Open main menu

Welcome!Edit

 
Some cookies to welcome you!  

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slarky says no! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dreamy Jazz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!Edit

Hello, Slarky says no! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

The start of your adoptionEdit

Hello,

I have not got a particular way to do adoption, so if you want to cover a particular aspect of Wikipedia, do mention it. I have reviewed your first edit (and although I cannot access the webpage due to my location), I confirmed it using the Canadian House of Commons website (https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/constituencies/Kings-Hants(622)). I have left to welcome messages above. The second message includes a lot of links to pages on Wikipedia which are useful.

I thought it's best to start with adoption the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. These so called pillars of our community are what a lot of our polices and guidelines are based on. They are:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
  • Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
  • Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
  • Wikipedia has no firm rules

If you want further explanation you can look at Wikipedia:Five pillars and/or ask me questions about them.

We have several key polices and guidelines which govern what we do here. Because they are not firm, in rare cases they may be ignored, however, these cases are very rare. The key polices and guidelines I would first like to highlight are:

  1. Verifiability
  2. No original research
  3. Neutral point of view
  4. Biographies of living persons
  5. What Wikipedia is not
  6. Notability
  7. Consensus
  8. Be bold, but not reckless
  9. Civility
  10. Edit warring
  11. Copyrights

I will go into detail about what each of these polices / guidelines mean and are. Again, please ask if you are still unsure after my explanations:

  1. Verifiability is key here. Everything you write needs sources to back it up. These sources should be reliable and independent. You can source things (after finding the sources) by using reference tags (preferably) or placing the sources at the bottom of the article. You can find more in Help:References, however, I imagine I will cover referencing in the near future.
  2. No original research ties into Verifiability. Basically it says again that whatever you write needs sources.
  3. Maintaining a neutral point of view is important on Wikipedia. This means that when you write about something you need to present the information you write about in a neutral way (i.e. instead of writing Company X is the best you would write something like Company X won the award for best customer service in retail in the 2015 Company awards)
  4. Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia have extra polices and processes which surround them, due to the fact that the person the article is about is alive. Mainly, this policy says that editors should bear in mind the three polices I have mentioned above even more stringently and should also cite information which is contentious (whether positive, negative or even neutral) with inline citations (i.e. the use of the reference tags I talked about above).
  5. This policy gives substance to the first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It also gives substance to certain policies about how our community runs (in the Community section of the page).
  6. Notability is important on Wikipedia. If we didn't have notability guidelines, there would be loads of articles which are not encyclopedic, because if they are not notable, they won't have sources. The core notability guideline is the general notability guideline. Basically it says that if there are multiple reliable, independent and secondary sources which talk significantly about the subject, a topic is presumed to be notable enough for a stand alone list / article. However, if the topic is not notable enough for it's own article or list, it could still be included in another article. There are other notability guidelines and a list can be found in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, however, they all are in a similar way to the GNG saying that a topic is not notable unless it has those sources.
  7. Consensus on Wikipedia is important. Consensus can come in different ways. Through discussion an example is the process for giving users administrator rights is done through a discussion where bureaucrats (a role of Wikipedia editors which can give users administrator rights) determine consensus. Getting what the consensus is, is not the counting of votes (i.e. number of supports / opposes) but is the process of evaluating votes based on the merits of their arguments. Another example is in Articles for deletion editors make arguments for and against the deletion of an article. In day to day editing, consensus is automatically assumed when an edit is made (i.e. this means if someone makes an edit to an article which is not reverted, it is assumed this edit has consensus) and is no longer assumed if the edit is reverted (i.e. someone disagrees with the edit).
  8. A follow up guideline to consensus is being bold. Wikipedia is built by editors and so nothing will change unless an editor improves it. Lets say an editor makes an edit and it is then reverted by someone else, this does not necessarily mean that the user did anything wrong. Both editors are usually expected to discuss why the first editor made the edit and why they the second editor reverted it. However, being bold does not mean being reckless, so big edits with lots of impact usually are best discussed first.
  9. Civility is important. We are all editors and apart from a few editors are here to build and improve Wikipedia. Everyone should be treated with respect. This does not mean you have to agree with them, but that you keep discussions and actions (such as editing and reverting) civil. Also, if a editor is being uncivil towards you (or another editor), it does not mean that you or any other editor can be uncivil towards them. Often being civil back is the best way to defuse a situation.
  10. Edit warring is an important thing to bear in mind and is linked to Civility. There is what we call a bright line called the 3 revert rule and it is taken very seriously. Basically, you should never go past three reverts on a page in 24 hours. It is important to also understand that this applies to any content (i.e. if you make 4 reverts on a page each on different content, you could still be breaking the 3 revert rule (3RR)). However, there are exceptions which are listed at the Exemptions section on the page. The important thing to understand about exemptions is that if you are unsure if you could apply them, don't and leave for or contact another editor to deal with.
  11. The text you add in edits you make are released under the CC BY-SA and GFDL licences, which means that it can be reused by other people as long as they give credit to you. Also, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text and so text copied from other sources when it is not already licensed under a suitable compatible license is not allowed on Wikipedia. Nearly all of the time the text you find elsewhere on the internet is not suitable here. Copyright violations are always removed.

I know this is a bit of a wall of text, but this is meant to give you a good overview of what Wikipedia is like. A lot of our other polices and guidelines are based on these key polices and guidelines. If you are ever in doubt about anything, it is best to ask another editor first.

Going back to the finer points of the adoption, you can continue to be a part of this adoption process as long as you want and it ending does not mean you can't ask me questions or get help from me. I would appreciate if you express what specific part of Wikipedia you want to learn about, then you can get the information you want. If you are undecided what you want to find out about, I can give you a list of things which I think you may find interesting. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. How have you been getting along with the above? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on me. I think I have read everything I can and I was thinking of starting on some cleanup to get familiar with the site using some of the URL cleanups here WP:CLEANUP but I have not had time to understand the formatting yet. Does that sound like a reasonable place to start or do you have any ideas of better places to start? Slarky says no (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That does sound like a reasonable place to start. If you want to help deal with URL cleanups, I suggest that you use the script ReFill. The script allows you to automatically "fill" bare URL references. This means that references which only are bare URLs are converted to references with information which is got from the website (i.e. the date of publication, website name, title of the page). Also I suggest that you look at the different citation templates which are used on Wikipedia. If you are unsure how to use these templates, are unsure on a particular URL cleanup, leave a note here. A full list of the main citation templates are below and are used for different types sources:
Citation Style 1 templates
{{Cite arXiv}}arXiv preprints
{{Cite AV media}}audio and visual
{{Cite AV media notes}}audio and visual liner notes
{{Cite bioRxiv}}bioRxiv preprints
{{Cite book}}books
{{Cite conference}}conference papers
{{Cite encyclopedia}}edited collections
{{Cite episode}}radio or television episodes
{{Cite interview}}interviews
{{Cite journal}}academic journals and papers
{{Cite magazine}}magazines, periodicals
{{Cite mailing list}}public mailing lists
{{Cite map}}maps
{{Cite news}}news articles
{{Cite newsgroup}}online newsgroups
{{Cite podcast}}podcasts
{{Cite press release}}press releases
{{Cite report}}reports
{{Cite serial}}audio or video serials
{{Cite sign}}signs, plaques
{{Cite speech}}speeches
{{Cite techreport}}technical reports
{{Cite thesis}}theses
{{Cite web}}web sources not covered by the above
See also:
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about ReFill - that should make life easier. I also have a question about copy/paste content. I stumbled across this article Dick Wessel and the narrative parts of it have large chunks which are a direct copy and paste from this article Dick Wessel on NetWorth. That seems like something we don’t want, but the editor appears very experienced so I am second guessing myself about it. Do you agree and if so, what’s the typical process for flagging that? Thanks. Slarky says no (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Slarky says no, hello. Although, yes, it does look like that we copied them, at the bottom of the page the sources for where they got the information from include Wikipedia. It looks like that source copied from the Wikipedia page.
If you suspect a copyright violation, there is a tool to find copyright violations on a page. It's called copyvios and when given a page which crawls the web to find violations. If there is a match on this tool, you will need to check that the Wikipedia page copies the website. This can be done by seeing if the page uses Wikipedia as a source (if it does, we don't have to remove what they copied from us), and if the article does not credit Wikipedia, you could use a tool such as WikiBlame to find the date the information was added and compare this date to the date the source was published; if the source is older, that page probably copied it.
If you think that part of a page definitely contains copyright violations, you will need to remove this part with an edit summary such as 'redact copvio' (copyvio is a shortened term for copyright violation). Then tag the page with {{copyvio-revdel}}. The tool User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel can be used to automate this and more information on the tool can be found there.
If the entire page is definitely a copyright violation and there is no version which you could revert to to remove the entire page copyright violation, tag it for speedy deletion by placing {{Db-g12}} at the top of the page. If you want to use this, you will need to ensure it meets this criteria. The definitive criteria is at the G12 entry on the criteria for speedy deletion page.
If the copyright violation is not clear cut, you can place {{copyvio}} on the page and then follow the instructions in the box. If the entire page is a copyvio place it at the top, if part of the page is, place it at the top of this part/section and then place {{Copyvio/bottom}} at the end of the part/section. More information can be found on the copyvio template page.
If you want further explanation, just ask. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Slarky says no".