User:Oo64eva/Myadvice

Spelling
I must admit my weakest personal attribute is spelling. I often write my entries in word processors with automatic spell check before entering it in the entry and I encourage other users to do the same.

Preservation of neutrality
One caveat to using a word processing progam are its limitations in catching biased points of view. This can sometimes be a tricky subject and ambiguities should be discussed thoroughly with other wikipedians. Keep in mind that avoiding bias does not mean the addition of verbose statements like "is considered by many to be as some would put it in terms of a broad consensus…" This type of prose detracts from the main points of the entry and can end up boring the reader.

Copyright violations
It amazes me how many copyright violations there are each day. I'm not sure what percentage of the total copyright violations actually are reported but I see between thirty and fifty violations each day. Just because you're a new wikipedian doesn't mean you're new at life. Use your head. Copy and pasting from a website is no different than cutting a page out of a book and putting your name as the author. It's completely unethical and without regards to the copyright holder. There is no excuse. The rule of thumb should be better safe than sorry. If you have to question whether or not you are adding is a copyright violation, it's safer to assume so than run the risk of putting Wikipedia at risk for an intellectual property suit.

Preview button and proofreading
In my opinion, the most helpful tool in Wikipedia is the Preview button. No matter how certain you are that your edits are error free, previewing the entry can alert you of things you wouldn't have caught otherwise. Don't be cocky, be careful. It also doesn't hurt to proofread. It reflects poorly on you as an editor (novice or seasoned) if your edit has spelling and grammatical errors. Editing an entry in wikipedia should be no different than editing for a published encyclopedia when it comes down to proper spelling and syntax.

Give removal explanations
I'm also guilty of not doing this. If you decide to remove another Wikipedian's writing, and it isn't clear abuse, it is helpful to everyone to start a discussion on why you removed it. Even if you're willing to bet the farm that the information is in error, give someone else a crack at defending it. You may end up learning something you didn't know before, and adding relevant information to the entry that you would have otherwise removed without explanation.

3 Revert Rule (3RR)
A while ago I happened to notice someone being nagged about the 3RR when monitoring the recent changes page. Before that time, I had never been aware of this rule, which probably should have been made clear in my welcome message or on the surface of the Wikipedia help pages. The rule was deep in Wikipedia's documentation. It's helpful to be aware of this rule right away before learning about it through first hand experience and having a ban on your record. The rule states that you cannot make three reverts on the same entry in a 24 hour period. To resolve any ambiguities, 24 hour period means 24 hours from the first edit you made. This only applies per page and doesn't apply to reverting clear cases of vandalism or edits on your own work. Edit wars will not be tolerated and is the inspiration for this rule.

Edit summary
One of my pet peeves is when users either don't leave edit summaries or get by with just an rv, or sp. I'm not talking about new users really either, I'm speaking mainly on behalf of seasoned users and admins. It's much more help to users to make descriptive edit summaries for many things including surfing the recent changes and when deciding which version of a page to revert to.

When reviewing an edit summary, I like to see two parts.
 * 1) The reason
 * 2) A short example or statement of what was changed/added (if there is vulgar maybe a little censorship would be considerate)

Here's some examples:
 * (rv vandal - vulgarity, "jojo is the best f*ckbuddy ever!")
 * (New - still needs some work, gonna add taxobox soon)
 * (sp - thier -> their)
 * (/* Functional analysis */ pnc - it's -> its)

These are the edit summaries i typically use. Critiques are very welcome.

Abbreviations
rv (revert) sp (spelling) gr (grammar) pnc (punctuation) New (New page)

Revert vandalism

 * rv vandalism - vulgarity
 * rv vandalism - page wipe
 * rv vandalism - factual integrity test
 * When a user decides to change tiny hard to notice things like 1934 -> 1943 to test the factual integrity of Wikipedia.


 * rv vandalism - spam

Revert clueless newbie

 * rv nocluenewb - edit test
 * vandalism such as Bold textItalic text Link title$$Insert formula here$$ 


 * rv nocluenewb - page wipe

Revert with a reason

 * rv - "removed portion or description" (see talk page)
 * rv - trolling (see talk page)
 * rv - vandalbot

Boilerplates

 * copyvio - duplicate text found on...
 * vandal
 * I use this when I add test, test2, test3, etc... on a vandal's talk page.

Grammar, punctuation, and spelling edits

 * gr - old -> new
 * pnc - old -> new
 * sp - old-> new