Abuhar

Welcome!

Hello, Abuhar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some detailed advice

Hello, Jeffq! I think you do a good job helping newcomers to edit well. I saw you edited Simon Soloveychik at wikiquote and added a sign that he has also article at wikipedia. Would you please add to Simon Soloveychik article a sign that he has quotes too? I liked that you also added categories. It would take longer time for me to learn how to do that myself. Thank you. Abuhar 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Wikiquote "box" link to Simon Soloveychik here, just as I did a WP box link to q:Simon Soloveychik. I've also dug up some categories, which are far more numerous and specific at WP than WQ, but I didn't add them because I'm not familiar with the subject, and don't know which might be most appropriate.

There are three basic ways to figure out what WP categories to use. One is to study the category tree, starting from the top, which I personally find rather challenging. A second is to take your best guess initially and preview a category like Category:Writers, clicking on the subcategories (if you have JavaScript enabled in your wiki preferences) to see what subcategories might be appropriate. In this case, I found the following possibilities:

• Under Category:Writers by nationality→Category:Russian writers
  • Category:Russian essayists
  • Category:Russian journalists
  • Category:Russian non-fiction writers

(Walking the tree from Category:Writers by format looked like it would give the same results ultimately, just sorted differently.)

The third way is to think of someone very similar to your subject and see what their WP article includes for categories. The more well-known the subject, the more likely the categories are to be as specific and thorough as they ought to be.

Regardless of how you find them, be sure to add a category sort label (a "sort key" text following a vertical bar) if the subject of the article would ordinarily be sorted by something other than the first word of the title (usually for articles starting with "A", "An", or "The", and Western-style names which are sorted by the surnames). For example, one might add one of the above categories with the following format:

[[Category:Russian journalists|Soloveychik, Simon]]

Take a look at the Wikiquote article to see that's how I added the categories for Soloveychik there.

When deciding which of the many possible categories to add, one should consider what the subject is well-known for. For instance, Isaac Asimov may have tried his hand at writing romance novels, but that wouldn't necessarily put him into Category:American romantic fiction writers.

Finally, I recommend you edit this posting to see how I created the links to the WP article, the link from here to a WQ article, and the category links. You should include links to the wiki pages you talk about in your posts, to make it easier for readers to jump to the subject of discussion. (Note especially that, for categories, the in-text links that allow you to click to bring up the category are slightly different than the ones that you add to the bottom of an article.) Much of learning Wikimedia editing and practices involves observing how other folks have done the things you're trying to do, and it can be a lot easier than sifting through megabytes of policy and instruction text. Feel free to ask me questions, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A bitter thought just to share with someone who listens

Thank you Jeffq for helping me with "boxes" and explaining me how to insert categories. However, I don't think I will have energy for that, as you say it is challenging even for experts like you.

I am just very disappointed. I worked on my article about "dignity" in Wikipedia, improved it to the beautiful level, then someone Tug201 deleted most of my part and I had to delete the rest because I didn't want to see how badly it sounded after all. Then someone restored something absolutely nonsense, mix of everything, without thinking, just formal filling the blank space, and of course forgetting the link, which leads to the article where the first part of the text comes from (www.parentingforeveryone.com/dignity).

I think the energy I spent on creating a good stuff takes so much efforts that I don't have an energy to edit the stuff for the full fitting format. so the other people "think" they are doing a good job by "formatting" others works. I would appreciate if those people did their job thoughtfully. But when they hunt for "spam" and themselves don't notice that they just vandal the content, how do you think is it challenging to work further? To fight? Why for, so that people just destroy everything you have done once again? Sad. There is no motivation for me to work further in wikipedia to write wonderful ideas to the world, if it is so frigile, so vulnerable, and not secured from real vandals. If someone just begin looking for what eventually happenned in the dignity page, the first thing you would notice is the organisation Dignity USA, which is about gays' dignity. I don't mind their dignity but why it must be the first thing about the concept of general human dignity??? Well, I vented, sorry for that.

Is there something like forum where I can discuss this with serious wikipedians? How to prevent a good stuff from "editing" vandals? I need someone to look at the history of dignity page and tell me if I am right or wrong, and why. anyway thank you for reading this. Abuhar 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing can indeed be a rough experience, especially for newer editors. There are a few important principles to keep in mind when attempting to contribute to a Wikipedia article:

• Articles must be written from the broadest context, avoiding specific cultural points of view wherever possible (or at least breaking different cultural views into separate paragraphs or sections). As we all tend to experience the world largely within our own cultures, this can be quite a challenge.

• Articles cannot contain any existing material from non-public-domain sources beyond a few select, quoted phrases and passages. The bulk of an article must be written in the words of its editors.

• Nobody "owns" an article. We must all accept that our material will be modified by other editors. The idea is that the larger community provides enough diversity to determine a consensus about the subject. It can be hard to accept this for a particular article (especially when we work hard on it), but this principle works far more often than not.

• Specific assertions and statements of fact should contain cited sources. Many editors do not realize this, but it is becoming more important as Wikipedia grows in importance. Anything that another editor might reasonably disagree with should include a published source. It is relatively easy to write about a subject; it is much more challenging, but far more useful to readers, to write a well-sourced article or section.

• Material that reads like an opinion piece or essay is likely to get thoroughly diced, much to the disappointment of its contributors. Opinions inevitably vary between populations, and Wikipedia is designed to collect global human wisdom, not just the point of view of a single person or even a entire culture.

Writing about a concept

Something as broadly defined and used as "dignity" simply cannot be discussed in terms of a single author, or even two. I'd have to agree that the version of the article before your first edit really needed some improvement (and a whole lot of sourcing!), but your initial solution was, however interesting, a step in the wrong direction. It is rarely a good idea to replace an article long worked on by many editors with a completely new document, and it is never a good idea to use an excerpt from a published work as a Wikipedia article. I see from the edit history that you were not the only editor to make this mistake on this article.

It is unfortunate that many editors, in their haste, can be quite sharp about the changes (e.g., saying "plagiarism" and "vandalism" when they should perhaps be saying "excessive quotation" and "unexplained changes" or "off-topic material"). We are supposed to assume good faith of other editors, but we don't always live up to this ideal.

I attempted to find another article on a broad ideal like "dignity", to provide you with an example of a well-written, well-sourced article, but I'm afraid I found that most similar subjects (e.g., wisdom, courage, honour) are also poorly written and often totally unsourced. This is perhaps not too surprising, as the broader a subject, and the more it involves specific cultural traditions, the less likely a global group of editors will be able to achieve a consensus on what exactly the article should say about the subject. The only one I've found that has at least a little going for it is Obedience (human behavior). It discusses a number of aspects of its topic more or less dispassionately from a number of cultural points of view, and includes many published sources for its statements without including large copyright-violating excerpts from published authors. Yet even this article, as the tags at its top indicate, has serious problems. This is apparently typical of these "concept" articles, making them a very hard type with which to start one's Wikpedia editing.

I don't have any specific advice for you on improving the Dignity article, largely because it is so broad and culturally variable. If I were writing or editing it, I would feel it necessary to first read a few diverse books on the subject, jotting down notes on particular pithy quotes and important ideas from the many points of view, and then assembling them into some logical organization. I think it would be very difficult to edit this article otherwise, especially since the current material seems to be mostly an unsourced, unorganized essay.

Closing thoughts

No one expects any single editor to create a robust, well-written article by themselves. It is the nature of Wikipedia that our best articles have the "footprints" of many different editors on them. But the flip side to this process is that we must all be prepared to have our own contributions edited, dissected, and criticized. Most long-term editors eventually learn that, despite the occasional rudeness or preemptory mangling of our thoughtfully written text, it can be an enjoyable experience to propose material, defend it, learn from others' ideas, and ultimately build a consensus on a subject. In the process, we often learn a lot about the world outside our own experiences, making this effort a rewarding educational opportunity as well.

As far as support from other editors, you can try Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, but they work best with specific questions. Wikipedia:Esperanza bills itself as a support group for stressed Wikipedia editors, but recent experience with them suggests to me that many participants there are not very informed on what it means to edit well at Wikipedia, so I'm a bit skeptical about how much they can help. But you can check them out for yourself. You might also try to work for a while on smaller and more specific topics, to "get your feet wet" with general editing and content disputes, before you take on the challenge of a topic as broad (and an article as, shall we say, lacking) as Dignity.

I hope that you don't take this conflict to heart, and can continue to work with other editors to craft excellent articles. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: To someone who likes to destroy than to create.

Hi Tug201, I noticed that you like to delete work that I have been thinking hours to create something beautiful. It is very easy to just delete. By deleteing you are denying other people valuable information. If you don't like what is written I challenge you to write your own. The very first version of the topic of dignity inspired me to improve it, to find material and write myself, but your "contributions" decrease my desire to participate at all. Evil is easy. Goodness is hard. Try to do something good! At least save the link to the article of dignity, which the text was initially taken, otherwise it is plagiarism. Or, just delete it all, you may like it. Abuhar 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought twice about honoring this criticism with a reply. I refer you to the above discussion on your talk page. Sure it may have taken hours for you to create, but it could have taken months or years and still not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia such as this one. Not to mention that despite citing its source, the text that was removed plagiarized by using statements that were simply copied and pasted from this source. Just by citing a source you are not safe from plagiarism! By removing the text I was opening up the opportunity for others to replace it with something more comprehensive. It is clear from your comment that you do not maintain a neutral point of view on your so called 'beautiful' work. Please spare a thought to the fact that your contributions may also decrease the desire of others to participate, and your comments have discouraged me from participating in this farce altogether. For this I offer you my congratulations. I noticed that shortly after posting the above comment you decided to check with others whether you were "right or wrong". Perhaps work on getting your facts right before criticizing others. Tug201 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tug201, I appreciate your reply. I wish we had found a way to discuss this issue in the special area for that: "discussion" of article "dignity" before the incident happened, as it is adviced by the wikipedia rules. But better late than never. As I am a recently wikipedia contributor I accept that I need to learn a lot of "editing" and "citing" stuff. I wish you taught me or showed a better example on how to improve the content of the article instead of a silent deletion. Anyway, I still work on the article and now it looks a bit different than the original article. However, I still need to know how to avoid the issue of "plagiarism" (if it takes place) AND still leave the main idea same or better. You might have advice on how to do so. I would like you to help me. I really appreciate your response and I would like to apologise for hurting your feelings. Abuhar 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuhar 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)==Dignity restored==

Original post to User talk:Jeffq#How to restore the content after vandal intrusion:

Hi, Jeffq! I am about the page Dignity. Someone without name 207.233.122.189 erased most of content with an insulting comment. I tried to restore but apparently don't know how. Will you please teach me. Abuhar 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored it to the last version you edited. If this happens again you can simply go into the edit history, click on your version, and then save it. It will retore your text as it was before the article was vandalized. Jeffpw 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Jeffpw has already fixed your immediate problem, but I'll tell you how to do it in the future. At the top of each page, there is a "history" tab. Click on that to see the recent edit history of that page. You'll see a list of dates/times with usernames (or IP addresses) and edit summaries (wherever the users remembered to include a summary, which should always be done). To the left of each edit row, you'll see links for (cur), (last), and two buttons.

To look at an older version of the article, just click on the date/time link that represents that version. As I write this, your last edit is represented by the row with "02:03, 13 February 2007 Abuhar". If you display that page, then "edit" it and save it, it will "revert" all the changes since your edit. (Notice that when you edit it, you will see a red message at the top warning you it's an old version. You really don't want to edit an old version unless you are specifically trying to revert recent changes.) Before you save it, be sure to put something like "reverting to last version by Abuhar" in the edit summary, or else people may think you're trying to be sneaky about changing it back to the older version.

There's a lot you can do with the edit history. If you pick an older version by clicking on its left button and a newer one by clicking on its right button, then pressing the "Compare selected versions" button at the top or bottom of the list, you can see all the changes that were made between the two versions. For more neat tricks, read Help:Edit history.

I hope you find this useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! It was useful. Apparently I forgot about "edit" button when I saw my old version. Abuhar 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Parenting For Everyone

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Parenting For Everyone, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Parenting For Everyone is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Parenting For Everyone, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)