User talk:Willscrlt/Advice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive of past discussions involving Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on Will's current talk page. |
Contents |
February 2007
References?
I was looking at some articles, and wondered if there was a particular way of citing sources? A website for example, do I just put the URL? Or do I put it like a bibliography (Author of Website, Title etc.)? Chameleon3322 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are two ways you can do it. The easiest (and probably best) way is to use the appropriate template found at WP:CITET (or Wikipedia:Citation templates, whichever is easier to remember). The other way is using the <ref> tag, but it's actually more difficult to use and results in less standardized output. I tend to use <ref>, but that's only because that's the way I started out editing, and it's been a pain to train myself to switch. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
For in-depth information, see WP:REDIRECT (or just plain WP:R works, too).
Wikipedia is pretty smart about pointing you to the correct article when you type a topic into the search engine. A lot of that is automatic, but a lot is also semi-manual.
The WikiMedia software which powers Wikipedia will take input like "Upper and lowercase", "upper and lowercase" and even "Upper And Lowercase" will all be matched automatically with an article titled "Upper and lowercase". (I bolded the uppercase ones for easier visibility for you.) However, the software cannot automatically figure out how to match "Upper and Lowercase" or "UpPeR aNd LoWeRcAsE" to the same article. Usually it's not necessary to create redirects for those types of articles, but sometimes it is.
One situation where I created one was for the List of cocktails. Since many people visiting Wikipedia do not know the convention of only the first letter and any proper nouns being capitalized, they might search for List of Cocktails. Before creating a redirect from the "funky" capitalization to the standard one, that would have appeared as a red link (i.e., the article would not be found).
Other uses for redirects include creating shortcuts (WP:MIXA which is much shorter to type than Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks/Assessment), pointing one term to a related article (Virgin pina colada redirects to Piña Colada), pointing to a particular section within an article (Simple syrup redirects to a specific portion of the Syrup article), correcting common misspellings (Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice), pointing alternate spellings to a single article (colour redirects to color), and many more reasons (which are discussed in WP:R, which is a redirect itself to the main article).
So, how do you create your first redirect? It's pretty easy. First, go to the page where you wish to create the redirect (except in certain situations, this should be a new page). If you are using the default monobook skin and have Javascript enabled, above the edit window you should have a toolbar that includes a button that looks like this: #R
Clicking that buttons gives you a basic redirect, and all you have to do is fill in the location where you want that reader to ultimately end up.
#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]
So, to redirect from "List OF CockTails" (a frivolous redirect to say the least, because it's rather unlikely anyone would ever type that outside of this example), you would go to: List OF CockTails (which should be a red link), and enter the following on the first and only line of the new article:
#REDIRECT [[List of cocktails]]
After you save the new article (don't forget to add an edit summary), you will see the article's title (with the funky capitalization) and a bent arrow pointing to the proper article title (which certainly should not be a red link).
Always avoid "double redirects", which are where one redirect points to another redirect (which theoretically could point to another and so on). For example, WP:R should point directly to Wikipedia:Redirect, not to WP:REDIRECT which then redirects on to Wikipedia:Redirect.
If you do all that, then congratulations! You have created a redirect.
There is, however, one more thing that you should do (but aren't required to do), and that is identify the reason you created the redirect in the first place. You do so by adding one of the "R" templates after the redirect. Using the previous example again:
#REDIRECT [[List of cocktails]] {{R from other capitalisation}}
For a complete list of "R" templates, see Cat:Redirect templates.
That covers the majority of what you need to know to become a redirecting expert. There are also soft redirects to other WikiProjects, how redirects work when moving pages, redirects with possibilities, and a few more topics listed you might need to know to become a true "expert" in redirecting, but the points I mentioned above will take you farther than most people ever care to learn. If you really enjoy this whole redirecting thing, there's even a WikiProject for Redirects you could join. It all depends on how in-depth you want to get. Have fun! --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My Talk Page...Dang Vandalism
My talk page had recently been vandilised, and I don't know how to revert. So how do you revert? 3322 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fortunately it looks like the "vandalism" was very minimal [to your user page as you reported earlier], thankfully. It's rather odd, too, because the two suspicious edits that I saw were from two different anon accounts, and the only edits they made were ones to your user page. That would tend to indicate these edits were done by someone you know, likely a friend (or enemy) in the real world who knows your Wikipedia account.
Before I delve into reverting vandalism edits, allow me to describe the proper steps (at least as I have come to understand them, and since I have rarely have to use them much, I might miss something) to deal with vandalism. This holds true on your own page, articles, or anywhere.
Dealing with vandalism
- Further information: Vandalism and User Messages
- Go to the talk page of the user and see if there are already complaints on the talk page.
- If there are, try to determine at which level the user is currently (1=first offense, 2=second, etc.). Warnings (and actions) escalate in priority and intensity. That is, they start out assuming good faith and that the edit was a goof or a test. IF they have already been warned once, they are reminded more firmly. If they continue to ignore the warnings, it becomes more difficult to assume that same level of good faith, and the warnings become more stern. By the fourth warning (and there does have to either be some reasonable time between the warnings, or other clear evidence that the user has likely read the warnings, such as referring to them in subsequent attacks), generally they are told to knock it off or they will be blocked. You should be aware that banishment will not happen if the user was not given adequate warning, in proper sequence, and in fairly recent terms (i.e., actions up to level 3 several months ago should start back at level 1 again, not jump ahead to level 4, because anon users are almost certainly different people now).
- Start a new section on the talk page. A lot of people use "Your recent edit to Example" for the heading.
- Add {{test}}, or possibly a more specific user message warning to the talk page, at the appropriate warning level. Whichever warning template you use, include a pipe "|" character and then the article name to help document where the vandalism occured (level 2 example:
{{test2|Example}} --~~~~. - Enter an edit summary (something like "Your recent edit to Example - test2 warning" works well) and save the message.
- Revert the edit the user made (assuming someone else hasn't already done so, which is common in cases of blatant vandalism and on very busy pages). Make sure the "Watch this page" box is checked if you would like to keep an eye on the page for repeat attacks.
- If the same user strikes again, repeat the earlier steps until warning level 4 is reached.
- Do be mindful of the three-revert rule! If you revert an article more than three times in the same 24-hour period, then you might very well be banned, even you were dealing with vandalism. And the 3RR is not permission to make 3 reverts every 24 hours, but rather a maximum that should be made. Essentially, if you are having to revert something that many times, it's time to visit the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents and get some admins involved to help. Don't fight vandalism battles alone. You'll likely lose, too, if you do. (The 3RR is why I suggest starting by giving notice and then reverting, because you can then get four warnings out while only having made three edits.)
- After the user has received his/her four warnings (maybe even at three), report the vandalism to the admins.
- WP:AIAV (Administrator intervention against vandalism) is the place to go if the user is currently engaging in vandalism (and I do mean currently, not even a few hours after the fact) and the user has received all four warnings (in order).
- For vandalism that is not currently under way, use WP:AN/I or another appropriate admin noticeboard for the specific problem.
- After reporting it, you should notify the user on their talk page that he/she has been reported to the admins, and provide a link to the discussion. This becomes pretty much their final warning, and admins look favorably on users who are conscientious about full disclosure to the involved parties (plus it makes their job easier and faster).
- Now, sit back and be patient. The admins are busy volunteers, and it takes time to investigate and verify everything you state (the more detailed you can be in your notice, the better, as long as you don't prattle on pointlessly). Usually a short block will be implemented, usually lasting only a few hours. The user will also receive a notice on their talk page that the block has been implemented and why.
- Repeat offenses should be reported right away. This can sometimes take the form of an apparently different anon user (different IP address) making the same edits (or worse) in retaliation to the ban. Admins have ways of making educated guesses as to whether or not the same user is making those edits, too (thus circumventing the block). Be sure to alert the admins if this happens, because it's further evidence of "bad faith" on the part of the user, which can result in sequentially longer blocks and other actions.
Some key points to remember:
- WP:AGF - Remember that some people are baffled by the technology, the English language, or other things at Wikipedia, and it might be an honest mistake. The edits taking place after the warnings will help to determine that.
- WP:CIVIL - You should always remain polite and civil, both when dealing with the vandalizing user and when discussing the matter with others. (Heck, that should be the rule of thumb all the time here.)
- WP:3RR - Don't revert changes more than three times within 24 hours, and aim for one or two at the most just to be safe.
- WP:VAND - Not all edits you think are vandalism are actually vandalism. Some of the most frustrating edits are actually just a matter of another editor being stubborn (some would say stupidly or insanely stubborn, but you wouldn't say that, of course). :-)
- WP:AIAV is only for current vandalism attacks (i.e., it's likely to be ongoing while you are reporting it to the admins), and if the user has not been properly warned through all 4 levels, the user will probably not be blocked.
- WP:AN/I is a sprawling place with lots of activity and overworked volunteer admins helping out. Be patient and always be very polite when working with an admin, even if they seem a bit gruff or brusque with you. They really mean well, but they don't have a lot of time to sit around with you for a nice cup of tea and a friendly chat or sob story. Give them the information they need to make an educated decision, and then just wait.
Reverting edits
This applies really to any type of edit that needs to be "undone". The most common reason you would do this is because of vandalism, but you might even wish to do this to some of your own edits sometimes (like if you royally mess up a template that was working and after your mess with it, it's broken). You might also find this useful as a possible saving grace if you accidentally break WP:3RR, because by reverting your own most recent edit (i.e., put things back to the way the vandal left it before you did your fourth edit), some admins will cut you some slack and not block you. In short, there are many reasons you might want to revert someone's edits.
First, it's important to understand that nothing is ever really lost or deleted on Wikipedia. At the top of each article, there is a "History" button or tab (I'm assuming you use the monobook skin, which is the default interface for Wikipedia, but all the skins have a similar features somewhere on the page). Click it, and you will see the entire history of the article.
Here is an example from your history page:
# (cur) (last) 14:28, February 6, 2007 207.161.5.157 (Talk) * (cur) (last) 08:35, February 5, 2007 Chameleon3322 (Talk | contribs) * (cur) (last) 08:24, February 5, 2007 Chameleon3322 (Talk | contribs) * (cur) (last) 08:13, February 5, 2007 Chameleon3322 (Talk | contribs) * (cur) (last) 13:12, February 3, 2007 209.202.42.114 (Talk)
The (cur) and (last) are links to the differences from the current version (i.e., what's displayed now) and the version prior to the time and date listed to the right. Clicking on the date brings up the current version at that point in time. Clicking on an anonymous user's IP address brings up their contribution history (what other edits they have made). Clicking on a registered user name (like yours) takes you to that user's page. Talk and contribs take you to the registered user's talk page and contribution history respectively.
One of the handiest features did not show up in this copy/paste, and that's the ability to compare changes between any two versions. This is so handy for spotting subtle changes that are easy to miss in one-by-one comparisons. It's also useful for figuring out who added certain information (such as copyrighted materials) and when they added it (if Wikipedia had it first, maybe the other people are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright, not the other way around).
There are several tools that help you automate what I'm about to describe, but most only rollback the most recent edit, or all the edits by the last person to edit the article until a different editor's edits are encountered. This does not always fix the problem, however, especially with articles (your own userpage is probably much less complicated). Many times I have seen someone (A) add garbage, then someone (B) adds more. Someone else comes along and (C) reverts the last change (still leaving the first garbage intact). (D) More garbage is slipped in. Someone comes along and (E) makes a really good edit. Someone else (F) enhances that good edit. (G) More garbage is added. (H) And then you come along and have to decide what to do.
Ideally, at point C, that user would have checked the article's history a little more clearly and noticed that there were actually two edits that needed fixing. The best thing to do in this case, probably is to edit the historical version of the article after point E (the last good edit). Then find the A edit, and remove it from the article. Save the edited version (ignoring the warning message about editing an older version of the article), and you should have an article that includes D and E, but A, B, F, and G have been left out (C is irrelevant at this point).
I was speaking of automated tools to help with this, and there is none I can recommend more highly than Navigation popups. Once you install it, you only have to hover over a particular date in the history, wait for the popup box to appear, go to the actions menu, and click revert. It takes care of the reverting for you. It's actually much, much easier to do than it was to describe it. Though you might want to try a few manually first to get the hang of it (a personal sandbox or the public one are good places to practice). Navigation popups does a lot more than revert, and I always feel like I have lost one of my senses when I browse without it now. I wish it worked outside of Wikipedia, too!
I hope that gave you a good understanding of both topics. There are finer points to all these things, but hopefully you can avoid doing things the hard (wrong) way like I did in the beginning by reading these. If you ever find that anything I said here is wrong or has changed, please let me know. :-)
