User talk:Jordan Prokosch/sandbox

Initial comments: citation
Your current draft has major problems regarding regarding citation. I note in passing that citation practice on Wikipedia is quite variable in method, style, and quality, and very contentious. Having said that, I point out the guideline regarding "Variation in citation method", often referred to with the shortcut link WP:CITEVAR, that says, in part:

What we have here is not only a major change in citation style, it is also, without any regard to style, in complete shambles. You eliminated nearly all of the extant citations (full and short), such "citations" as you have are quite inadequate, and many of your links are broken. The use of the rp template for page specification is ill-advised, and likewise the merge of the "Notes" and "References" sections. I am sorry to have to be such a wet blank on your efforts, but all these are major problems. You have undertaken work beyond your current experience and skills in Wikipedia; we should discuss how to adjust these. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing your expertise and experience. I was following the advice found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference I likely misunderstood it.


 * Altering citations to fit a particular style doesn't strike me as such a difficult task. I'll figure out how to mimic the style on the original. I will alter the citation style and add more, I was trying to avoid redundancy or filling the article with even more page by page citations of the same entry. Right now I am trying to find the best way to cite in the specific style you prefer. Please bear with possible strangeness and broken links on the sandbox page while I experiment. Speaking of broken links, I am checking them now. I was relying on the visual editor's linking capabilities, but I also utilized some material from the original article, so there may have been some kind of link breakage from that. As for removing citations, that's true. Most of the material used in the original article is irrelevant and confusing in an article focused exclusively on the book.


 * Would you please avoid personal statements? I also do not appreciate ironic quotation marks, they sound hostile towards me even if that was not your intention, and would prefer specific criticisms which will serve as a teaching example. I am aware that I am still learning some proper wikipedia formatting. That's been established. That's one reason why this is still in the Sandbox instead of posted. I will continue on this project regardless. You may have a personal stake in this article, but it has been flagged for a reason. I will treat any contributions you have with absolute respect but I plan to continue.


 * Thank you for these helpful links:


 * Neutral point of view


 * No original research


 * What Wikipedia is not


 * No personal attacks


 * Be bold


 * I've read them thoroughly and am striving to maintain the policies of wikipedia. I believe that the new article follows these fundamental guidelines. In my opinion the previous article did not follow the first three, as it has a laudatory tone and represents a unique mixing of sources better suited to a history of science article published in an academic journal than to a straightforward encyclopedia article that takes advantage of the hyperlinked nature of wikipedia, though I understand you have argued that point with other editors and I feel no need to re-hash that argument here. Jordan Prokosch (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the citations. I've also checked every link. There was only one broken link I could find, carried over from your contribution. If you find others, please bring them to my attention.


 * I understand that you're busy, but if you feel like contributing further you could mark statements that you feel need a citation. Unless your criticism is the general cutting of content? As a reminder, this new article should be focused entirely on the book. Other content might be very educational and well sourced, but it belongs in its respective wikipedia article, primarily Co-operation (evolution)] but also [[Prisoner's Dilemma, Computer model, Game theory and other articles that have been synthesized in the old Evolution of Cooperation.


 * I have a more general question on citations: in several places I cited at the end of a paragraph when the entire paragraph worth of content can be found on that single page of the book. Should I cite every sentence in the paragraph? Doing that would make it more clear that I'm paraphrasing someone else's work, but it will also clutter the article. Reading the standards makes me think that if an idea is repeated in the article it only needs to be cited one time, ideally in the body and not the introductory section. Jordan Prokosch (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The only quotes I have used here are for "Variation in citation method" (the exact name of a section), "Notes" and "References" (likewise), and "citations". In the last case I was signalling that this is a term to be taken cautiously, as it (like other related citation terms and concepts) is often used here very inconsistently. I do not see where there is any irony (intended or not), nor hostility. Though I am beginning to feel a bit of a chill.


 * As to "personal statements" (your term): that you have practically no experience in Wikipedia is material fact we have to deal with. You should not "take it personally" (as people say) as some sort of put-down, as it is a basic reality that everyone here started with no experience. The question of character is how you deal with that. I am willing to help you get past that difficult stage. But: 1) Not if I get hostility from you. 2) Not if you won't accept that at this point you don't know how much you don't know. So please do not be so quick to kick out.


 * I have just missed my supper, but I will add some quick comments:


 * 1) that you can use Refpage (in the sense that such use is possible) does not mean that you should use it.
 * 2) You really need to understand WP:CITEVAR, and the fact that this article does not use Refpage.
 * 3) It appears that you are simply copying and pasting the text as displayed.  You need to understand that to get correct display and linking you have to copy the the templates, markup, etc. of the underlying "wikitext", such as seen when clicking on the "Edit" button. That is, you should not mimic what is displayed; you need to write the wikitext that produces that displayed text.  To some extent your confusion here may be the fault of the VisualEditor; I'll comment on that later.
 * 4) I once again advise you to not move any of this into article space until you understand the problems.
 * Gotta go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help. I'm sure you're right that refpage was not appropriate in this instance, I agreed and worked on fixing it immediately, I was merely pointing out my reasoning given what I had read so far. It's true that there are things I need to learn, you're right that I was simply frustrated because you quoted "citation" without any guidance on what specifically needed to be corrected. Under that context it read, to me at the moment, as mocking more than teaching. I find it vaguely amusing how many quotes are in this piece of help, was that an intentional bit of humor? Does your advice match the latest changes to the article? I altered the citations to match the ones you used, primarily using the source editor. The only difference I can find is a lack of links between the notes and references, certainly adds a touch of class but I haven't figured out how that's done yet. Am I missing something? If I am, could you provide a specific example? I apologize for being dense. Jordan Prokosch (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are indeed missing something. Actually, quite a lot of things. Which is pretty much where we all start. As I said above, it is a difficult stage, which we try to get through with the fewest bumps to oneself, but most certainly without being massively annoying to other people. An apt parallel is trying to move through an unfamiliar room, with a lot of hazards, in the dark.  In such a case I would advise moving most cautiously. That also applies here.  You don't even know some of the things you are running into, so please accept my guidance. I might indeed mock you at times, but generally I do this when someone needs to be paying better attention. Note that I am not belittling you in any sense of making you small. It is a given that your Wikipedia experience and skills - which I hope you will confuse with any other personal facets such as intellect, greatness of soul, size of sexual organs or automotive proxies, etc., etc., - currently is very small. The task before us is to grow your WP skills.


 * You should consider that there is MUCH you need to know. And if I hit you with all of that at once (not that I can) you would be overwhelmed. In regard of citations, what specifically needs correcting is: everything.  But I am trying to feed this to you in bite-size pieces, in an order that will be somewhat sensible.  Ahead of all other citation details you need to understand WP:CITEVAR.


 * If I recall correctly, the plentitude of direct quotations in the article arose from disputes regarding phrasing of indirect quotations. And it's been a long day for me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You already provided that bite. I understand that we should strive to match the citation style chosen by the original author. I am not now, nor was I ever, debating that issue. I could argue that since this is a more or less complete re-write, you are not the original author. However, I'm happy to match the original citation style. Could you please explain your personal process for citations using an example, or link the guide to the specific style you use? I believe the style you will find in the current draft is nearly equivalent but lacks links between note and full reference. Is this produced by a kind of template? If so, what is the title of the template? Do you have any concerns with the content of the article? What about where citations occur? There may be much I need to know. I appreciate your concern that I might be overwhelmed. I would also like to actually start, if you don't mind. If you do mind, and you seem to be very busy, then you can always leave me to find someone else who may be less annoyed by me. Jordan Prokosch (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly forgot to sign that one again. Showing my general lack of experience. Here, let me phrase what I'm trying to say a different way. I completely understand that I don't know a lot about WP. I am trying my best to learn. You have spent a lot more time pointing out my ignorance than alleviating it. I have read everything you linked and I really do appreciate the help you've provided. I would like us to focus on how to fix the problem instead of the fact of the problem's existence. You may feel that recognition is the best first step, and I'm sure that's wise. I want to take the next step and I would like concrete examples. If you appreciate metaphors here's a different one: I am a student and you're a teacher. I've written a draft and brought it to you for proof reading. You wrote "it's bad" and returned it. How can we expect the next draft to be better? Your very first set of comments were very productive. I would like a second round of comments, with explanations of how those improvements can be produced. Jordan Prokosch (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To take a specific point: the "lacks links between note and full reference" is a major problem. And yes, that is "produced by a kind of template". I don't believe Help:Referencing for beginners is the best guide, but if you had carefully read all of it you should have some sense how templates are used. If you would simply examine the wikisource you will find plenty of examples. (Do you even understand what I mean by "wikisource"?) If you want to accept guidance ("teaching") from me, then do this: examine the wikisource of the article to determine for yourself which templates are used for citation. Then attempt to implement an instance of same in your draft. If this is not satisfactory then I would urge you the check the links I put on your Talk page for getting mentoring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I just looked over your recent work, and I am concerned that you have not learned how to use templates. I again suggest (as I did a month ago) that you examine the wikisource of the existing article for instances of templates, then attempt to implement an instance of a template in your draft. Templates are the sinews of Wikipedia, and it is rather pointless to tweak the text if you don't use templates. Ask if you have questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)