User talk:CandaceWare/Editing

Candace, please allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia (since I don't think anyone has yet). I have a few questions that may make it easier for both of us:

Are there any particular topics that interest you in particular?
I have a guess based on your username, but do you prefer that I use male or female pronouns to refer to you?
Do you have any specific questions about the recent controversy that I may be able to help answer?
Are you interested in the technical details (coding and templates) or would you be happier sticking to articles?

As for me, feel free to use male pronouns. Please let me know any way I can help. (PS: I will watch this page.) --No unique names 06:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very grateful for your help, and thank you also for welcoming me.

I have a number of interests and varying levels of experience within each. Biological/medical sciences is a strength. I am a local history buff and have already done some writing for the local newspaper regarding a couple of area historical figures who haven't any entries yet in Wikipedia (one has a mention in another article). I hope to write Wikipedia articles on them at some point.

Initially, however, I think I will focus on all the reading I need to do, about Wikipedia and how to accomplish the various mechanics and negotiate the group culture. I also am a pretty decent copy editor so I feel comfortable doing some of that if things pop out at me as I read and explore.

Female pronouns are good, thank you for asking.

On the recent issue, the only remaining question for me is -- how did I escape being banned? (chuckle) But I don't need an answer to that, really, if there even is one. I caught a break and I am glad to be sticking around.

I'm interested in all of it, really. I am willing to see how it naturally unfolds and develops, and look forward to learning as I go. CandaceWare (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you may be interested in copyediting with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (or GOCE). They hold a drive every other month to clean up articles. You can get barnstars and awards for participating (which is always nice), but, more importantly, it gets you editing articles you might not otherwise notice. If you recall, editors who mostly edit just one topic area or just a few articles can be tagged as such in discussions. A knock-on benefit to copyediting is that it helps minimize the chances of that happening to you. If you are interested, the next drive is next month (November). Let me know if you are interested. --No unique names 17:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that sounds awesome! I would love to be involved in that. I've been using the "random article" function to try and do just that -- get into articles I might not otherwise notice. That would be an excellent fit.

Also, I have been wondering how I can deal effectively and properly with COI issues, given my intro to editing here. Especially since I am using my real name. I am beginning to see the wisdom in choosing to use a pseudonym, and relying upon the process to keep you honest in terms of impartiality. Do you have any thoughts on that? I don't know if it's even possible to do so but, if you were me, would you be thinking about changing to an anonymous user name? 97.86.32.127 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just learned something new! Couldn't figure out why the four "~" didn't sign my name -- then I realized I hadn't logged in! Signed, your friend 97.86.32.127 ;-0

There is a very good reason why you won't find my name anywhere on this site. I've nothing to hide, but it does not benefit me at all for my name to be known. Also, if you are concerned about your IP address being displayed, you can request suppression to limit the number of people who can see it. Also, if you are considering using a pseudonym to edit, you might want to look at WP:SOCK#LEGIT if you will edit from this and another account. If you wish to stop using the account you have and start with a new account, please read WP:CLEANSTART carefully. --No unique names 16:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nouniquenames! Thanks for this information. Yes, I can most definitely see the wisdom in using a pseudonym. I will create one as soon as I have reviewed the information you provided. I still want your help and advice, if you are willing. And it will be good accountability, too. I hope not to be too high-maintenance. And I do plan to have more of a presence here than I have had, I am eager to contribute. Some health issues have interfered lately, both my own and among family, but it looks like there might be better days ahead soon. Thank you, and I hope you are doing well. CandaceWare (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping for good health for you and your family, especially given the approaching holiday season. --No unique names 10:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you choose a clean start, if you let me know (even by email), I can move this page to one of my subpages. If you intend to use both accounts, that's less of an issue. --No unique names 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Material[edit]

I've tried to come up with some reading material that may be particularly useful to you. It's more useful to have an idea of what the pages say and where to go to double check yourself than to try to memorize every policy.

Given your medical strengths, you might want to look at WP:MEDRS. It's a long page, but it explains sourcing requirements for pretty much everything medical (more stringent requirements than normal articles).
WP:RS covers sources in general. That's another one to know about. Pay particular attention to the pars on primary and self-published sources and on biographies. Those come up often.
You should also glance at WP:COI. Given that you are a published author, look at the section about citing yourself (quick link is WP:CITESELF). A little farther down is a section called "close relationships" that you should probably read, too.

References you may need at some point[edit]

WP:MOS is the place to look when you want to know how something is formatted. It's incredibly large, so I'm not really suggesting you read it now. It's just something to know about when you run across a formatting question.
WP:TC is a list of cleanup template messages. Use those when you see issues in an article and don't figure to fix the issues yourself right away. (Twinkle incorporates many of these.)

Tools[edit]

To make editing easier, I use a few tools. You might like:

Twinkle makes it easier to welcome people, tag issues in articles, propose deletions,request page protections, and see the last change to a page
ProveIt GT simplifies adding and combining references.
HotCat makes managing categories easier.

Was very important, but not really anymore[edit]

There is a thread started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Humane_Society_of_the_United_States. Fayedizard (an uninvolved, experienced user) has broken out a question into the possibility of a conflict of interest by the user JohnDopp. John has disclosed his COI. I would not yet advise you to chime in at this time, but it seemed something you would want to know.

I don't advise you to chime in yet because he has already admitted his COI rather plainly. For now, a wait and see approach might be best. That said, I did post there. --No unique names 17:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, if you want a great example of what not to do in a COIN thread if you want the editor restricted in any way, look at the IP's posts. Unfortunately, the IP editor seems to have completely taken the focus off of JohnDopp. Hopefully the IP quits soon and the discussion can return to John's COI. I still advocate a watch and see approach (for now). --No unique names 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: Even better example now of what not to do. Unfortunately, I don't know that any result will come of this now. It is not so important anymore, as the IP has essentially made sure that the focus is off of Dopp. Time will tell. --No unique names 18:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is an example of how a COI tag can be added to an article's talk page. --No unique names 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed this in real time. Life intervened, not in a bad way, but it kept me from getting back here over the last few days. I will look at what all has been happening, and thanks for keeping me posted. CandaceWare (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of things going pear shaped, have a look at my talk. My apologies for my language there. To sum it up, another editor, Corporate, works with companies to get reasonable articles on Wikipedia without a bunch of cruft and advertisement. I worked with him on a template some time ago, and have been able to help him occasionally when he had a COI since. Another editor has gone through his edits and undone some of his work. This alone wouldn't be a huge problem, but the other editor isn't staying within community norms and is using odd reasoning for some of his removals. Corporate mentioned the issue to me, and I waded in (not always a great idea, but sometimes it must be done). This particular bit is currently at COIN, ANI, various article talk pages, and my talk page (of which I know). The other editor doesn't seem to want to drop the stick, and I wrote a response on my talk. I probably went too far in my response and wasn't particularly civil. On the other hand, it's unlikely that the community at large would consider it enough to be a problem. In that, it's the gap between civility (in an ideal world) and what the community finds unacceptable. --No unique names 05:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]