User:WLU/Generic sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

A to-do list or broad overview for newbies. This is my penance for biting noobs. Want a nutshell? Invest time in becoming familiar with policies, all else follows.

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Why should you read this? 3 But I'm very clever, surely I'm just as good as everyone else here 4 Well, give me two weeks and I'll be the KING of wikipedia! 5 Sometimes other editors are just bitchy, aren't they? 6 But that makes editing wikipedia harder, and less fun! 7 Man that's a lot to learn! 8 OK, you've convinced me. Where do I sign up? 9 Talking to others 10 Read some more 10.1 What's with the WhiPping? 11 So you've got about 100 or so contributions 12 Templates 13 Lo, from nothing I bring forth the world 14 Aw, your first editorial dispute! 14.1 Edit warring 15 Archiving 16 Suffer not the Vandals 17 Let's take a break, shall we? 17.1 Edit counts 17.2 Mergers, page moves, splitting 17.3 Deletion 17.4 FRINGE, IAR and other esoteric policies 18 And we're done 19 Notes 20 The truth

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there! You're new to wikipedia I assume, or why are you reading this? Welcome to wikipedia! Wikipedia is a very large, very interesting, sometimes fun and sometimes confusing place. We're all working together to try to improve pages, fight vandals, add information and generally make wikipedia a useful place to look for information on just about anything. We're always happy to have a new contributor, and we hope you stick around.

[edit] Why should you read this?

As a newbie, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to experienced editors, for a variety of reasons. This essay is an attempt to explain that:

1. Yes, you really are at a disadvantage
2. It's not a bad thing
3. There are common errors that newbies make, and they often generate a similar reaction from experienced editors
4. There are a bunch of tools, policies and pages that can help you out
5. In my experience there was a process that I moved through; I am trying to explain it, to help you grok wikipedia.

[edit] But I'm very clever, surely I'm just as good as everyone else here

Indeed, I'm sure you are very clever, and indeed, every editor (even the admins) is on equal footing per policy. Except Jimbo, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's only through his sufferance that we're allowed to sully his pristine creation with our unworthy efforts. Praise to Jimbo and his fantastic beard.

Let me reiterate my point - you have just as much right and ability to edit as any other editor. Even administrators, who some people see as somehow more worthy or better than mere plebeian editors, are not really that different. Being an admin is not a big deal. They can do some extra stuff, but they are still bound by policy, subject to arbitration and expected to be nice, play fair and work by consensus. The only advantages that admins have are a) experience and b) some extra tools.

Now an important qualification - though admins are indeed still subject to all the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, just like everyone else, they got to be admins by being very good at following, interpreting and knowing those policies and guidelines. They stay admins by being very good at enforcing those guidelines without abusing them. So while it's not a big deal to be an admin, adminship is a form of recognition from the community that the editor in question is trusted, respected and knowledgeable. In other words, though they're not always right, they usually are just because they know what they're doing. If you're going to disagree with one, I recommend a) being polite b) asking questions rather than demanding answers and c) brushing up on the relevant policies. You'll probably learn something you didn't know. I usually do.

Plus, admins can block you, your IP address and you're friends IP address, delete pages you create, rollback your changes and generally make your life difficult. They're unlikely to do these things because they're pissed off at you personally, but you never know. And having an admin charitably disposed to your questions or ideas is always helpful. And chances are they're pissed at you because you did something wrong.

[edit] Well, give me two weeks and I'll be the KING of wikipedia!

Exactly! With enough experience, anyone can be a good wikipedia editor, but it does take time. Two weeks is a bit of a stretch, but who knows? You might be the first. I know user who went from editor to admin in less than three months. I bet you can do better! Initially, attitude counts more than knowledge - be willing to listen, admit that you're wrong, ask for help and fix your mistakes. If you're willing to listen to those who disagree with you, you've got 90% of what's required to be a good, long-term editor.

[edit] Sometimes other editors are just bitchy, aren't they?

Yup. I'm one of them. I bite newbies far more than I should. Wanna know why? Most newbies make the same mistakes. Here's some:

1. They think something is cool, notice there's not a page for it, and create one.
2. They think something is common knowledge, and should be added to a page.
3. Everyone knows that ___ person is gay, so this should be on that person's wikipage.
4. They see something that is just plain wrong, and common sense or a bit of knowledge demonstrates this quite readily.
5. They were talking about something on their blog and it's such a great entry, it should really be linked to wikipedia.
6. They happen to know X person with a wikipedia page (or worse, they have their own wikipedia page), and notice some of the information is wrong/missing/X would disagree.

But, for every one of these well-intentioned edits, policy says no.^[1] Other (experienced) editors will revert (or modify, source or tag) your contribution, and may rap you on the knuckles. Permit me to demonstrate:

1. Something may be cool, but it may not be notable or verifiable. Further, proclaiming that something is cool violates our policy on a neutral point of view.
2. If it's common knowledge, then it should be verifiable in a reliable source, and a reliable source is much more credible (both to readers and other editors) than an unsourced sentence when Wikipedia is famed and notorious for being vandalized.
3. ___ may or may not be gay, but biographies of living people are very touchy subjects, both for ___ and for their lawyer. Jimbo (and again, remember that wikipedia exists at his sufferance) has unilaterally declared that the standard for reliable sources for articles about living people are higher than most other articles.^[2]
4. Common sense is wikipedia codespeak for original research. As in 2, if it's common sense and common knowledge, a reliable source should be easy to find. I'm not allowed to point out that the use of humans as batteries in The Matrix violates the second law of thermodynamics, you aren't allowed to use common sense. Most of the time.^[3] It's all Jimbo's fault, a pox upon his finely-tailored suits.
5. Adding information to your own web page is a conflict of interest, blogs are not reliable sources (that one comes up a lot) unless it belongs to a notable person or scientists, and most blogs are not allowed to be external links.
6. Person X and person X's friend are (oddly enough) not reliable sources for information about X, and adding said information is a conflict of interest for X (and arguably X's friend). Anyone can claim to have spoken to X, and the only way to verify what was said is to find it documented in a reliable source. In an era of publicists and public relations, blogs and personal web pages as sources leaves Wikipedia in a position of being the mouthpiece of the famed without strict standards.

[edit] But that makes editing wikipedia harder, and less fun!

Indeed, you could see it that way. It does take time to become familiar and handy with wikipedia's core policies (known as the five pillars), but they don't limit us too much. Think of it this way - the policies limit what you can add to the page, but they also limit what people you disagree with can add also. Imagine a wikipedia where a specific point of view was assumed and enforced, by blocking non-Christians, ignoring scientists, basing contributions on how funny they were, or letting anyone do anything. How much could you trust the source? Wikipedia's rules and policies exist in an effort to bring articles up to, and keep them at, a specific standard. It's generally not an onerous standard, it still allows for lots of sources to be cited and pages to be created, and it means you're slightly more likely to find the information accurate and trustworthy.

Policies let you know what you can say, who you can trust, what you can include, and what to do if you disagree with information you find. Citing sources isn't particularly hard, often a simple google search will be very helpful. Even better, there are a variety of tools that assist you in editing (see the page on tools for more information). Examples include:

• Popups turns a wide variety of relatively tedious tasks into simple, one-click operations.
• Citation templates make it easy to cite many sources, just by filling in a couple fields. Even better, there are tools which help you create them automatically:
  • Diberri's citation generator lets you create citations for sources using pubmed numbers for many scientific journals and ISBN for books.
  • Verisimilus's reference wikification tool lets you do much the same thing using a google-style search engine.

[edit] Man that's a lot to learn!

Yup. It seems overwhelming, but there's a basic progression you might find useful. By starting with dabbling, you can soon be diving, and won't get hammered with multiple warnings on your user page, blocks for violating the three revert rule or end up in arbitration - basically avoid all the painful mistakes I made.

[edit] OK, you've convinced me. Where do I sign up?

Here's my recommendation for how to edit wikipedia. It's just my version, so there's no guarantee it's foolproof or representative. Still, I think there's merit in it, and you might learn something. And I might be funny along the way.

1. Sign up. If you don't already have one, get an account. There are many benefits.
2. Sign in. Always log in. This means all of your contributions are tracked - you can find out how many edits you've made, people can always find you, you can check your watchlist, and eventually your name will be recognized by other regular contributors.
3. Sign posts. Always finish your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), which will produce a name and timestamp (like this - WLU (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)). Others reading the talk page can use the signature to tell who said what, when. Also, SineBot will stop following you around. It shows respect for other editors, dedication to the project, and is one of the signs of a serious contributor. Plus, it'll up your edit count.
4. Build a watchlist. Find a couple pages you are interested in. Click the 'watch' tab at the top of the page (more help here). Now every time someone changes a page you are watching, you'll get a message on your watchlist. Look at how the pages change - watch how bots, anonymous users, 'redlinked users' (whose user names and talk pages are red, rather than blue; this means the pages are empty and have no content) and blue users edit the pages. Depending on the page, you may very quickly get an idea of who the regular contributors are, and what kind of changes to watch for.
5. Edit!^[4] Pick a topic you are familiar with, pick a page at random, or try looking into the articles that need copy editing. If you can't see a way to help, pick another page and try again. Edits can be easily undone (called reverting). If you're shy about editing the mainspace (all the articles that aren't talk pages, policies or guidelines; generally what the lay public thinks of when they say 'wikipedia'), try the sandbox - it's exactly like the regular pages, but it gets erased every 12 hours. Great practice! Make sure you play with the preview and edit summary features. Preview helps avoid serious errors in formatting and makes reading a little easier. Edit summaries make it easy for other contributors to tell at a glance what you've done, but keep it short (i.e. corrected spelling, deleted vandalism, Tom Cruise is not an alien), most people will understand what you've done but the edit summary makes life a bit easier. The edit summary also shows up when users check their watchlist and can be useful when they're deciding whether to look into the changes or not. One more caveat - start with easy pages that aren't controversial or featured articles (the best content wikipedia has to offer). Controversial articles (Creationism, Evolution, George W. Bush, Parapsychology as examples) usually get lots of traffic, lots of vandalism and lots of attention from dedicated, long-term contributors. It's challenging to edit these pages well, so perhaps choose an easier one to start with. Featured articles are assumed to be of such a high standard that inexperienced editors will have little to do.
6. Read!! This one gets two exclamation points, 'cause it's arguably more important than editing. First, re-read what you just edited. Did you make any mistakes in spelling, grammar or punctuation? Did you make a horrific mistake that nuked the page, erased an image or messed up the formatting? Revert! Second, read this. It's a simplified ruleset of the key policies of wikipedia.^[5] Did you break any of them? If so, can you modify your edit, or revert your changes.
7. Read!!! Pick one of the five pillars. Read it from beginning to end.
8. Repeat!!! Learn by doing. Edit, read, read policy, and repeat. Check out the help page if you need to.

[edit] Talking to others

Wikipedia's a collaborative process, so at some point you're going to have to talk to others. There's a few things to keep in mind:

1. Assume good faith. People make mistakes, and everyone was new at one point. Unless it's replacing a page with FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK, if someone edits the page in a way that you see as erroneous, assume they have a (good) reason.
2. Be civil. It's easy to take offence when reading replies rather than listening to them. Pick your words with care, and apologize if your comments are misinterpreted and try to phrase them better. Don't criticize spelling or grammar errors (it's rude).
3. Ask questions. If it's an experienced editor, they will probably be very willing to point out where you've gone wrong, and what you could do to improve your contributions.
4. Refer to policy. If it's a noob, they may not know about it. If it's an experienced editor, they may be able to point to a more refined version that you didn't know about. Irrespective, unless you are wikilawyering, you can't go wrong by referring to policy.
5. If you have a question unrelated to the page itself, go to the contributor's talk page and ask them there. Talk pages are to improve the article, not discuss unrelated issues. Plus, its polite, you're more likely to get a reply, it's slightly more private, and people love getting mail.
6. Welcome new users. If a person contributes to a page and their talk page wikilink is red, edit the page to add the following text {{welcome}}. It produces a standard message pointing important general policies and useful links. Plus, it makes wikipedia a bit more friendly.
7. Use the talk page guidelines. They're pretty simple - don't edit other's comments for grammar or spelling (it's rude), and NEVER for content (it misrepresents them, and can get you blocked). Minor changes to formatting (adding square brackets to long external links, spacing comments) are OK if it makes it easier to read. Sign your posts. Don't shout through the use of CAPITALS, bold letters or (Buddha forfend) BOLD CAPITALS, if you do feel the need to emphasize key words, consider italics or (on talk pages alone) the use of underlining by placing text inside the following tags: <u></u>
8. Always add your comment to the bottom of the discussion, it makes the page easier to read. Always space your comments using colons to indent - each colon is worth about five spaces, and helps separate your comment from other people's. When the indent gets pretty far to the right, start at the left margin with a comment to indicate you're doing so:

Hey, this is neat.
:Yes it is
::No it's not
:::How does this help the article get better?
<undent>It does not.

Is rendered like this:^[6]
Hey, this is neat.

Yes it is

No it's not

How does this help the article get better?

<undent>It does not.

[edit] Read some more

So you've seen some basic policies. Great! Now here's some more. Intersperse your editing with reading of core and useful policies. Though the five pillars of Wikipedia are indeed critical, there are many other policies which are also vital (and a bunch of short forms you should probably get used to seeing).

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - everything wikipedia is not (commonly abbreviated as WP:NOT)
2. Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone - how language is chosen on wikipedia (commonly abbreviated as WP:TONE)
3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style - a huge set of pages that answers all your questions about what wikipedia should look like - capital letters, section headings, use of bold and italics, basically everything that's not information. There's a lot here, so just get a sense of what is here, so you know where to look later (commonly abbreviated as WP:MOS, WP:STYLE, and can be used as its own short form for specific topics - MOS:CAPS, MOS:DATE, and so forth)
4. Wikipedia:Notability - the general guideline on what wikipedia should cover. We can't have a page on everything, so this page determines what should have a page (commonly abbreviated as WP:N)
5. Wikipedia:Piped link - wikilinks are important. This tells you how and when to use them (commonly abbreviated as WP:PIPE)
6. Wikipedia:External links - most pages have external links (links to the internet off of wikipedia); here are the guidelines on inserting and removing them. The EL sections get a lot of spam, here's how to deal with it (commonly abbreviated as WP:EL)

[edit] What's with the WhiPping?

So you saw the "WP:" a lot in that last section. You may be asking, what's up with that? Wikipedia (and wikipedians) use shortcuts, basically redirects, on talk pages and during discussion to refer to policies, guidelines and pages that are frequently accessed. Because let's face it, WP:ATA and WP:SANDWICH are a lot shorter than Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and User:WLU/you should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich. You get used to them pretty quickly, and you will be assimilated. A comprehensive list can be found at WP:CUTS, and there's an essay at WP:WTF (with a very amusing full title of Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!) about why you shouldn't use them. I'm not saying I agree with it (because experienced wikipedians usually link their short forms, you recognize the common ones pretty quickly, and the readers of wikipedia who do not edit will almost never see them unless visiting the talk pages as well) but it makes a valid point.

[edit] So you've got about 100 or so contributions

Congratulations! What should you do next? I'd say the first is, decide if you find wikipedia tedious, or addictive! If you like adding content, but not that much, perhaps just edit anonymously or add bits of content and leave the thankless grunt work to poor suckers like me who know when to pluralize with a pipe versus an out-of-bracket 's'. There's a difference, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a liar. His Grace, Emperor of Free Knowledge and Iron-Fisted Dictator of Wikipedia (may he reign forever) Jimbo Wales Himself has spoken to me on this matter, and assured me I am right. Unfortunately it was at a cabal meeting, and well, we are not permitted to discuss the contents of said meetings with you 'normals' (as we call you). Ask me about how we keep the electric car down! Actually, it's better if you don't. The Servers Have Ears. Soylent Green is definitely NOT people.

If editing wikipedia is fun, here's some of the next things you might want to do:

1. Look into adoption. Adopt-a-user is a program designed to help newbies get up to speed. There's a list of dedicated contributors, both administrators and plain old editors, who like helping new people so much, they've decided to make it official. Personally, I do it out of an inflated sense of self-importance. Though you can ask questions of just about any other user, and most are willing to help you, adoptees really like it. You're not bothering them, you're doing them a favour!
2. Ask an admin or other user you trust. If adoption is not your thing, throw your questions to people whose name you recognize. Admins combine experience with community recognition for knowing what they're doing, so they are often ideal sources of information.
3. Consider installing a script-based tool. Be careful - tools are quite powerful, but they do make editing much easier. Also, they often incorporate a one-click revert feature in case you do screw up.
4. Try to refer to policy often on talk pages and edit summaries, using wikilinks. Learn the WP: short-forms, but make sure it's the right one. It'll force you to become familiar with policy, shows you are dedicated to the spirit of the project, and helps newer users find the relevant policies. Even if you're wrong, you'll learn why.
5. Pick a topic you're familiar with but is a bit short or light on content. Use google searches, citation templates, sections, footnotes, pubmed and other reliable sources to add information to the page. Try clicking on the random article link and see if you can improve the page somehow. Check the sources to make sure they justify the statement they accompany. If there are templates (standardized messages) on the main or talk page, they may point out issues of the page itself. Try to address them. If you are successful, on the relevant talk page, question if the issue has been adequately addressed and if other editors agree the tag is no longer needed.

[edit] Templates

Wikipedia has many templates and they do a variety of things. Mostly they're a quick way of adding large amounts of standardized texts to pages. It's a form of mechanization, but fortunately is not driving us all out of business. Templates are used to point out basic errors or flaws in pages, leave comments, warnings and advice on talk pages, create standard boxes containing links to articles and various other things. Most can be modified to a certain extent, generally through the use of the pipe. Templates are always enclosed in two curly brackets like so: {{}}, and can be searched for using Template:Templatename in the search box. To link to a template without placing the template on the page itself, use the characters tl| within the template brackets. {{tl|Transformers}} produces {{Transformers}}. How'd I get the tl| to show up? The <nowiki></nowiki> tags, accessed by typing them out, or the red-circled 'W' on the tool bar above the edit window.

[edit] Lo, from nothing I bring forth the world

Your favourite band just released an article in a third tier regional magazine, but they have no wikipedia page. Sure, it's not a good interview, it's not Time, Blender or even Accordian Enthusiasts' Yearly Review, but it scrapes by as a reliable source, and a whole article means extensive coverage! Way to go, your favourite band just sailed past notability for music, you can now reference the interview the fill the page with fancruft.^[7] But how?

First, find out what the options are for names. Potatoheads (band)? Fingers in the Blender (rock group)? The Sad Clowns? Review the policy on naming conventions to pick an appropriate name. Type it into the search box. Already taken? Add a qualifier and look up guide to hatnotes and page disambiguation. Type in the qualifier, then find the red 'Create this page' text. Alternatively, if you are sure you will be adding the link to another page, create the wikilink there, and edit the redlink. Click, and start editing. If a box shows up to say you are re-creating a deleted page, perhaps notify the deleting admin and leave a note on the talk page that you are aware of the re-creation, but now it passes because of your abysmally low-quality (but still reliable!) source. Be sure to include your reference. Sometimes the page is protected against re-creation due to repeated deletions (referred to as 'salting the earth'). Check out your favourite low-notability pornstar, chances are it's happened at least once. You'll have to get an admin to unprotect it - show them the reference, or draft the article on a sub-page, it'll probably be a good editorial review anyway. Now, to avoid the dreaded {{orphan}} tag, try to find other articles to link it to. Which may be difficult if they aren't particularly notable.

[edit] Aw, your first editorial dispute!

It's so cute the way they grow up right in front of you! You've had your first argument with another user! Excellent. Here is an opportunity to practice your civility and assume good faith. Try to reach a consensus. As always, be very polite. Assume misunderstanding rather than malice. The absolute best way to settle any dispute is through an analysis of the reliable sources that support either side. If possible, present both sides of the argument. Agreeing to disagree is great, particularly if this is represented through an even-handed discussion of both sides of the issue. An escalating array of options for resolving disputes are presented:

• Leave it alone. Cool your itchy trigger finger, don't revert immediately if it's questionably legit.
• Discussion - your first step. Bring it up on the talk page or the other user's talk page. Perhaps set up a draft version on a sub page and work there, rather than working directly on the main page. Remember, it can always be changed back, and it's never the final version.
• Find sources. Any source is worth pages of discussion. Unless you are discussing the source itself. That can generate pages of discussion.
• Seek advice. Ask an admin or more experienced editor what they think, if you are unsure of the interpretation of policy {but be wary of canvassing). Bring the discussion up on the relevant talk page (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:EL all have their own talk pages, and are a great way to solicit opinion from 'experts'). This is best when all parties are unsure of the correct action, and is not a way to resolve a dispute, just a way to clarify it. It's generally polite to mention to the other disputant that you are doing so, and provide a link.
• Third opinion - a third opinion. Used when you and only one other editor both think that 'your' version is better or better represents the issue. Only used when it is a deadlock of two contributors, and is a quasi-official way to settle. As it says on WP:3O (with an 'o', not a zero), this requires civility and good faith on both sides. Read the instructions very carefully, as not following them could result in the request being deleted without being answered.
• Request for comment - a formal request for comment. More binding than a 3O and for use when there are more than two editors involved. As with 3O, be careful to format the request per instructions.
• Request for mediation - request for mediation, the involvement of a neutral third party who will attempt to find a solution acceptable to both parties. Usually used when the dispute gets hot and editors start reacting to who is talking rather than what they say. Also for use when the other side is obviously wrong, and just refuses to see it. Just remember that you are equally wrong, and also refuse to see it.
• Request for arbitration - request for arbitration. They say it's the last step, but they're wrong (below). A RFAR will only be looked into when all other avenues (except for the very last step, below) have been exhausted. Won't even talk to you unless you've been through a RFC and RFM and both have failed to achieve resolution. The (second) highest levels of policy are determined here. Permablocks, reprimands, branding, beating, flaying and being labelled a very naughty boy/girl can all result. Quite time consuming, requires evidence, not opinions, and can result in the permanent loss of editing privileges. Don't fuck with arbitration unless you are serious. If you've reached an arbitration hearing, you shouldn't be reading this 'cause you're in far deeper than this essay was meant to go.
• Jimmy 'Jimbo' Wales. High Potentate, The Grand Raj, Illustrious 37th-and-a-halfth-degree-Grand Marshall, Seer of Things Unseen, Holder of Things Unheld, Ravager of Worlds, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Jimbo R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn and basically the last gasp if you've got a gripe with wikipedia. Also looks good in red. Quiver in terror as he judges you with death in His eyes. Frankly, if you end up here, there better be something serious going on. The buck stops here. There. With him. Jimbo collects all stray bucks.

[edit] Edit warring

So you're a stubborn bastard like me, and REFUSE to let The Wrong Version remain up for even a minute, consider edit warring. Violating the three revert rule is the absolute best way to take an enforced wikibreak and shows your dedication to The Right Version. It also shows up as a permanent record of you being an idiot.

If you are edit warring, stop. Voice your issues on the talk page. Leave messages on the other editor's talk page. Generally go through all the steps to dispute resolution and drink a big glass of patience.

Now, none of this applies if it's blatant vandalism.

[edit] Archiving

So you've just spend days discussing a page, and now you're exhausted. You've got a version you're happy with, but oh no! The talk page is a 260K monster! You may think, I'll just erase it, to make things simpler. Go ahead, see what happens. Say 'hi' to ClueBot for me. Have some lotion, it'll take away the sting.

Long talk pages are difficult to navigate and not particularly helpful, but the discussion is often very useful. It's saved anyway, in the history (nothing on wikipedia is ever erased, not even deleted pages). But it's nice not to have to troll through revisions. Instead of erasing, we archive the page, leaving a nice box at the top telling people where to go for previous discussion.

For your user talk page, you are permitted to simply delete content. Key word is 'permitted'. It's not generally looked well upon. If you're a lazy, lazy editor, there's always MiszaBot. Your talk page is your 'warts and all' record of you as an editor. Be proud of your blocks, they're evidence of your learning. Unless you keep accumulating them. In which case, you're an idiot. I'm an idiot, I've got three. Do as I say, not as I do.

[edit] Suffer not the Vandals

There are many things that vandalism is not. Make sure it's vandalism before you do vandal-fighting stuff. Vandalism can be a subtle beast. Here's my advice on vandalism and vandals:

1. Check through the page history - reverting the last instance of vandalism is good, but isn't as useful if the vandal added 'cock' to the page in ten different edits. Unless it's an article about chickens. Or penises. In which case, maybe it's not vandalism. See shit for a phenomenal example of the proper use of profanity on a wikipage. But remember that wikipedia is not censored, though that's not an excuse to pop up porn stills on every page. You get the point, sometimes vandalism is more than the last edit.
2. Check user contributions. If they've vandalised one page, perhaps they've done so on other pages as well.
3. Leave a warning on their talk page. If they are going to get blocked, they must have had fair warning. Read the user warnings, pick an appropriate one, and remember that you don't have to go through all four levels - if it's blatant, ongoing and recurrent, a single warning can suffice. That's why {{uw-vandalism4im}} exists. But don't be trigger happy. Include a pipe to link to the article.
4. After the last warning, head over to the administrator intervention against vandalism page and report in the appropriate place. After my last warning, I usually copy the username to the clipboard, go to AIV, past the name at the bottom, copy the template above it, put the name and other relevant info into the template, copy it to a clipboard, then paste the whole shebang to the appropriate section. And when you get an edit conflict message, as quickly as you can re-paste the message into the top box and hit save ASAP. Edit conflicts suck.
5. If you know an admin is on-line, you can post them a message on their talk page regards the vandal, but AIV means you can't be accused of, or even be involved in a conspiracy. If you're going to use the cabal to silence dissent, you're going to have to learn to do so without leaving a trail.
6. If it's different (new) users leaving the same vandalism, you've got yourself a sockpuppet, huzzah! Sock puppets are complicated, so research that on your own.

[edit] Let's take a break, shall we?

My fingers are exhausted, my wrists are cramping. By the time you've gotten to this point in the essay, you should be pretty much fine. The next couple sections are short, and if you grok until this point, the rest shall follow.

[edit] Edit counts

Where else am I going to put it? An edit count is the sum of all the edits a person has made to wikipedia. It's a somewhat useful rule-of-thumb for another editor's experience. If it's in the thousands, they probably know what they're doing. If it's in the tens of thousands, I'd be very surprised if they didn't. There's a quasi-official bragging list. I'm on it, number 943, huzzah! As pointed out in the essay on edit counts, it's a very rough measure, and in no way indicates the quality of the quantity. Some people spam a lot, some just engage on talk pages, some just do redirect corrections, none of which takes any appreciable understanding of wikipedia overall. But still, it's there and it's used. It's 'cause we're all secret elitists. Sad but true.

[edit] Mergers, page moves, splitting

Merges, moves and splits take chunks of text and move them to a new article. If you think an article is redundant, consider merging it to the more appropriate one. There are tags to be placed ({{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}), discussions to be had, and consensus to be reached, but there's also boldness to be being-ed. Merge when there's two articles for the same thing (use a redirect), move when there's one article but it's got the wrong name (review the manual of style guide for capital letters, the most frequent reason why I move stuff), and split when there's enough text in one section for its own article. Become thee familiar with the {{main}} template.

[edit] Deletion

Deletions are one of the more interesting, challenging and fun areas of wikipedia, in my opinion. Acrimony, dissent, bitterness and head-splitting policy discussions can be found here. Anyone can engage in deletion discussions. It's not limited to admins. But you will get a better reception if you adhere to, and refer to, policy.

Basically it's like this - if you think that a page doesn't belong on wikipedia, you can try to have it deleted. Speedy deletion is for pages that obviously don't belong (like I, Jimbo Wales, Created This Page, So You Better Not Delete It) and use short codes for classification. Proposed deletions are for deletions that aren't quite speedy, but don't really merit a full deletion discussion. If a prod tag stays on a page for five days without contest, it's deleted. Articles for Deletion is the longest and most formal process, in which there is a formal discussion of the article and endorsements for different actions - Keep (leave alone), Delete (duh), Merge (move content to other article). Everyone gets one endorsement in the form of a bullet, bold word and rationale:

• Delete/Keep/Merge

Don't play with the formatting, and don't just vote - provide a reasoning related to policy, read the reasoning of others. Theoretically it's not a vote, in my experience it's somewhere between a vote and a discussion with more weight going to experienced contributors (here's what admins think) and apparently there is such a thing as inherent notability (much to my surprise). It's an ugly truth, but wikipedia is somewhat elitist. Key policies^[8] include:

• Notability - clearly failing notability is usually an uncontroversial reason to delete (for regular contributors; for the person who created the page, you might see some kicking and screaming). Also note the numerous sub-pages for notability of specific entities; corporations, people and so on.
• Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions - what not to do; a personal favourite is WP:WAX; (short form WP:ATA)
• The deletion policy, bedrock for deletion on wikipedia (short form WP:DP)
• Articles for deletion - where to go to start the process (short form WP:AFD)

If an article you create is nominated for deletion, the absolute best thing to do is to find some sources that justify passing WP:N. A single link to a newspaper story on the entity may be sufficient (particularly if it is long, in-depth, in a major national or international newspaper, and ideally there are at least two of them) and spares much time wasting. Could even result in a speedy close if unequivocally convincing of notability, in which case you should ask yourself why you didn't put it in the article in the first place. If you nominated the page for deletion or previously argued for deletion, feel free to change your opinion by striking through your previous entry using the <s></s> tags if a good reference crops up or if you are convinced by another contributor's argument. Also feel free to point out that you were not convinced that another contributor's arguments and why, REFERRING TO POLICY. Sometimes in response to a Delete - unsourced, the page creator will pop up a blog entry 'sourcing' something. The correct response to this is Comment - blogs are not considered reliable sources.^[9] Pointing out the errors in other's deletion discussion arguments is allowed, but don't be a dick about it^[10] - everyone makes mistakes and there is a difference between a gentle correction and beating someone about the head with a policy.

During deletion discussions, people may use the term !vote. Apparently the ! is a modifier in math or formal logic or some such, and it's used here to indicate that while the discussion is not a simple vote, sometimes you have nothing to say.  !vote means, informally, "I've ready X, Y and Z's discussions and I find them convincing." Similar to !voting "Delete - per nom" or "Keep - per WLU", sometimes you have nothing to add but it's valuable to say that the discussion has been reviewed and it's good enough for you.

[edit] FRINGE, IAR and other esoteric policies

There are some policies which require a degree of familiarity with conventional policy before they can be truly grokked.

• Fringe theories - conspiracy theories, nutter archeology, the face on mars and the moon landing. Topics which are ostensibly bizarre can still be discussed, but can not generally be proven. So instead, we document the controversy. Short form - WP:FRINGE
• Undue weight - what to do with sources which are reliable, yet the minority. Short form - WP:UNDUE
• Ignore all rules - the policy to end all policies. If anything gets in the way of improving wikipedia, this policy disposes of it handily. Short form - WP:IAR
• Tables - bane of my existence, tables are useful but suck to draft. Short form, WP:TABLE, though Help:Table is also very handy

[edit] And we're done

That's been my experience with wikipedia in a nutshell. The linked policies and essays contain the details.

One final point - no-one is anyone else's bitch. You are not obligated to edit because someone else wants you to. We're all volunteers, and over the long-term we either do it for fun, or profit. The former remain and become dedicated contributors. The latter often get blocked. If you point out a flaw in a page it's polite to try to correct it, but if you lack the time, knowledge or inclination, you aren't obligated to. This is another reason to be polite - if for some reason you are not allowed to edit a page, people will be more inclined to help you out if you're considerate, honest, open and do what you can to assist others.

Final, final point. For real this time. If you read this essay and at some point thought, "I can say it better than that" or "That's not the right wikilink", you may be ideal for this place. If you actually corrected the wikilink or edited to a better wording, put in your WP:RFA now. At its heart, wikipedia is about meddling.^[11]

[edit] Notes

[edit] The truth

Wikipedia can be great. But it can also be ugly, frustrating, elitist, populist, and a host of other nasty things. Unconsciously, I've tried to make this about what wikipedia (and myself as an editor) should aspire to be. The reality is wikipedia is 2 million+ pages of pretty raw information that is cobbled together by many, many people, with a wide variety of reasons for contributing to the project. Including greed, self-importance, grinding axes, some sort of bizarre power fetishism and occasionally, the pursuit of the noble ideal of truth (but I already mentioned self-importance, didn't I?) So don't be surprised if you get bit, blocked and belittled. If you can pull a Jesus and turn the other cheek, kudos to you sir/madam, you are better than many here. Certainly better than I. WLU (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)