Greetings!

This is a page I put together to answer some of the common (or implied) questions I've encountered in my interactions on Wikipedia.

Like everyone else who works on this project, I'm a volunteer. I'm also human and make mistakes. If you have a question about my actions, and it wasn't just a stupid error of mine (which I will quickly rectify), in response I try to provide links to the relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which I encourage you to read. I tend to provide links rather than paraphrase policy myself, to make sure what I'm saying is accurate. If the policy is subject to interpretation, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. Also sometimes policies get changed, and I'm not likely to be aware of this, since I'm more of a grammar wonk than a policy wonk. I'm more likely to want to discuss my edits with you if you remain civil, assume good faith, and show me the Wikipedia policy that backs up your assertions. Where the policy remains unclear, I will solicit outside opinions from the village pump, third opinions, and mediation or other dispute resolution processes in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion, and I encourage you to do the same. The Wikipedia community thrives on communication and collaboration.

If you need help with a general knowledge question, check out the reference desk. Now onto the FAQ...

A: I saw you edited something on my watchlist or something related to WikiProject Oregon and that you were new to Wikipedia (or not so new but you hadn't been welcomed yet). Welcoming new users is friendly, gives them some helpful editing tips and helps build the wiki community.

A: "Why not?" :)

A: Yes, I became an administrator on March 25, 2011. Adminship: No big deal. I am an admin mostly so I have more tools to clean up articles and stop vandalism and other disruptive editing. If you are looking for more "muscle" during a discussion/argument, you'd best look elsewhere, as I have no more wisdom than an ordinary user, though ostensibly the community trusts me with the admin tools. Most often, it feels like you're looking for Mommy to settle a dispute for you and you're a grownup and need to learn how to do consensus and collaboration yourself. Feel free to ping me about topics in which I may be interested, but I'm not usually interested in joining ongoing disputes.

A: I'm glad people read my FAQ--I think it helps new editors realize that their edits don't exist in a vacuum (i.e. It's not just my opinion vs. their opinion). But being a volunteer does not give me any special goddesslike powers, nor does it preclude my completely screwing something up now and again. The FAQ is not here to stop you from contacting me, but it does seem to cut down on incivility. If you think I screwed something up, feel free to leave a note on my talk page, and no need to preface with "I realize you're a volunteer, but...", just tell me what the issue is. Being a volunteer does not mean my ego will be bruised if you do so. I may be cranky for other reasons, but not that one. :)

A: If I see an external link that seems to violate Wikipedia policy, I will delete it.

For more information, see my page about external links.

A: Sure. And sorry. I use a lot of common Wikipedia expressions to save time.

A: I keep redlinks on my watchlist. I refresh my watchlist a lot. (See: "Why don't you get a life", below.)

A: Not when I do it, but I can't speak for other editors. We have templates for a reason. If I see an article that needs to be tagged with {{cleanup}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{uncategorized}}, {{orphan}}, {{advert}}, etc., I tag it. Sometimes I will explain what needs cleanup on the article's talk page, but not always. Sometimes it seems rather obvious to me, but maybe it's not to you. Feel free to ask me what needs cleanup. When I use a tag on an article, it is referring to the grammar, syntax, formatting, the fact that it totally lacks references, etc. It is never a commentary on the subject matter. (Tagging an article about an LGBT subject for cleanup does not mean I'm a homophobe, for example.) I have been known to do extensive cleanup or prevent vandalism on articles about subjects I dislike, with which I disagree, or in which I have no interest. I have also been known to mark articles for deletion that don't seem to be notable, even if I might otherwise agree with or be interested in their subjects. (Some people think tags are evil. I don't. I think the fact that they are annoying, ugly and distracting helps improve the encyclopedia eventually. As much as I love Wikipedia, I think tags are also good for letting people who are using it as a resource know that they should look at the information with a critical eye.)

Just as my tagging or editing are not a commentary on the subject of an article, they are also never a commentary on a particular editor. Please do not take my editing personally. All I see are words on a page that I think could look/read better. If I improved an article you started, rejoice! I don't stay awake nights thinking about anybody's writing skills except maybe my own. If you think my edits are not improvements, do let me know.

It is entirely possible I could be called a "drive-by tagger". I don't use automated tools for tagging, however, and honestly if I had all the time in the world, I would clean up all the articles I tag myself. But I don't. Have the time. Again, please assume good faith that I had my reasons for tagging an article. As a former professional copy editor, I think I'm qualified to say that an article looks bad. Like I said above, if you don't know why I slapped the generic {{cleanup}} tag on something, feel free to ask me about it. Currently there are over 10,000 articles tagged with {{WikiProject Oregon}}, which are the primary articles I watch. The tide of bad layout and grammar is too much for one woman alone. Feel free to help me.

A: Good question. Sometimes I don't have time, and the tag is a reminder to myself, or other editors, to take a look at the page. Unfortunately I don't always get around to doing the actual work. I also like to give the people who contributed to the article a chance to do the work themselves. Sometimes people delete the cleanup tag I've added, and yes, rather than put the tag back again, I will sigh, roll up my sleeves and attempt to show by example what I meant by "cleanup" by going ahead and doing the work myself.

A: Do you really expect me to respond to that? The rest of the Internet may tolerate flaming, but it has no place on Wikipedia. (See: Wikipedia:Etiquette)

First, take a minute and try to remember our policy about civility. We all edit in the heat of the moment and say things we regret. For seconds/minutes/days having things the way we want them on Wikipedia can seem like the most important thing in the world. Alas, it is not. (See also: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot)

I'm sorry if something I did upset you. I always try to follow Wikipedia policy when I edit an article. One of the core policies about Wikipedia is that anyone is allowed to edit articles. That means anyone is allowed to do such things as delete links, correct grammar, remove unsourced, unencyclopedic or non-neutral content, etc. You can do the same thing--that's the beauty of the wiki. If what you are really asking me is "Why did you do x, y or z?", the best approach is to ask me to review my actions, civilly, and if you still don't like my answer, I strongly encourage you to get a third opinion. I'm just one editor, and certainly not the self-declared "boss" of whatever. Other editors will be able to offer a different perspective.

Note that jumping to conclusions about my motivations (for instance that I'm attempting to censor information, that I'm POV pushing, etc.) is likely to get my hackles up. If you'd really like to advance your position, I'd suggest that's not a very good way to do so. You'd be better off seeking advice from a neutral third party. There is plenty of time.

If you really insist on getting your way, I'll probably take the article off my watchlist and go away, rather than raise my blood pressure. If you feel you have "won", good for you, but that's not really the point of Wikipedia and I hope someday you learn better collaboration skills.

Oregon communities are a particular interest of mine. I am perfectly within my rights to keep any articles I wish on my watchlist. You can do this too. This doesn't mean I'm not allowed to edit articles about other subjects, nor do I need to disclose what other types of articles I might edit.

A: The only thing I can claim to be an expert on is how to waste plenty of perfectly nice days indoors editing Wikipedia. My credentials, which mean very little, are that I have a college degree in Humanities (with an emphasis on sense of place in the Pacific Northwest), professional training and experience in copyediting, access to a few good reference books, and an ability to find just about anything on Google, given enough time. I also have a semi-professional interest in American architecture and historic preservation and I do know what I'm talking about most of the time.

A: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, thus I'll edit anything I take an interest in. Telling someone s/he can't edit an article is a violation of the ownership policy and isn't in keeping with the collaborative spirit of the project. Grammar and style edits are universal and have no bearing on whether or not I know anything about the subject matter. If I see something needs to backed up with a {{fact}}, I'll tag it.

A: That one is not really worth answering. Define what "getting a life" entails, however, and I'd be glad to discuss whether or not I have one.

A: I may or may not have a sense of humor, but that usually doesn't have a bearing on a particular argument. It's true I take the project seriously. That's why this encyclopedia doesn't completely suck--because I and thousands of people like me take the project seriously. But why attack my seriousness if you don't feel like taking Wikipedia seriously or because you aren't getting your way? I did not write the rules. But I agree with them and do my best to follow them. If you don't like how things work here, why don't you go someplace else that's more fun? That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Note that I won't ask you why you are being such a jerk.

Note that you telling me to "lighten up" about "all in good fun" sexist comments means you need to learn some shit.

A: Vandalism and censorship accusations are not something to be thrown around lightly and are not likely to convert me to your cause. In fact, calling someone a vandal when s/he is not may be construed as a personal attack. With tens of thousands of edits and years of experience on the English Wikipedia, I think if I were a vandal I would have been blocked by now. I have never been blocked for any reason. If what you mean is "Why did you do x, y or z to my article?", please see above. If you are upset about "your" article, please be sure to read about ownership of articles.

If you feel your edits are being censored for political reasons, please be sure your assertions are written from a neutral point of view and are backed up by citing reliable sources. If your edits are well-sourced and you still don't understand why they are being removed, I encourage you to seek out a third opinion.

A: Besides the above-stated goals of improving the encyclopedia, following policy, helping other editors and having fun, my only other agenda is adding fully sourced, well-written and properly formatted articles on local history, old buildings, small towns and other interesting regional subjects.

I do have a group of fellow editors, many of them from Oregon, with whom I enjoy working and have built a great deal of trust. We're not a united front--in fact we disagree quite often--but if this constitutes a cabal, feel free to seek out an outside opinion. As far as I know, I don't belong to any other cabal. I'm not much of a joiner, generally.

A: It has come to my attention that if I have any agenda at all, it is helping to remove self-promotional crap from Wikipedia, whether that takes the form of linkspam, book spam, reference spam, self-penned biographies by non-notable people with a conflict of interest, or other insertion of promotional material in articles. Although some folks might self-promote innocently, not knowing How We Do Things Around Here, after your self-promotion efforts have been reverted or removed a few times, it's time to get a clue. It's true that I despise, almost to the point of loathing, people who only use Wikipedia for self-promotion (that is, people who don't contribute anything else to the project, like editing, adding cited information, taking photos, etc.) or who otherwise try to bash, steamroll, or railroad their crap into the wiki when they think no one is looking.

Truly non-notable bands/people/companies, etc., I will put through the standard speedy deletion, proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. These may either get deleted or improved through community consensus; it is not a unilateral decision on my part. In other words, don't take it out on me if I decide that "your" article is not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia and I start one of the deletion processes. There are ways to make counterarguments in each of the above-mentioned processes; ask someone if you can't figure out how. The article will not be deleted unless other editors reach consensus that it should be deleted. Mistakes are sometimes made, but overall, it's a reasonably good and fair process.

Again, Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising space and I'll do my damndest to make sure no one uses it as a bulletin board. That said, editors with a COI can certainly edit here if they agree to follow the rules of the road and abide by community consensus. And please do go get a third opinion--I swear I'm not the only one who feels this way. Note also that I'm an equal-opportunity deletionist when it comes to advertisements and will work to remove promotional material from Wikipedia no matter what the race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, source of income, veteran or marital status, political affiliation, familial status, physical characteristic, parental status, age or disability of the article.

A: Go for it! Community consensus is what makes Wikipedia work. Let me know if you need help finding the appropriate venue in which to report me. Really--go ahead and report me--idle threats just raise tension, without serving the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, which is hopefully what we're all here to do. Note that this sentence is more or less plagiarized from something Pete once wrote.

A: It's true that there are days when I lack patience and am dismissive of people when I am being irritable. I also tend to bluntly state the facts of the situation as I see them, and because of lack of emotional context on the Internet, this is sometimes interpreted as "anger" or "yelling". The more I find a situation irritating, the blunter I am. If you look beyond this, however, I believe that 99.9% of my responses are solidly based in Wikipedia policy and guidelines--that is, based on fact and not on my opinion. Though you might want to seek out someone who is in a better mood to talk to, it's likely you will get a similar answer about the basic Wikipedia principles in question. Note that the more irritated I appear, the less likely it is that I will provide you with an answer that you like.

Also, I am a "help those who help themselves" kind of person. I'm not very good at handholding. In other words, I'll give you the tools you need to answer the question on your own (so click on those bluelinks and read them!), but if you need more help, or want to argue with me and can't back up your arguments with Wikipedia policy or guidelines, you'd be better off finding someone who is a more patient teacher.

A: Yes, I would love to. But sometimes you'll need to remind me--my intentions are good, but I am easily distracted and prefer Wikignoming to heavy-duty editing. I tend to procrastinate about copyediting lengthy articles. You have been warned. :)

Update: It depends. Unfortunately, my track record on honoring editing requests is rather poor of late. I'm more likely to copyedit the heck out of something I stumble across than to help you fine tune an article that's already quite good. Apparently this is because of the way my brain works. It's nothing personal. Some people would call this "being a flake". Your milage may vary. If the stars are aligned correctly, you may just benefit from one of my marathon all-night copyediting sessions--gnomes are kinda magical that way. Stay tuned. Note that acute situations are more likely to get my attention than chronic ones.

A: Probably not. Copyright policy gives me hives, I'm not so great with fancy layout stuff and I don't do any coding besides the most basic wiki markup. Go ahead and ask, but I'm really better with questions about writing. I can try to direct you to a better place to ask your question.

A: Probably not. Policy discussions give me a headache. Almost every policy I've seen here on the wiki seems reasonable, and where they are not, I trust the community to work things out eventually.

A: Answer TBA.

A: Wikipedia is not here to provide a space for creative writing, nor can you ask for a page to remain static until your teacher sees what you've edited. If you really need to prove what you've done for Wikipedia, you can use page diffs and your user contributions page to show him or her. Hopefully your teacher has read Wikipedia:School and university projects for guidance about how to use Wikipedia this way.

A: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it freaks me out to see my exact wording and layout on other people's user pages. I know it's irrational. I'd encourage you to write your own copy and design your own stuff. Be original--it's more fun!

A: I'm lazy, I tend to overcommit myself, I do have a life and a real job and my interest in Wikipedia waxes and wanes. I also have AD/HD. In other words, I may have simply forgotten. Remind me again and I may feel guilty enough to take care of it. And sorry! I really do want to honor all my commitments!

A: Because I'm not interested in discussing the matter further. You'd be much better off "dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass", that is to say, stop bugging me about it. This may be for any number of reasons that I don't care to explain but mostly I'm trying to not go postal on you. Do what you will, I'll not be commenting further, please go find someone else to discuss this with, and go away. I try to be helpful but I'm under no obligation to continue to engage you. Cheers.

A: Yeah, there sure are. Skim this, and you should be OK. Happy editing!