User talk:SunDragon34/Adoption

Former adoptees[edit]

Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Citations[edit]

Hello! Might as well kick things off with a question regarding Citing Sources. For one of the articles I have edited recently, I have found one or two links that contain a lot of valuable information, along with 10 or twenty that have identical small sections. Is it ok to use only one citation? Or should we add those other links because they are different? I have read a bit of WP:CS, but I'm still not sure. \ / (⁂) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bruce Kingsbury the article you are talking about? It would help if I could see the sources myself. SunDragon34 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most our coming from these references. "Bruce Kingsbury VC". Kokoda Historial. Retrieved 2008-10-08. and Dornan, Peter (1999). The Silent Men. Allen & Unwin. p. 11-18. ISBN 186448991X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

The rest of the sources basically quote the small section from the London Gazette. ("Supplement to London Gazette". The London Gazette. 9 February 1943. Retrieved 15 October 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)) \ / (⁂) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more reliable sources you have, the better. If a source supports more than one statement in the article, it's okay to have more than one reference to it. You can also cite more than one source after a single statement. You don't have to have citations on every sentence; you can just put citations on things that are likely to be challenged--any unsourced content that is challenged can be removed per WP:NOR. But you can never have too many sources. If you have a mountain of evidence, that's awesome. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces?[edit]

Another question I have come across. I have seen the words 'mainspace', 'wikispace', 'projectspace' etc around here. I can sorta guess what they are, but is there an exact definition of these terms available? \ / (⁂) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the categorization of Wikipedia's various pages. See Namespace and Wikipedia:Namespace. Mainspace refers to all of Wikipedia's actual encyclopedia articles. This is the main namespace in Wikipedia. This means you don't have to type anything special before the name of the article you're looking for when you search for it. Userspace includes all User and User talk pages. To find these with the search bar, you type "User:foo" or "User talk:Example". Projectspace refers to policy pages, non-article discussion boards, administrative pages, etc.—anything which has the prefix "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:" Examples of projectspace include WP:AfD, WP:SOCK, WP:FILM, and WP:DYK. Wikispace is just another word for projectspace. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! \ / (⁂) 10:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPN[edit]

I stumbled across this and it confused me. Do we use it to report vandalism to Biography articles? How do we know if vandalism is 'long-term'? \ / (⁂) 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is for reporting problems concerning editors who repeatedly add material to an article that violates our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons. This means they add offensive, sensationalist, or other (usually unsourced or non-notable) material that would likely upset the subject of the article if he or she saw it. This is why we must be careful when we add material to an article about a living person. The material should be sourced and relevant to an encyclopedia article.

To quote the policy (WP:BLP), "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Later on, it says, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Speaking of policies, I recall you asked to learn more about them.

Lesson 1: our four most important content-related policies are:

There are others, but it's especially important to be familiar with these policies. Also become familiar with the five pillars of Wikipedia, if you haven't already. Just FYI. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! \ / (⁂) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the policy link. Often most of the policy I read is easy to understand, just hard to find. While I do have a reasonable understanding of all the anti-vandalism policy, the others seem to have been missed. That's not to say I have done wrong, as most of these are common sense aren't they? \ / (⁂) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. See also WP:List of policies.

P.S. On the list you'll see the policy "Ignore All Rules". Make sure you know what this rule is and is not. It means that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, ignore it. It does not mean that rules are of no force, or that they may be broken with impunity. It simply embodies one of the five pillars: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. You can read the other articles linked to in WP:IAR to understand this important rule. SunDragon34 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be more useful in fighting Vandals wouldn't it? And not applying to Edit Warring? \ / (⁂)

Weeeeell....(think, think, think...) If you mean that you should ignore 3RR for obvious and blatant vandalism, then yes. In fact, that is mentioned in WP:3RR. (but beware of improperly identifying edits like content disputes as vandalism; that's an easy way to get into a nasty edit war) IAR is a...special rule. You should understand what it means, but most of the things governing your behavior will come from elsewhere. The first thing you should do in any unfamiliar situation is look up policy.

One way to look at it is that IAR is basically saying, "If you run into a situation that is not covered anywhere in Wikipedia policy, or if Wikipedia policy is ambiguous, do what makes the most sense and does the least harm." (As WP:WIARM says, you don't have to know all the rules to contribute to Wikipedia.) This is just my interpretation, and it covers only part of IAR's full definition. Don't worry too much about understanding it in tons of detail right now; I just wanted to introduce you to it. As you gain experience, learn Wikipedia policy, and observe the behavior of experienced editors, you will get a feel for what IAR means. (Just please, please do not reference it as your reasoning when you're at AfD, AN or anywhere else. :D lol)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is a good place to refer to when you're not sure what IAR means. But you needn't trouble yourself a lot with it. Just don't cite it as a reason to disrupt Wikipedia or as a reason to delete or keep article X. That's the part I wanted to make sure you know. The rest of it comes with experience. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I think you would use it to disrupt Wikipedia. I'm just helping teach you stuff. : ) SunDragon34 (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But study the four policies up at the top of this section; you'll be looking at and talking about those four policies for the rest of your Wikipedia career. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions[edit]

Sorry to bombard you with questions, but two things have irked me recently.

A lot of WikiProjects have Assessment Departments. Grading articles A-Class, B-Class etc. How does one get to be involved in that process, particularly the GA-Class Reviews?

For anything other than A, GA, or FA, an editor may simply read up on the criteria for a certain class, and compare it to the article. If the article meets the criteria, you can reassess it yourself, (Note: some Wikiprojects also have a formal process for nominating B-class articles as well, but this is less common.) Any editor can participate in GA, A, or FA reviews simply by reviewing the class criteria and the article and leaving helpful comments on the review discussion. You might suggest ways to improve the article to meet the standards or report that certain things are already up to snuff (I see a lot of such comments about referencing or images.).

I am putting a lot of work into an article at the moment, Bruce Kingsbury. While I am slowly making progress, I was wondering if there was a place to request assistance in editing these articles, so that I could have someone to work with. \ / (⁂) 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't 'too' annoying. :P \ / (⁂) 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; it's what adoption's for. :) You can ask interested editors at your related Wikiprojects, list the article on an improvement list on those Wikiprojects (if they have such a list), tag the article with a cleanup or expand template, or ask an editor who has said they are willing to help others improve articles. Also, many people who are active at GA- or FA- review are also willing to help editors with their article improvement projects. Check peoples' userpages, too—they'll show you what the editors are willing to help with. SunDragon34 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through those now, thanks :) \ / (⁂) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Would there ever be a case where a book is not determined as a suitable evidence? Maybe a political opinion book etc? \ / (⁂) 07:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally the book must be published by reliable, third-party sources (meaning they're reputable and are separate from the subject of the article) to be considered a reliable source for an article. A political opinion book is not a good source for fact. I wouldn't use it for anything other than to prove that the views in it are held by a large number of people, and I would back it up with other sources. But I wouldn't use it for anything other than proving that it's not a fringe opinion. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account Security[edit]

Hiya! I noticed on a lot of user's pages they have a SHA-512 commitment? I sort of understand why they have it, but is it necessary? How safe are our accounts here? Should I do it? What about passwords? \ / (⁂) 06:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry I was a bit slow to respond. A cryptographic hash is a great way to secure your account. Considering that you have recently received permissions on your account (congratulations, by the way!), it would be a good idea to make yourself a hash to protect your account. It's sort of like an ace in the hole: a master password—If someone compromises your account, you have a nearly foolproof way to return it to your control. It definitely gives me greater peace of mind. Would you like to make one? I think there is a link on the login screen to instructions on how to do it. You'll need to download a freeware hash generator called HashCalc. Again, you should be able to surf to that from the login screen. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm doing it now~~Done! - I'm not sure I'd be a huge target for hacks, I've only ever got some userpage vandalism, but hey, better safe then sorry. I'm resetting all my passwords too, on reflection they aren't that good. Has an account ever been compromised? \ / (⁂) 00:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forking[edit]

Hey, it has been a while! Things have been busy so I haven't had much time for Wiki recently. But, I'm back with a question regarding Forking. Is forking simply two identical articles that have been separated? If it is, then what do you do to un-fork it? \ / (⁂) 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Content forking? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thankyou. :) \ / (⁂) 10:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

A vandal vandalised my talk page recently, which included a phone number (not mine, his I think). Is such personal information worth of oversight? Are phone numbers, by default, oversightable? \ / (⁂) 10:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask someone with oversight privileges. I think it may be fine either way, but you'd have to get someone with oversight tools to make the call. It definitely won't hurt to ask someone like Newyorkbrad if it should be done. SunDragon34 (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the inactivity[edit]

Hi SunDragon34. Sorry I haven't been as active as I could be on this page. I've been carried away by a few of my recent Wikipedia endeavours and real life commitments. In just over a month I've had a GAN, two DYK credits among other edits. I feel comfortable with the workings of Wikipedia, and understand most of the core policy. If it's okay with you, I think it'd be best to end this adoption. There is no need for me to clog up your time with trivial questions when you could be adopting and mentoring another, newer user. In any case, I truly appreciate the assistance you have given me in this Adoption program. \ / (⁂) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]