User talk:Pr3st0n/Adoption
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
- It is important that all articles are written from a neutral point of view, presenting as many different views and giving them sources of verifiable cause. Avoid being biased on any views, and concentrate on giving as much focus as possible, in equal proportion.
- Mostly correct but be careful about "as many views as possible" and "in equal proportion"- see WP:WEIGHT for more.
- It is important that all articles are written from a neutral point of view, presenting as many different views and giving them sources of verifiable cause. Avoid being biased on any views, and concentrate on giving as much focus as possible, in equal proportion.
Wikipedia is free content
- I've learnt a lot about this pillar very recently on the Lostock Hall article I've been working on. I learnt that it is wrong to copy content directly from any website into a wikipedia article without permission. However, at times this can be allowed, as long as it is in the 'Public Domain', another words, the material was written before January 1923, and an attribution is included in the article, in the 'References' section. Content from wikipedia can also be copied, modified, and redistributed as long as wikipedia and the authors are attributed to it.
- It often takes a few errors to get things right, and I see you sorted Lostock Hall - well done. Note that information post 1923 may still be in the public domain - for example if the original copyright holder has explicitly released it into the public domain then text/images can be used without any attribution.
- Indeed, sorting out the Lostock Hall article took time, but I learnt a lot from it. I just wish is was as simple to sort out the village itself in real life lol. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- It often takes a few errors to get things right, and I see you sorted Lostock Hall - well done. Note that information post 1923 may still be in the public domain - for example if the original copyright holder has explicitly released it into the public domain then text/images can be used without any attribution.
- I've learnt a lot about this pillar very recently on the Lostock Hall article I've been working on. I learnt that it is wrong to copy content directly from any website into a wikipedia article without permission. However, at times this can be allowed, as long as it is in the 'Public Domain', another words, the material was written before January 1923, and an attribution is included in the article, in the 'References' section. Content from wikipedia can also be copied, modified, and redistributed as long as wikipedia and the authors are attributed to it.
Wikipedia has a code of conduct
- Assuming good faith is essential when editing any article. Be as polite and helpful as possible. Respect users in the same manner as you would expect to be respected in return (e.g. I would feel bad if someone was nasty to me, and therefore should not be nasty to others). Openly discuss with other editors if ever you have doubts or queries on an article, and try not to get into a 'heated' argument.
- Spot on answer.
- Assuming good faith is essential when editing any article. Be as polite and helpful as possible. Respect users in the same manner as you would expect to be respected in return (e.g. I would feel bad if someone was nasty to me, and therefore should not be nasty to others). Openly discuss with other editors if ever you have doubts or queries on an article, and try not to get into a 'heated' argument.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules
- Even though some would expect the wikipedia policies and guidelines to be paramount, this in fact not the case. The guidance has no strict rules that states users must abide to them, and you're not going to be put in front of a wikipedia court of law system if we were to break them. Although users should be very careful in the ways they choose to ignore the rules, (if you have been prevented from contributing to wikipedia), as it may have major impacts on them and wikipedia as a whole.
- Yep, that neatly sums up WP:IAR. Good answer.
- Even though some would expect the wikipedia policies and guidelines to be paramount, this in fact not the case. The guidance has no strict rules that states users must abide to them, and you're not going to be put in front of a wikipedia court of law system if we were to break them. Although users should be very careful in the ways they choose to ignore the rules, (if you have been prevented from contributing to wikipedia), as it may have major impacts on them and wikipedia as a whole.
Hope that helps a bit! Pedro : Chat 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've done well then; Thanks! Big smiley grin on my face right now!! Pr3st0n (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to bring a smile!. There are a tonne of guidelines and essays on wikipedia but only a few actual policies. No-one is expected to know all the guidelines but the policies are pretty key. Getting to grips with the true meaning of the policies takes time but I think you're clearly on the case. Good job. Pedro : Chat 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)