User talk:Krasniy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Krasniy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful links. (I just figured out how to indent replies) ;c) --Krasniy(talk|contribs) 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adoption?

Hello! You would like to be adopted, eh? I might consider you - what sort of areas are you interested in on Wikipedia? This will give me an idea of any advice that I can offer - process, projects, editing, etc. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Well all I do now is revert! I guess I mostly need to learn more about formatting pages. I've thought of helping to wikify pages that otherwise have good content, but don't really know how and am kinda leary to do something that substantial. All I pretty much know about is jewelry-type smith (metalwork) stuff, movies, and dogs. I don't know a whole lot about any of that (though I think I could probably start some dog breed stubs) except for the metalwork, which I'm still a student of but have quite a lot of first-hand knowledge. In general, though not very specific, any way of giving to any subject matter is what I'd like to do. :) ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adoption

Hi there, thanks for adopting me! What's the best way to communicate with you when I have questions and such? IM, email, talk pages, or probably anything else works for me. ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A message on my Talk page when you have a question or issue will be enough for me, thanks! I look forward to working with you soon. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Alrighty, first question!

Well practically the only page I pay any attention to is Alaskan Malamute. Three times an anon from 3 different ip addresses (presumably one person as all are from the same block owned by a single broadband UK company) added the UK rescue link. The first time I figured it was better suited with a link to the actual club, plus there aren't any other rescues linked and all the clubs have links to rescue organizations.They added it once again since I last looked; while they didn't do it quite right, they did stick it under a new heading. I think it's better without rescues link because for one thing, external links won't end up be unnecessarily long, but am leary to once again get rid of it because 1) they'll probably add it again, 2)I don't want to get into an edit war, and 3)I realize I'm new and maybe it is better to have all the rescues as a link. (This question was my motivation for wanting to be adopted, by the way.) So, what do you think? ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, for external links guidance I go to Wikipedia:External links, paying particular attention to "Links normally to be avoided". First off, http://www.malamuterescue.co.uk/ states that it is; "An all volunteer non- profit making organisation dedicated to the welfare & re-homing of pure bred Alaskan Malamutes in the U.K.". This is not the definition of a charity registered with the Charities Commission here in the UK, so it has no official status. Point one of the external links guidance states;
"Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."
As this isn't the official site of the Breeders Club for the variety of dog, the Kennel Club or other officially-recognised canine organisation, I would say that this argument doesn't hold water.
Secondly, the first statement in the 'Links to be avoided' section states;
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource..."
A scan through the pages of the external site doesn't indicate that I can learn more about this dog breed here than on Wikipedia - another argument for its removal.
Thirdly, the ethical breeding page on the website offers a 1pt meta-packing paragraph containing variations on the following;
"...puppy farmers are disgusting, stamp on them dont fund their evil trade..."
I think that statements such as these are point-of-view and shouldn't be counted as official statements from authorised bodies. It is their website, so they can state whatever point of view they wish but a link on Wikipedia might be seen by some as carrying a type of imprimatur, so this shouldn't be fostered.
Lastly, point thirteen;
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject..."
This external link is about fostering a dog breed, something that is at-best a tangent from the main WP article.
It's up to you as to what you would like to do. Remove the external link and give the above reasons to the anon-IP editor; ask them to justify the inclusion of the link on the article's Talk page, as it isn't clear about why it should be there; warn them about vandalism and report them to WP:AIV when they get to {{test4}} status - it's your call. (aeropagitica) 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Oh goodness, read the front page, www.alaskanmalamuterescue.co.uk is the offical AMCUK site!!!

Your opinions are just that weak opinions, unfortunately in this day & age especially after 8 below the film breed rescues need to be highlighted. Have you emailed the club to ask them to remove the link??? I cant believe some people can be so petty—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.247.211 (talk) date

[1] "is an affiliate of the Alaskan Malamute Club". Of course I wouldn't have the actual club [2] site remove the link. External websites are not under the power of wikipedia. I assure you this is all based on Wikipedia policy, and are not just arbitrary. Check out WP:EL for the policy. Also, it's useful to sign your posts with 4 ~, and to also get a username which is simple and free!≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfDs

I figure I should expand a bit with my contributions. What do I need to know to get involved into Afds? Could you provide me with some links or anything useful so I can know what to do and how to do it right? I figure I'll read up on it and try my hand at it later in the week. Thanks! ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the best thing to read up on in order to study AfDs are... AfDs! They are archived by date, so take a look through any of the last years' worth, or all of them if you have the time! The things that I would suggest that you look out for are the quoting of policies and guidelines when editors back up their opinions. You will get a sense of which editors are familiar with and like to refer to policies when making their judgements, so you can look at their contributions to see how they go about performing their duties. From there, read the policies and guidelines themselves. There are a lot on the list, so start with the most quoted ones in AfD - probably, WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:CORP, WP:Music, WP:SOFTWARE - just off the top of my head. You will also begin to see where nominations could also be speedily deleted, using criteria set out in WP:CSD. Some people make mistakes when giving their opinion and state 'speedy delete' when the criteria says no. You will be able to spot these in time.
Personally, I would recommend that when you begin to give your opinion on the discussions that you back each one up with a policy or guideline, i.e.
Delete Non-notable biography as per the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That way, if anyone disagrees with you and tries to tell you otherwise, you can be sure that your opinion was based upon one of the key sections of WP - it's their problem, not your problem! So, to summarise - 1) read the AfD discussions, 2) follow the work of editors who quote policy in their opinions and 3) read and become familiar with the policies and guidelines. This will take a few months, so don't treat it like a University Finals exam! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image Licensing

The new WP:GL is right up my ally of my limited computer graphics ability. I can make SVGs without a problem, but I'm wondering about licensing. For this I think I just upload over the old image which I figured out how to do, but I am not sure what to pick looking at the drop-down menu for licensing. I'd release any SVG I uploaded into the public domain, but does it count as my own work? Hmm maybe it's asking to upload to Commons. I am probably too asleep to comprehend correctly. It's nap time for this mom-to-be. Appreciatively,≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! I hope that you had a nice sleep! The place that I would go to in order to understand licensing my own work for use on Wikipedia and related projects is Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, specifically For image creators. This section states:
"The licenses in this section are designed not so much to restrict use of your work, but to keep it free."
I imagine that this is what you had in mind. I would also consider uploading to Wikicommons in order to make your images available to as many WikiMedia projects as possible. I hope that this is useful for you! Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/r/a/User_talk%7EKrasniy_3f26.html"