should see three options: "Rollback (AGF)", "Rollback", and "Rollback (VANDAL)". The first one you shouldn't use unless it's obviously good faith (hence AGF, Assuming Good Faith), and we're not talking about that. The third one you should only use if it's a repeat offender who has a significant amount of vandalism under their belt. Usually for new editors you will use the second one.
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 this is a new editor's first edit, you welcome them and use either {{welcomevandal}} if they have a username or {{welcome-anon-vandal}} if they are an IP editor. You always link the article that you found the vandalism on.
If, after their welcoming, they are still vandalizing, you use a "General notice (1)". {{uw-vandalism1}} is the general, though if you can get more specific, try.
If they are still vandalizing, you use a "Caution (2)".
If they continue to vandalize, you use a "Warning (3)".
If they still continue their vandalism, you use a "Final warning (4)".
If, even after all your warning, they continue vandalism, you've warned them long enough. You report them to administrators using "APV" on Twinkle. Fill in as much as possible and send the notice on your merry way. The admins will do what they have to afterwards.
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.
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.
@Jtamad: 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) 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: I had Twinkle already activated. I've rolled back a few already. Being on the other side of the planet from most editors, I see some sooner I guess. Thanks. ~ juanTamad (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: This was somewhat of a refresher for you then! I'm glad to see you figured out how to do this yourself :) So, instead, you can just look through recent changes and try out looking for vandalism for a change, rather than reverting only when you happen across some (even if you don't feel like it, just humor me for once). Tell me what you find! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Ok, I'll look for more Vandals. I'm enjoying the talk page on the Gold King Mine page, about original research, synthesis, etc. I owned a home on the Animus in Durango in the 80s. ~ juanTamad (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: I caught and reverted what I'm pretty sure is an attempt at vandalism or at least a plug for a commercial site -> https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Metabolic_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=676641247
It may be ok, but it is certainly not a good citation for a statistic on diabetes and looks like it might be an attempt to divert traffic to that website (tropical smoothies for sale). I left a note about it on the talk page. ~ juanTamad (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: Nice work! I'm going to be on vacation this coming week (without internet most likely) so I'm taking a wikibreak. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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, 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):
G1. Patent nonsense: Basically total gibberish or words that seem like they're supposed to mean something, but make no sense at all.
G2. Test page: A page used for Wikipedia testing. It can be hard to distinguish between this and G1 sometimes, but test pages are usually something like only bold/italics marks, a user's name written all over the page, an empty page that looks like it was created accidentally in article space, etc.
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: Anything that is obviously vandalism or a hoax.
G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: A identical (or almost identical) copy of a previously deleted article.
G5. Creations by banned or blocked users: Pages that a banned or blocked user try to create under their block or ban. This one is pretty rare.
G6. Technical deletions: Pages that serve no purpose, like a disambiguation page with one link.
G7. Author requests deletion: If only one person has edited a page and the talk page and wants the article to go, they file it under G7. Page blanking by the author falls under G7 too.
G8. Pages dependent on a nonexistent or deleted page: e.g. a redirect that redirects to a deleted page.
G9. Office actions: The Wikimedia Foundation requests deletion. Extremely rare -- neither you nor I can request CSD per G9.
G10. Attack pages: Pages intended to put down or harass someone else-- e.g. "Missionedit and Scribbleink SUCK!!!!"
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: e.g. "Come to JIM'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE! Crazy prices! Unbelievable furniture condition!"
G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: Complete and obvious plagiarism from copyrighted source(s).
G13. Abandoned articles for creation submissions: An Articles for Creation submission that hasn't been edited in over 6 months.
A1. No context: A very short article that doesn't tell you who/what the article is about.
A2. Foreign language articles that already exist somewhere: E.g. an article written in French that already exists either on the French Wikipedia or (in English) on the English Wikipedia.
A3. No content: There is no actual prose here, only links/templates/images.
A5. Transwikied articles: E.g. a dictionary definition that is already at Wiktionary.
A7. No indication of importance: Any article on an individual, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event that does not tell you why the thing is notable.
A9. No indication of importance (musical recording): An article about a musical recording that has no article about the artist and does not indicate why the recording is notable.
A10. Duplicate article: An article already covered somewhere on the English Wikipedia that does not give any further information, and the title is not a plausible redirect.
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.
PROD, short for "Proposed deletion", is what you use if 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 (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, an interesting topic in itself. 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, 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.
@Missionedit: Wait, haven't done this one yet. I'm busy with work right now, maybe another month, but I want to get back to it. ~ juanTamad (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Questions 4-7 are hypothetical scenarios. Answer what CSD/PROD criterion (if any) you would tag these articles under.
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you would use PROD.
A- A page created for a novel that does not indicate why it deserves a page, and after googling you find that it wasn't a particular good seller or otherwise noteworthy.
2.) Q- You tag an article for CSD under A7. The creator then blanks the page. What should you do?
A- First, wait, maybe 24 hours to see if the author plans a different approach or explains why the page deserves to be created. Other than that, I'm not sure if you should do anything else unless there is something highly suspicious. I noticed a page about a fairly prominent MD in the UK that was deleted shortly after some accusations of fraud were made public. I suppose you might notify an admin and a WP legal department if there is one.
3.) Q- Why should you wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3?
A- The page may still be a work in progress. the guidelines say wait 10 minutes, but I would waiting 24-48 hours might be a good idea. Creating pages is not easy and might take some time.
4.) Q- You find an article which says: Mike Smith 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!
A- CSD tag.
5.) Q- You find an article which says: ajdflajsdlfjalghaiefjalsfj
A- CSD. As an editor, I understand that you shouldn't blank the page yourself, but leave for an admin to delete.
6.) Q- You find an article (with no sources) which says: Joe Garrison 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.
A- Place a citation needed tag first. If no response in a reasonable period, the place a CSD tag.
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?)
A- If the event had been known before the rediscovery of the tunnels, I don't understand why the sculpture was not proposed before the rediscovery. I'd want an explanation to be included in the article I think, and of course it should be referenced.
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.
@Jtamad: Don't forget to name the specific CSD criterion you would tag the article under (eg. A7, G1). ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so. That may have been another I created back in 2008 or so when I first made an edit but wasn't doing it regularly. I just wanted to change a couple of things. I created another account that I was thinking of using just for redoing graphs and other data-related stuff, but I can't even remember the name at the moment. ~ juanTamad (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, because the link in your signature brings me straight to User:JuanTamad's user page and not yours. Please change this, and if you are sure that this was your previous username, it would be good to state so on your user page and take other necessary precautions. We take sockpuppetry very seriously here on Wikipedia. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Did not know that was set up wrong. This is my User Page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jtamad. I may have set up two by mistake. How can I merge? I only have one login that I know of. I set up one in about 2008 to make some edits, but only started as a regular editor about a year ago. If I can merge the Jtamad into JuanTamad, that would be better. juanTamad (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I just moved everything in Jtamad over to JuanTamad, so my signature should go to the right page. Should I just abandon Jtamad? My login works with both. juanTamad (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jtamad: So sorry! I just saw your response now. I redirected your previous user page to your current one (User:Jtamad), so your signature will also redirect. Of the two accounts, you should abandon the one that is least used (User:JuanTamad) to avoid being accused of sock puppetry. This is a rather complicated situation...hmmm...so can you log into the JuanTamad account? If so, don't use it anymore. There is no record of you doing any editing while logged into it. Just continue to use the Jtamad account as you always have; this will avoid most complications. You should state on your user page that you have had a previous account ect., though, just to be safe. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't recall an email alert from your ping. ANyway, thanks for the redirect. I've added a note as you suggested. When I log in I'm in the Jtamad account, but I can also access the JuanTamad. I'll use the Jtamad. I left a request to fix it on what looked like the appropriate page, the one about changing user accounts (can't remember where exactly at the moment). juanTamad (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, when we have a disagreement on something, we go by consensus. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of consensus is "majority of opinion" or "general agreement or concord".[1] You can add your opinion to the debate by "voting". However, this type of voting is not like voting in an election or a poll. It is more like in a debate, where each comment contributes a new idea to keep the discussion going so that a consensus can be reached. (Interesting fact: WP:Articles for Deletion used to be called Votes for Deletion, but the name was later changed as a result of consensus.)
As you may 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, consensus will be reached by majority, and not by reason.
These are the following "votes" that you can use in RfAs and RfBs, as well as other community discussions:
Support - User would make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
Oppose - User would not make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
Neutral - User might make a good administrator or bureaucrat, but there are some concerns.
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 :)
This is timely because I'm involved in the creation of this page: Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) IMHO the consensus did not work because they settled on a poor name which not only does not meet a naming convention but also mistakenly identifies it as a global pandemic, rather than an outbreak "in the Americas" (see the talk page for more). BTW, my auto-archiving does not seem to be working. Any ideas? juanTamad (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe I fixed your archiving problem. :) I see what you mean about the article title. I think part of the reason consensus decided on "Zika virus outbreak (2015–present)" instead of one that better follows naming conventions is just that "2015-present Zika virus outbreak" is more awkward. When the outbreak is over it will probably be easier to change it to something more conventional. I would also say that the lack of specification ("in the Americas") in the title doesn't necessarily identify it as a global pandemic, and while the specification may be helpful, it is not necessary. I do see what you mean about it being unconventional, though. My advice to you would be not to worry about it that much, and just wait a while before starting any more discussion on the title: it's really not a majorly important issue. However, I would, make sure that those titles (eg. "2015-present Zika virus outbreak") are redirected to the article just in case. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's my reply about a related change to a draft I started on Zika in the Pacific (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:2013%E2%80%932014_Zika_virus_outbreaks_in_Oceania). I think they're getting caught up in the media hype about it "going global" The location in the title is characteristic of all outbreak articles (the exception being the 1918 flu pandemic, which was truly global). As you say, though, let it go for now. I see where issues about titles can come up later, and there is a process for that. Will resume the lesson before long. Thanks for fixing the archive problem. juanTamad (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
"I'm inclined to want to keep it as documentation of the period 2013-2014, an important predecessor of the outbreak (and source of the outbreak) in the Americas, rather than a "breaking news site" about ongoing and future outbreaks in the same area now, which may prove to be isolated events not necessarily worthy of a WP page. Have to wait and see. IMO, the outbreak "in the Americas" falls into the same category. It should be documented as an historical event by itself, not making the assumption that it will continue to spread globally and become indigenous (big difference from travel-related cases) elsewhere. In other words, don't get caught up in the media hype. Whatever develops in the future outside of the Americas becomes a separate event. juanTamad (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)"
juanTamad (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you can help me. I'm signing up for Wiki project med (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med&action=submit), #122. My name is red and doesn't go to my user account. Must be related to the username duplication. Not sure how to fix. BTW, I got a "Cure Award" for medical edits. Will work on this lesson. I've come across a page that has been nominated for deletion and will check it and offer an opinion. juanTamad (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC
Congrats on your award! The reason your username link is red is that Wikimedia is a separate domain than Wikipedia, and while your account spans across all Wikimedia projects, you still have to create a separate user page for each project. If you create the page on Wikimedia your link should turn blue. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible that you could change the link in your signature on Wikipedia to User:Jtamad instead of redirecting through your old username? It makes things less confusing. Do you still have the password to User:JuanTamad? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jtamad, sorry I haven't gotten back to you in a while :) Have gotten around to finishing the assignment yet so we can more on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry haven't responded. Been busy with other things. Within a couple of weeks, I'll make time for this. JuanTamad (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
