Missionedit's Adoption
Homepage •
Discussion || Current Adoptee Pages:
Ploreky ||
Inactive:
Scribbleink •
Jtamad •
Elsa Enchanted •
Molly's Mind •
Ntomlin1996 •
Venustar84 •
Acj1 •
AmazingAlec •
Faiz7412 •
Hisashiyarouin •
Marcus1093 •
WelshWonderWoman || Graduates:
FiendYT
| |||
![]() A few questions to start off this adoption: 1) Would you prefer to be called Marcus1093, Marcus, or something else?
Lesson 1: WikiquetteWikiquette " Wikiquette" is a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". It is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made. Assuming good faithAlways assume that every member of the community you come across is trying to do the right thing. The exception to this would be somebody who already has four plus vandalism warnings and who is making more malicious edits; they probably aren't acting in good faith. Apart from that, don't jump straight in to assume somebody is malicious. ThreadingThreading is an organized way of replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. When you want to respond to the original post, then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
Avoiding common mistakesAvoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
SignaturesThere are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. There are a few no-nos, though.
End of lesson 1@ Marcus1093: Questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 2: The Five Pillars of WikipediaThe Five Pillars of Wikipedia These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
End of lesson 2@ Marcus1093: Any questions? Next we'll do a lesson on reliable sources; a very important aspect of Wikipedia. Also, feel free to ask questions about Wikipedia unrelated to our lessons :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 3: Reliable sourcesReliable sources For more information on this topic see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be too hard for you. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it. On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :) Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration". Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. Other sites that have an "anyone can edit" policy like Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources. In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source. End of lesson 3@ Marcus1093: Any questions before the test? Make sure you tell me if I'm giving you lessons that are too easy for you; I want to make sure you actually learn and not just go along with the flow :) I see that you have a good grasp of how to use citations already, so we can move on to copyediting after this if you like. Or we can go over citations, just to give you a refresher with a couple new things added in. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Test1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?
2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?
. 8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?
9.) Q- Is Harrison Ford's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
End of testHere's your test! It's about 2 or 3 months late, but I managed to remember it at least :) My apologies, and good luck! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Lesson 4: Copy editingCopy editing Copy editing is a skill which you will likely have to use at one time or another on Wikipedia whether you are writing a new article or fixing an old one. I enjoy it, and as you also seem to like copyediting (which, by the way can be spelled as one word or two), I hope you will enjoy this lesson and your assignment. This lesson is mostly taken from the GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors) page. Guild of Copy EditorsSince you are already part of the Guild of Copy Editors, I don't really have to explain this one to you. Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors a collaborative effort that focuses on copy editing articles, as well as other minor cleanup jobs. To "copy edit" is to go through and check spelling, grammar, wikilinks, formatting, etc. Basically making an unreadable page readable :) How to copy editThe best way to copy edit is to fix all of the spelling, grammar, and basic formatting first. Then you look up the type of the article (eg. biography) in the Manual of Style to see if every heading is in the proper order. For example, if I was copy editing a novel, I would go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels to see what order the headings were supposed to be in. Organizing your copy editing strategy
I've found this is the best way to efficiently and effectively copy edit, but if you have any other suggestions or methods that you are comfortable with, feel free to use those as well/instead. Different kinds of EnglishSometimes you'll see A quick reference for these different kinds of English is available at American and British English spelling differences. End of lesson 4@ Marcus1093: The Guild of Copy Editors has a list of article copy edit requests. Assignment: Pick an article from the list that you are going to work on, tell me which one you picked, and I'll monitor your copy editing and tell you how you did at the end (hint: Articles going for a GA or FA review are going to expect a higher level of copy editing). Make sure to read all the rules on the request page before beginning. Have fun! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 5: Manual of StyleManual of Style The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect giving a lesson on it, but I think the MOS a very important and necessary part of Wikipedia, and deserves its own lesson :) Here are the main points of it: Article titles, headings, and sections
Spelling and grammar in different forms of EnglishThere are many different kinds of English from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. To make sure the English style used throughout an article is consistent, sometimes an invisible template such as {{ Use American English}}, {{ Use British English}}, or {{ Use Irish English}}, is placed at the top. Otherwise, it's best to try and follow the style the rest of the article is written in to keep it consistent. Capital letters
End of lesson 5@
Marcus1093: Any questions? I have included only the very basics; there is much more at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There'll be a test for this lesson—pretty easy as tests go :) ~
Anastasia [Missionedit] (
talk) 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
Missionedit's Adoption
Homepage •
Discussion || Current Adoptee Pages:
Ploreky ||
Inactive:
Scribbleink •
Jtamad •
Elsa Enchanted •
Molly's Mind •
Ntomlin1996 •
Venustar84 •
Acj1 •
AmazingAlec •
Faiz7412 •
Hisashiyarouin •
Marcus1093 •
WelshWonderWoman || Graduates:
FiendYT
| |||
![]() A few questions to start off this adoption: 1) Would you prefer to be called Marcus1093, Marcus, or something else?
Lesson 1: WikiquetteWikiquette " Wikiquette" is a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". It is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made. Assuming good faithAlways assume that every member of the community you come across is trying to do the right thing. The exception to this would be somebody who already has four plus vandalism warnings and who is making more malicious edits; they probably aren't acting in good faith. Apart from that, don't jump straight in to assume somebody is malicious. ThreadingThreading is an organized way of replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. When you want to respond to the original post, then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
Avoiding common mistakesAvoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
SignaturesThere are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. There are a few no-nos, though.
End of lesson 1@ Marcus1093: Questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 2: The Five Pillars of WikipediaThe Five Pillars of Wikipedia These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
End of lesson 2@ Marcus1093: Any questions? Next we'll do a lesson on reliable sources; a very important aspect of Wikipedia. Also, feel free to ask questions about Wikipedia unrelated to our lessons :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 3: Reliable sourcesReliable sources For more information on this topic see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be too hard for you. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it. On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :) Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration". Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. Other sites that have an "anyone can edit" policy like Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources. In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source. End of lesson 3@ Marcus1093: Any questions before the test? Make sure you tell me if I'm giving you lessons that are too easy for you; I want to make sure you actually learn and not just go along with the flow :) I see that you have a good grasp of how to use citations already, so we can move on to copyediting after this if you like. Or we can go over citations, just to give you a refresher with a couple new things added in. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Test1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?
2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?
. 8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?
9.) Q- Is Harrison Ford's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
End of testHere's your test! It's about 2 or 3 months late, but I managed to remember it at least :) My apologies, and good luck! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Lesson 4: Copy editingCopy editing Copy editing is a skill which you will likely have to use at one time or another on Wikipedia whether you are writing a new article or fixing an old one. I enjoy it, and as you also seem to like copyediting (which, by the way can be spelled as one word or two), I hope you will enjoy this lesson and your assignment. This lesson is mostly taken from the GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors) page. Guild of Copy EditorsSince you are already part of the Guild of Copy Editors, I don't really have to explain this one to you. Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors a collaborative effort that focuses on copy editing articles, as well as other minor cleanup jobs. To "copy edit" is to go through and check spelling, grammar, wikilinks, formatting, etc. Basically making an unreadable page readable :) How to copy editThe best way to copy edit is to fix all of the spelling, grammar, and basic formatting first. Then you look up the type of the article (eg. biography) in the Manual of Style to see if every heading is in the proper order. For example, if I was copy editing a novel, I would go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels to see what order the headings were supposed to be in. Organizing your copy editing strategy
I've found this is the best way to efficiently and effectively copy edit, but if you have any other suggestions or methods that you are comfortable with, feel free to use those as well/instead. Different kinds of EnglishSometimes you'll see A quick reference for these different kinds of English is available at American and British English spelling differences. End of lesson 4@ Marcus1093: The Guild of Copy Editors has a list of article copy edit requests. Assignment: Pick an article from the list that you are going to work on, tell me which one you picked, and I'll monitor your copy editing and tell you how you did at the end (hint: Articles going for a GA or FA review are going to expect a higher level of copy editing). Make sure to read all the rules on the request page before beginning. Have fun! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 5: Manual of StyleManual of Style The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect giving a lesson on it, but I think the MOS a very important and necessary part of Wikipedia, and deserves its own lesson :) Here are the main points of it: Article titles, headings, and sections
Spelling and grammar in different forms of EnglishThere are many different kinds of English from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. To make sure the English style used throughout an article is consistent, sometimes an invisible template such as {{ Use American English}}, {{ Use British English}}, or {{ Use Irish English}}, is placed at the top. Otherwise, it's best to try and follow the style the rest of the article is written in to keep it consistent. Capital letters
End of lesson 5@
Marcus1093: Any questions? I have included only the very basics; there is much more at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There'll be a test for this lesson—pretty easy as tests go :) ~
Anastasia [Missionedit] (
talk) 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |