User:Missionedit/Adoption/Elsa Enchanted

A few questions to start us off:

1) Would you prefer to be called Elsa, Elsa Enchanted, or something else? 2) Why do you contribute to Wikipedia? 3) What time zone do you live in? 4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship? 5) What picture would you like on this page to represent you? It can be a picture of anything, and it doesn't have to be one that you've uploaded yourself. For some examples, see User:Missionedit/Adoption/Molly's Mind or User:Missionedit/Adoption/Hisashiyarouin. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here are my answers:
 * 1) Elsa would be great!


 * 2) I contribute to Wikipedia because before I was a member, I used it a lot and realized what a helpful tool it was to me and therefore must be to other people as well. When I became a part of Wikipedia, I really wanted to help the articles become better so people could enjoy them and learn more from them.


 * 3) Let's see, I live in the US, but I'm not sure how to represent time zone. Could you give me a hint?


 * 4) What do I expect to get out of this mentorship? I'm not looking for you to tell me exactly what to do (except when I am really confused) but I really would like some guidance. I also would like to discover what my passion is to help with here. Do I like cleanup? Helping newbies? Contributing to Wikimedia Commoms? I'm not really sure, and I'd like to know.


 * 5) This Is my favorite picture of Wikimedia Commons, and I would love to have it represent me! File:Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg


 * This session was fun! It made me think, too, which I like.Elsa Enchanted (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh! And one more thing: How do you customize your signature? I see users with different colors on their names, different fonts, interesting talk buttons - How do they do all this? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! File:US-Timezones.svg is a map of where all the time zones are in United States. I'm glad you're looking for places to contribute; we'll be exploring lots of different areas of Wikipedia in our lessons. I'm going to start us off with a lesson Wikipedian etiquette. All of our lessons will be on this page, and you can respond to them on this page as well. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I am Eastern 6 pm. Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 1: Wikiquette
"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 faith
Always 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.

Threading
Threading 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 look something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.

Avoiding common mistakes
Avoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
 * Don't create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), or redundant articles. For the last one, it's easy to figure out if you're creating something redundant; just type in the search term into the search box and see if what comes up covers your topic.
 * Whenever you delete content, be sure you give an explanation as to why. Even if you revert vandalism, say that it's vandalism. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it.
 * Don't self-reference (referencing the Wikipedia project in article space)
 * Don't use external links in places other than the external link section in an article
 * Don't add your signature ( ~ ) any place but a talk page, but always remember to use your signature on talk pages.
 * Edit instead of criticize and be bold!
 * Remain level-headed in arguments (if you feel you're getting too heated, walk away and bring in a third party)
 * Don't get annoyed when you see bad articles or drastic edits (or even deletion) of your work. :)

Signatures
There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. To do this, go to Special:Preferences. Scroll down to the "Signatures" section, and edit the "Signature:" box. Try experimenting your sandbox first and see what you like. There are a few signature no-nos, though:
 * Do not copy another editor's signature. Even making it look somewhat like another editor's signature is wrong. Linking to someone else's user page on your signature is also a big mistake.
 * Don't make your signature too big. This can effect the way the surrounding text is displayed. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Don't make your signature too small, either, then we won't know who you are :) When you use different colors, make sure that color-blind people will still be able to read it without a problem.
 * Do not include images in your signature. It's wrong for a number of reasons, including server slowdown, distraction, comment displacement, and cluttering up the "File links" section every time you comment. You can use webdings or wingdings to get an image effect if you really want, because these are technically fonts and not images.
 * Keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment.
 * Make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, and/or contributions page.
 * Don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia.
 * Assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.

End of lesson 1
Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This was a great help! I have a problem figuring out how to change the font and the color on my signature, though. I just can't figure out how to do it. Elsa Enchanted (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to thread your responses like we learned in the lesson :) Changing colors/fonts on Wikipedia requires some knowledge of CSS, a kind of computer coding. It's not that complicated, but still, you have to learn it. I can do it for you for now, if you tell me what kind of font/colors you want, or we can do a short lesson on it and you can try it for yourself; whichever you prefer.
 * We're going to do a little quiz now. Yay! Just do your best, and feel free to refer back to the lesson while you are taking it. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking forward to it! I'd really like to have gothic font, but I figured out how to do the color on my signature. Elsa Enchanted 15:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- Explain in your own words what good faith means.
 * A- Good faith is assuming that the person you are annoyed with is trying to do the right thing. -Elsa

2.) Q- You come across a mythical creature article and see that, according to the beginning of the article, it is a cryptid. So, you decide to change the grouping in the infobox from "legendary creature" to "cryptid". Another then editor deletes the whole infobox, telling you not to pollute Wikipedia with pseudo-science jargon. What is your course of action?
 * A- Answer back politely and nicely explain why you did that.

3.) Q- Take a look at the following wiki-conversation (forget that they aren't contributing helpfully to Wikipedia with these edits):

What's the best cat breed in the world? -Abraham
 * Something longhaired, probably. -Robert
 * Yeah, specifically Nordic. -Winston
 * You mean like a Norwegian Forest Cat? -Edgar (position A)
 * Dogs are better anyway. -Dwight
 * The Norwegian Forest Cat, obviously. But I do have a soft spot for jet-black nonpedigrees. -Edgar (position B)

Who is Edgar responding to in position A? What about position B?
 * A- Position A: Winston Position B: I think it is Robert
 * ✅ In position B, Edgar is replying to Abraham, as is Robert.

4.) Q- Your best friend was third in the graduating class of 2008 at Harvard University, and when you perform a Google Search for him that's the only thing that comes up, apart from his blog about pictures of his guinea pig. Name everything that would be wrong with writing an article about him.
 * A- 1st: He is your best friend. 2nd: He has not contributed significantly to anything so far.  3rd: There are no sources about him other than on his guinea pig, which does not count.
 * ✅ He does not meet the Wikipedia notability guideline, and writing an article about someone you know really well is considered a conflict of interest.

5.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with the following signature:  Us  e  r Bob   talk
 * A- 1: There is a Picture in his signature. I remember that that jams up the system somehow. 2: The Us and r in the User is too light, so either we can't see it so we can't identify the user or color-blind people cannot see his signature. 3: Possibly the font is too big.
 * Also, the signature takes up two lines: it should only take up one.

End of test
Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Good job! It looks like we're in the same time zone :) To a get a different font/font size on your signature, do . Next lesson will be up soon. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 2: The 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.
 * BluePillar.svg Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.


 * GreenPillar.svg Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.


 * YellowPillar.svg Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
 * Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.


 * OrangePillar.svg Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
 * Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.


 * RedPillar.svg Wikipedia has no firm rules.
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.

End of lesson 2
Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much got that all! Elsa Enchanted 21:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget use threading! It just becomes second nature after you've been doing it awhile. Did you see what I wrote at the bottom of the last lesson about signature fonts? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, but I couldn't get them to work! That's okay. I am fine with my signature anyhow. Elsa Enchanted (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it just takes a little practice :) I can help you out if you ever want to change your signature again. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 3: Reliable sources
For more information on this topic see Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. 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 Rick Riordan wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for his Percy Jackson & the Olympians series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information to the Percy Jackson article in the section called "Origins".

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
Any questions before the test? Just tell me if you want to cover anything specifically in our next lesson. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)