User:A. B./Useful snippets of text for talk pages

Edit summaries -- example
When editing an article, there is a small field labeled "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
 * Edit summaries:; see Help:Edit summary
 * wiki markup (text to copy into edit page):


 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]

It's helpful to summarize your edit in a few brief words -- once again it's not something vandals do and it helps other editors understand what you're doing.


 * nowiki (what it actually looks like on the page):
 * When editing an article, there is a small field labeled "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:


 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]


 * It's helpful to summarize your edit in a few brief words -- once again it's not something vandals do and it helps other editors understand what you're doing.

I strongly suggest you get a user account so you won't look suspicious
I strongly suggest you get a user account and at least put something on your user page ("Hello" will suffice). Take a look at the Recent Changes page -- there are volunteers ("Recent Changes Patrol") that scan this continually, looking for possible vandalism. Edits by people with red links and anonymous IP addresses get special scrutiny since most vandals use anonymous IP addresses and don't bother with user pages. Sometimes they're a bit too fast on the trigger, especially on heavy-vandalism days. There are other benefits, too -- see Why create an account?

Used with

Consoling victims of tactless editors/recruiting new users to help others
I play no official role and I'm no administrator -- I just get really annoyed to see a newcomer tactlessly reverted or warned. Reversions are OK if done with tact and explanation; official warnings should not be given when coaching would work as well.

I hope you'll consider doing the same for newcomers once you get your feet on the ground. I go to Special:New pages and look for new articles contributed by people without user pages or talk pages (i.e., red links). I look to see if the articles have merit, then if they do, I put a welcome template Welcome template table on their talk page, add a personal comment about their article (with maybe a pointer, as I did with you) and then put both the person and the new page on my watch list for a week or so. If they get mugged or their page gets zapped, I try to help them.

Feel free to use my own page of Wikipedia rules, procedures, etc.
I have a hard time keeping track of rules, resources, etc., so I built my a user subpage of links for my own benefit -- sort of a bookmark page. Feel free to use it: User:A. B./Useful Wikipedia links.

My welcome for new users contributing new articles
Also, thank you for adding the _abcde_ and _fghij_ articles. Wikipedia always needs additional substantive material. I hope you'll keep adding to Wikipedia.

--~

Just skim all those links!
P.S. Nobody but wikiholics and lawyers have the time and patience to really study all those links in detail at once!

30 minutes of skimming will get you started -- then just dive right in, making more edits and additions. Also, if you're unclear on all the article formatting details and you're lazy, you can do what I did -- just hit the edit link for an article and plagiarize the formatting someone else used.

Text I used with a new user that added potentially useful but unsupported, opinionated content
Thanks for adding to the Knoxville, Tennessee article. Wikipedia always needs additional, substantive content. Having said that, I made some major changes to your contribution this morning. See the changes I made and take a look at my comments on the article's discussion page (Talk:Knoxville, Tennessee). Reviewing the links below (plus the links in my welcome message above and my comments on the article's discussion page) should give you a sense of what Wikipedia's looking for: * Citing sources * Verifiability * No original research * Neutral point of view -- much of the article about this policy deals with inflammatory topics like the Iraq War, but going beyond that, the bottom line is that Wikipedia and its editors have no opinion on anything -- we just pass along the facts. Other people's or publications' opinons may be cited if taken taken from a reliable published source but it should be clear (with a footnote, link or direct quotation) that it's not Wikipedia's opinion. This policy is closely tied to the "No original research" policy above. * Reliable sources for the full guideline on what sources can be used (hint: it doesn't include my buddy's blog). * Check your facts * Words to avoid, in particular, "Words which can advance a point of view" We were all newcomers once, and I hope you won't take this too much to heart. I was interested to read about this legend and it's a good addition if you can back it up from a published, reliable source. I especially hope you'll contribute more Knoxville-related content. As for the Knoxville, Tennessee article itself, the rest of the article's talk (a.k.a. discussion) page discussions will give you a feel for how a partial,non-binding consensus has evolved as to what should and should not be included. (You'll also see a discussion of my own early editing mistakes!). Again, thanks for contributing and I hope you'll keep adding to Wikipedia. --~

Explaining wikification tag to new user
Also, thank you for adding the _abcde_ article. Wikipedia always needs additional substantive material. Note that this article has been flagged as needing "wikification" (reformatting to Wikipedia's norms). "Content is king" and additional useful content such as your new article come first on Wikipedia, but formatting is still important. Learning very basic Wikipedia editing is not hard -- when you get the time, you can just follow the links on the notice at the top of the article and you'll be up and going in less than 30 minutes. I hope you'll keep adding to Wikipedia. Again, welcome and thank you. --~

Welcome + friendly warning to an ignorant newcomer spamming links
Having said that ... _fghij_ I deleted the commercial links you added to the _abcde_, _fghij_, and _xyz_ articles. These articles give more info on Wikipedia's policies about commerical links and external linking in general: *External links, especially this section: **Links to normally avoid *Spam, especially these sections: **External link spamming **How not to be a spammer *What Wikipedia is not, especially this section: **Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files *When should I link externally? If you think any of these links should be restored, you should discuss it on the article's discussion page (some times called a "talk page") first. I hope you will keep contributing to Wikipedia, just not these sort of links. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. --~

Opposing an RfA

 * 1) Oppose. It can be debated whether administrators need to be technically skilled, super-experienced at RC patrol, have 2000 edits or whatever -- but they must always be judicious and mature. I'm not an admin myself, just a "customer" of Wikipedia's admins; like police, they are our servants, not our bosses. As editors, we should project no opinions of our own when editing an article; likewise, I believe administrators should never project negative emotions or agendas of their own when acting as admins. A successful Rfa is often, but incorrectly, interpreted either as conferring a mark of community esteem or as selection to some sort of "village elder" status. _xyzabc_ should know _he_ already has my esteem and is clearly a valued village elder already; if Wikipedia had knighthoods, I'd vote for _his_, just not to give _him_ a sword right away. Should _he_ come back again with a further, lengthy history of contributing coolly when emotions are high, then I will certainly suport _his_ RfA.--A. B. 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When to move beyond "assume good faith"
From Assume good faith: *"Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that youre acting in bad faith." *" This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.  Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." In other words, a sanctimonious admonishment to "assume good faith" by a misbehaving editor is meaningless, even bad, when the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. From my own experience, the more strident and sanctimonious the cry I hear, the more flagrant the bad behavior just exposed. This is especially true when heard from more experienced editors used to frequently quoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make a point. Underlying human nature and emotions do not seem to suddenly improve after humans have made 1000 or 10,000 Wikipedia edits -- only the skill and polish with which they are expressed.

Link spammers -- we're not here to support your business
The same goes also for the link you added to the article Sanskrit for the Sanskrit-language tattoo translations you sell.

Please consider that the Sanskrit article was compiled by dozens of volunteers working hundreds of hours over many months to provide a comprehensive overview of one of the world's oldest and most important languages. Believe it or not, they did all this work so that such information might be freely available to millions of people around the globe ... not to promote your tattoo service in the U.K.
 * --A. B. 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted in dealing with a _abcde_ spammer
Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is  :[http: // www angelfire com/co/begumnoor/tipu2 html Tipu Sultan Article by Jean Overton Fuller]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see: * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118 * User:A. B./To do list Thanks for your help.--A. B. 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI: External links are never "minor"
==FYI: External links are never "minor"== Suggestion: don't mark external link additions as "minor" even on your own user page, but especially when added to a controversial article. Since you did this only twice, I'm sure this was innocent. You can set your preferences to default to making edits "minor" or not; I have mine set to default to "not minor".

Any controversial edits or link additions marked "minor" may needlessly bring down the wrath of others who think you're trying to sneak something by them. Even on non-controversial articles, it may arouse concerns of link-spamming; Wikipedia is under constant assault by link spammers (even more than POV pushers). Trust me on this.--~

Your organization's article has some problems
==Your organization's article has some problems== It's important you take a look at your new article (_abcdefg_)and decide what to do about it since it currently does not meet Wikipedia standards as presently written.

The most important concern is whether this organization is important enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia -- see: *Notability (organizations) -- what makes an organization worth including in Wikipedia *Verifiability -- what volunteers look for in terms of "proof" *Reliable sources -- what are the sorts of sources volunteers consider to be credible when assess verifiablilty *No original research -- what goes in the article needs to come from somewhere else, not just your own head or "everybody knows that ..." Having said that, paraphrase, don't copy, other sources -- don't violate copyrights (that gets material instantly deleted.)

Second, the article reads a bit like a press release; see What Wikipedia is not, especially the section that reads "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Also see Neutral point of view.

You'll want to address these issues pretty soon or your article may get deleted.--~

Talk page note for an editor whose vanity article has been prod'd for deletion
_abcde_

First of all, please don't get offended by the words "vanity" and "non-notable" -- these have very specific meanings on Wikipedia. Take a look at these Wikipedia guidelines and policies: *Vanity guidelines -- "vanity" in this context refers to promotional type articles. *Notability -- if like 99.999% of us, you aren't famous, you don't get an article. Sorry (I know the feeling). Maybe someday. *Autobiography -- in a nutshell, if you are the subject of the article, your edits should be confined to removing inaccuracies added by others. You should not create or add to such an article. *Verifiability -- anything you write has to be backed up by objective evidence such as magazines or newspapers. *Neutral point of view -- you have to write in a neutral, not self-promoting tone. I hope this helps. If you can address these issues in the next several days, the article will stay.

--~

Article talk page note for British-American English dispute
I came here from the RfC. English dialect disputes can seem so petty to those not immediately involved. 99.99% of Wikipedia readers are capable of reading either version just fine. They may not even be aware which version the article uses and they almost certainly don't care.

Comments:

* The show is predominantly Canadian, notwithstanding having American viewers or American financial backing for a while. It should be written in Canadian English.

* The article started in American English. Canadians should be thankful for some American starting it and not be twits about the language the original author used. To the extent that Americans innocently screw up additional edits, Canadians should make corrections as tactfully as possible. They should also be glad when Americans add additional useful material, even if they have to clean up the spelling.

* Given that the article really should be in Canadian English (see above), Americans should accept this gracefully and not be twits about the language. If they liked the show, they should be grateful someone in Canada put it together. They should also not get upset when Canadians adjust the spelling.

* Overwrought partisans from either country should stay home, drink the ale or beer of their choice and watch Canadian Bacon until they calm down; it's the ultimate film on American-Canadian relations. For extra credit, they can study the Xenophobe's Guides for the respective countries: Xenophobe's Guide to Canadians, Xenophobe's Guide to Americans.

* As a spur to reaching agreement, both sides should only edit in French until they can reach some sort of civil consensus here. (Some Americans might protest that would give Anglophone Canadians an advantage but they'd probably be wrong in most cases).

* Each country is already enmeshed in enough external conflict (1, 2); their citizens don't need to be looking for more trouble.

--~

It's easy for more objective outsiders to criticise (criticize) others when edit wars erupt over what many would consider "minor edits". I can also get overly caught up in those articles I routinely edit and in which I believe I have a "stake". I'm not above unthinkingly succumbing to quibbling over minute details when I believe someone's inappropriately fiddling with "my article" (or my language). (Of course, it's never really any editor's article -- see Ownership of articles).



Alternate Brit vs Yank English comment (assume good faith)
Just a reminder -- assume good faith on the part of editors that innocently slip into American English. Brit-writers don't always know or remember to stick to Yank-writer conventions and vice versa. Also, new editors, unaware of the guidelines, may quite innocently "correct" an entire article for "misspellings". Be sure to fix the Yank-speak but I encourage you to be extra tactful. I continue to be amazed at how quickly arguments over such a petty topic turn into major battles (see Talk:Under the Umbrella Tree which eventually led to an RfC process. (My own thoughts are encapsulated in my RfC comments there).

You can console yourself with the notion that 99.99% of readers understand what's written regardless of the version used in an article (just be careful when writing about "shag carpets) --~

This article is totally unencyclopedic
This article is totally unencyclopedic This article appears to violate numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See: *What Wikipedia is not, in particular: **Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought **Wikipedia is not a crystal ball **Wikipedia is not a soapbox *Neutral point of view *Citing sources *Reliable sources *Verifiability *No original research *Neutral point of view *Conflict of interest and perhaps: *Patent nonsense *Notability and definitely: *English grammar It needs an expert's review to see if and how these problems can be fixed or if the article should be deleted altogether. --~

Wikipedia's worldwide blacklist of spammers - could you be next?
Wikipedia's worldwide blacklist of spammers - could you be next?

Please see the discussion of Wikipedia's global spam domain blacklist and decide if this is something you want to pursue. Links to domains added to this list are blocked not only in the English language version of Wikipedia but also in every other language version plus all other Wikipedia Foundation projects such as Wikihow, Wiktionary, etc.

It's permanent.

Think about it.

Also note this October discussion about a proposed initiative to publish our list of Wikipedia spammers for use by Google and other search engines building their own blacklists. It's unclear that this initiative will come to fruition, but if it does, you would not want to be blacklisted from Google (and deleted from all Google search results).

Cheers, --~

"{NoMoreLinks} Plus"
(dmoz.org)

(dmoz.org)

"Why did you delete my link but not those others?"
I saw your note to another editor more or less asking "Why me and not those other guys?" I think he gave you his answer -- because he was monitoring changes and not assessing the article overall.

Going beyond his answer, I'll add my encouragement for you to feel free to (tactfully) remove other inappropriate links. Before doing that, however, take a careful read of the External Links Guideline. Later on skim the policies and guidelines that are the basis for the linking guideline: Reliable Sources, Verifiability (the self-published part), What Wikipedia is Not and WP:CITE. Wikipedia has about 3 million links and I'd guess 25+% are inappropriate, although most have been added by well-intended editors.

If you see a page that looks especially problematic but you either don't have the time or lack the subject expertise to evaluate the links, you can just tag the offending section (or whole article if necessary) with the "cleanup-spam" template. If links appear to have been added in bad faith, you can warn the editor; if the linking editor appears to be spamming multiple articles and or persisting in spamming a particular article, you can report it at the WikiProject Spam talk page. --~