User talk:Retroid/Archive: Welcome info from Kylu
|
Just a guess, but do you specialize in retroviruses? :) Anyway, glad to have you aboard! Our articles can always use another pair of educated eyes!
- ~Kylu (u|t) 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding edits...
[edit]I read your entry on my talk page and figured it'd be easier for you if we put the reply on your talk page!
The first thing I noticed is the Wikipedia link you had:
- [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Human_papillomavirus human papillomavirus] which displays as human papillomavirus
Let's make things easier for everyone. :D
- [[Human papillomavirus]] results in Human papillomavirus.
There's a number of benefits to this format:
- It's easier for you to create, modify, and maintain these types of links.
- Antivandalism editors (like myself) have a tool called PopUps (see User:Lupin/popups.js) which, on local (double-square-bracketed) links opens a popup window of the target. This will make it harder for people to vandalize your articles.
- You'll notice the FQDN's (long) URL has the "external link" icon next to it, whereas a in-Wikipedia link does not.
More information can be found at WP:LINK.
Anyway, as far as your changes go, you can't really "lose" the prior data if you edit things. Try this: Click on the "History" tab up at the top of this page, then 19:28, 8 May 2006 on that tab. You'll see the first revision of your talk page (when I put my welcome message up). You can do this on any page to see prior revisions. If your changes aren't welcomed, then they'll be "reverted" (brought back to a previous revision) instead. If this happens, I suggest noting on the article's talk page your changes and the reasons why you feel your version is more accurate.
Now, since you're doing research on the subjects, you may want to keep in mind that Wikipedia has some familiar values and some which are not so familiar. Firstly, as a publication, Wikipedia does not publish original research. If your coworkers discovers a miracle cure for cancer or AIDS or MS or whatever, before it's suitable for reference in Wikipedia, he needs to publish the discovery. Another value which is a frequent source of contention is that you're encouraged to not publish self-referencing materials. No autobiographies, and if possible, no links to your own publications. The preferred way of handling this would be to point out the publication to someone else, mention its significance, and if you'd like, a suggested summary, then allow the other person to review the material and add it to the article. While not as strictly enforced as we'd like, you'll note that the Featured Articles and more scientifically accurate articles avoid citing other works of their authors.
I suppose I don't really have to go into those details with you, but I imagine that covering it now will help avoid problems in the future if you can point to somewhere and state, "Yes, Kylu mentioned this to me."
Finally, maybe a saying that I've seen many times on here and I keep in my head as I'm writing, "WP:NPOV is a journey, not a destination." Everything we write is from our point of view. There's never an article that's truly neutral. The best we can do is to provide accurate information on all sides of an issue.
Whew... I've tried covering the most important points, and I'm sure I've missed something, but I really hope that I've answered your questions and preemptively removed future problems for you. You'll run across editors who are misinformed, some who are (quite honestly) boneheaded and stubborn, and worst of all poorly written articles! Just assume they're acting in good faith whenever possible and act in good faith yourself, and things should go more smoothly.
Okay, gonna stop now, fingers falling asleep. o.o;; ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)