User talk:Woodrowpongo

Please see my comments on the Dalmatian (dog) article talk page ("12/22 edits by user Woodrowpongo") regarding the proper use of templates for NPOV and unsourced claim concerns. -Trunkalunk (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your New contributors' help page message

Just saw your message on NCHP. I will repost your questions here with my answers below each one:

Major Change: I have a major re-write ready to post. I don't want to gain enemies by making my changes without notice. What should I do to meet wiki rules/policies/guidelines.

You should discuss any major rewrite on the article's talk page. It would also be a good idea to put your changes into a user subpage so that they can be reviewed by other interested editors before they are put into the article. Let me know if you need help creating a subpage.

OK, I created a sandbox subpage for you at User:Woodrowpongo/Sandbox and put a link to it on your user page. No problem using it for drafting articles or experimenting. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures: The help that I've read so far about pictures has been confusing and lengthy. I have identified public domain photos I would like to include in the re-write. Is there a brief explanation somewhere of what steps to follow to get them into wiki. The existing help files I've seen are so lengthy I cannot follow what they're saying.

If the images really are public domain, you should upload them to Commons so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects. Otherwise, take a look at WP:UPI for help uploading to English Wikpedia. You will have to be Autoconfirmed to upload to WP (though not for Commons). Please ask on my talk page if I can be of further help. – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no clear statement that an image is public domain or released under the GDFL or similar, I think we have to assume they are copyright. One way to get them onto WP would be to ask the copyright owner to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN - that is done quite often. I am not an expert on copyrights, but we can ask elsewhere if necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments on sandbox draft

I just took a quick skim through the draft. A few initial comments (formatting and layout, not content):

General point - please take a look at WP:YFA and WP:MOS for layout and style conventions that are used on Wikipedia. Also other dog breed articles will help you with layout.
There is no lead section as required by the MOS -- please take a look at WP:Lead for guidance.
Section headings should not be all in caps. The guideline is to only capitalise the first letter of the first word of a heading, except of course for proper names etc - see the headings section in WP:MOS.
There are templates for "see also" links when referring to other WP articles - see {{See also}}. {{Main}} is a similar template.
Links to other WP articles do not need the full URL, just the article title in double square brackets - see WP:MOSLINK.
The formatting of the external links is not quite right -- see WP:EL for policy on external links and WP:MOSLINK for formatting help.

That's it for now. Please let me know if you need help with any of this, I know it's a lot to absorb to start with! – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be discouraged, I can understand your frustration, there is a lot to learn. That's why the usual advice to a new editor is to start off by making small edits to other articles. But you are doing the right thing by asking for help. Let me make a few of the changes that I referred to so that you can see how it's done. Will post here when done. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that section linking stuff is exactly right for "in line" links. When you want to add a "see also" or a "Main article" link below a section heading, the templates are the way to go. Will make some edits a little later so you can see what I mean. – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatian

I am deeply concerned with your negative approach. You should assume good faith in other editors, this will come back as a blessing in your future work. Also using terms such as vandalism, and calling someone vandal is a valid cause for ANI.

If you would leave the determined country of origin alone, I will make my best effort to work with you. Please understand that FCI is the World's leading authority and that almost all coutries, states, territories have their own national society joined to the FCI.

Those national societies have subnational societies and societies (clubs, associations) dedicated to one or more individuall breeds.

They all must abide the Statutes of the FCI, or be expelled.

Also I have a feeling that you think the breeds of today belong to some nation, have nationality or simmilar. They do not, they have a World association caring for the heritage of collective and individual dogs, their health, genetics, etc. This World association (the FCI) acknowledge a certain national society, association to be bearer of the Standard, nothing more. Standard is an ideal description of the breed, nothing less.

Please, if you are determined to further this dispute, add the template:disputed and try to solve your problems with other editors by methods of dispute resolution thus discussing relevant materials, sources and content - not each other.

Also I see that you use a lot of websites, you quote big chunks of material. This would be fine if we are writting a scientific paper, but here, on Wikipedia we keep things much simpler, writting in our own words and not words of others, we create so called prose (natturaly quoting sources, referencing and using verifiable tools, secondary and tertiary sources.

I would advise you against using just any material found on the Internet, instead using books, papers, magazines, etc.

We shall see how the sittuation will develop. I will try to be as optimistic as ever.

Imbris (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]