Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive K

Hey everyone, when I typed in Alphabet Spaghetti into Wikipedia and it came up with no results - I was pysically sick. So help me make

See Alphabet soup. A merge may be in order. Deco 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had the mixed fortune to come across what I can only describe as an eccentric editor. Their speciality seems to be the creation of articles that simply cannot have any notability, not now, not ever, never - several AfDs have proved that.

How do we, as a community, encourage an editor like this to use their abundant energies to create worthwhile articles instead of creating mayhem with page after page of indiscriminate information? You guys have seen this before, so one of you will know the answer!

Fiddle Faddle 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guide them to the policies and especially the notability guidelines. If they persist, tag the articles for deletion --

^(talk)

06:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done both. Politely, regularly, and without apparent effect. The notability guidelines appear to be ignored or badly understood. The AfDs all succeeded, but the editor (as author) decided to speedy their own work appearing to state that this was in order not to receive a final community opinion. This editor has appeared before under a different name and either has a poor command of English, or chooses to display a poor command of English (impossible to tell, since it varies) and has made many valid contributions, but substantially more articles are mayhem and indiscriminate than their valid edits. Regrettably their stance is more combative than learning, though this has improved substantially from the prior user id's stance. Fiddle Faddle 06:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and post warning templates on their talk page in that case, and if they persist after several templates report the case to admin. Durova 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The challenge with that is it is starting to look personal, which it truly is not. What templates do you suggest in the event I follow this course of action? The articles are really trivial, and they get AfDd pretty much straight away. I'm sure you can work out the articles in question from my contributions log. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide the "redirected from X" after following a redirect link? I mean, if I have Mr Donald and redirect it to Mr A. Donald can I make something to make disappear the "redirected from Mr Donald? --For Our Nation's Honor 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a feature. The article that came up was not the same name they typed in or clicked - the point of this message is to decrease the shock/surprise of the user and provide an explanation. Deco 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, FONH, this prevents vandalism like yours to pass unseen. Mariano(t/c) 06:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now ain't that amazing! Just like the criminals who get convicted because they video their own crime spree. I don;t know whether to laugh or cry. Wait, yes I do. I am hurting so much my sides have split. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Maria Sharapova page says she moved to the US when she was 9. I just saw her on Jay Leno where she said she moved here when she was 7. I'd like to fix this, but should I just go in and edit the page without saying anything or should I post a discussion to change it before it gets changed? Where would I do the latter?

SlyMaelstrom 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any information here has to be

^(talk)

06:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is sufficient to reference the show itself, transcript or no transcript, in a note, stating that this was her own statement on that show on that date? I don't offer this as advice, but as a question that has interested me in general for some time too. after all Jay Leno fits "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing is that its much easier to verify if there's a transcript. How else would you verify something said on a show? --

Just edit it, this is a wiki. Do please mention that you got the information off the show (and keep in mind that the show could be wrong) Kim Bruning 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would bring this up on the talk page. Perhaps the editor who originally added the age of 9 could shed light on the discrepency. Deco 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, both edit, and bring it up on talk! But do edit

Boldly! Kim Bruning

09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Infrogmation deleted Talk:Fat man (disambiguation) (the talk page redirect), I suspect in response to this request. I'm not sure why he didn't post a followup here, but I think you're all set. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also could have deleted the redirect. But part of my question was what to do with the

List of Metal Gear Solid 2 characters talk page without cutting and pasting?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm afraid not. But cutting and pasting is ok. The talk page of Fatman is so small you can just paste it in with a note and slap a redirect on the talk page.. --Errant

Talk)(Review me

) 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like some help please with printing. In particular, I would like to know how to print only a portion of the chat page: i.e. one entry. I have tried highlighting, but this brings no results, and on pages such as Hiberno-English, the print can extend to 20, or even 30 pages.Thanks in advance!--PeadarMaguidhir 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Printing a selection works similarly in Firefox and IE. Select the text you want to have printed, select File>Print..., then, under the Print Range setting, which is normally on "All", select "Selection". Then print! Phidauex 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Instruction creep redirects to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore I'm not very familiar with policy (though I know the basics). I think there's a policy named "Avoid self-references", and it states that we should not have pages in the article namespace which redirect to Wikipedia namespace.

Did I get the policy correct? If I'm correct, could a kind admin please do something about it - probably deleting the page? If not, could you please correct me? Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. BrokenSegue 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, that would go to

WP:RFD. However, cross namespace redirects rarely survive that so it may as well have been deleted out of process anyway. Viridae^Talk

14:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here and enter Journeyman. Twenty three of their dictionaries have it. Now enter Journeyperson, none have it. It's nonsensical to try to change an established word just because it seems gender specific. The language is what it is, journeyman is just a word and is not gender specific. Even a redirect from Journeyperson to Journeyman seems unnecessary to me. Good luck - Adrian Pingstone 09:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment on the article talk page :D --Errant

Talk)(Review me

) 09:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to verify that this change to a userbox says something it should... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_ar-4&diff=67593725&oldid=58070358 - came up in RC patrol and I am a little suspicious. Viridae^Talk 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be useful. Tonywalton  | Talk

10:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Viridae^Talk 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article at bootleg recording has a tendency to collect external links to bootleg collectors' sites, BitTorrents, and so on. After some consideration, I removed the entire external links section, leaving this message in a comment, as none of the links educate readers further about bootlegs. They simply provide sources of bootleg material, which goes against our Wikipedia:External links guideline to avoid linking to sites which we know to be violating copyright. Some users have been putting the links back, claiming that bootlegs (otherwise unavailable live or demo recordings, as opposed to pirated commercial tracks) are not under copyright and the sites are legal. I'm fairly sure I'm in the right here and have explained my reasoning on Talk:Bootleg recording, but in any case, the legality isn't the real issue. I don't believe these links add value to Wikipedia, I believe they're only here to drive traffic to the sites, and I believe that having any external links at all on that page is a magnet for others to keep adding spam. Since the links have returned, I hesitate to remove them again and antagonize the users involved without having a little more evidence of consensus on the value of these links. Would anybody care to weigh in at the talk page? Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 06:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Left my two cents. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just gone through most of the recent contributions to station articles by

How do we tell which ones you've done and which ones you haven't? ONUnicorn 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Working from the top of their contribution tree I've done everything as far down as Hastings railway station, so none of them will be marked as (top). Thryduulf 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started working from where you left off. Someone might want to look at Boston railway station though, I can't quite figure out what I did wrong with that one. ONUnicorn 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. The problem was the template was already wikilinking the last parameter, so you couldn't have two links in it. I changed to the generic dablink template. --Rehcsif 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ONUnicorn 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. ONUnicorn 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You'd missed three, which I've sorted now. Thryduulf 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I created an account with Wikipedia several months ago and currently have about 700 edits, but I'm asking this anonymously to protect the identities of myself and my friend - I don't wish to implicate him as he has several thousand edits and may run for adminship soon. In addition, if I don't reveal myself, you can give advice based on the situation without resorting to ad hominem. This IP is shared by thousands of users, so CheckUser is useless.

As mentioned earlier, I've been editing Wikipedia as a registered user for several months. I've written a couple of articles, and add information to articles on topics of interest. I also discuss about Wikipedia on Wikipedia-namespace pages.

Several experienced users have touted (not to me) RC patrol as a way of learning Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I'm considering creating a new account to try out RC patrol. As I won't be putting my main account's reputation on the line, I'll be more bold with reverting anonymous vandals, and once I've learnt the ropes of RC patrol, I can start RC patrolling on my main account. I don't want to plunge into RC patrol unprepared on my main account, as I have a tendency to mess up big time.

However, when I consulted my friend, an experienced Wikipedian, he told me that my plan constituted sockpuppetry, and if I was found out, both my main account and RC patrol account may be blocked indefinitely. Although I trust him, I wish to get more opinions from experienced Wikipedia users. Therefore, if you're an experienced Wikipedian, please tell me what you think. Is this sockpuppeting? If so, I'll drop the idea. If not, do you have any tips for new RC patrollers? Thanks.

--202.156.6.54 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you do something really drastic you won't threaten your main account via being new to RC patrol. As you say creating a new account is sock-puppetry althoug if you use the account well there is thoeretically no problem. SOme users use VandalProof on sock accounts so as not to artificially increase their edit counts.

However don't create the new account, just have a go at RC patrol. Be bold and if you make mistakes they will be pointed out (hopefully in a friendly manner). The best advice though is to read all of the WP guidelines such as the delteion criteria (especially the speedy deletes ones) and if you really arn't sure just ask - then the next time you'll know :D --Errant

Talk)(Review me

) 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Im new to this and have added my group called Shock To The System to your site - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_To_The_System_uk

I've noticed that there is a user which is useing our groups name - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_To_The_System ?

Can we both have the name Shock To The System on your site ?

Shock To The System has had its name for 10 years !

Thanks in advance,

Shock To The System

I'm sorry, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this sort of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't have groups - we have articles. There is a

deleted unless you add actual encyclopediac content. --J.L.W.S. The Special One

10:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time editing the schizophrenia article. One user consisently deletes the section on violence and schizophrenia. This issue has been to mediation twice. On both occasions the user in question pulled out of mediation, and on the second occasion the mediators could find no clear reasons why he wanted the section deleted and expressed a view that it should remain as it was accurate, referenced and balanced.

The user has just deleted the section again, and has just added a spam notice to the links section because it links to pages expressing views which he does not agree.

Actually, the user has made some valuable contributions in the past but seems fixated on this issue.

The violence section has now been deleted (for a second time) for over a month due to a lone user who has decided he doesn't like it. I am abiding by the guidlines and not constantly re-adding the section, which means it is missing.

I am wondering whether arbitration my only recourse or whether anyone has any additional suggestions for resolving the situation?

Many thanks - Vaughan 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the moment it seems to be a matter of him versus a growing consensus. Unless policy can determine a reason to not have the section, if he continues reverting despite the edits of other editors to bring back the section, it is likely this will end up being solved by

Cowman109^Talk

16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seek consensus on the talk page. If the consensus is on your side, then it will be more difficult for him. If he reverts more than thrice in 24 hours, ask an admin to block him - that's violating a rule called 3RR. Otherwise, file an RFC against him, failing that, an RFA as a last resort. Just my 2 cents, I'm not that experienced here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

tjstrf

04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, I meant a Request for Arbitration. I notice how often experienced users use abbrevations for Wikipedia-specific terms, and I thought that after a few months, I should try that as well. And since Requests for Arbitration is condensed as RFA, that was the first thing that jumped to my mind, as a speed typist. Turns out I'm not ready yet, messing up on my first try. Oh well, admit it's pretty funny. Back to the drawing board. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heheh, don't worry, we won't

tjstrf

05:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a newbie, although I don't consider myself experienced yet. Maybe once I have 1,000+ contribs. In fact, I'm reluctant to overuse abbrevations because I like to be newcomer-friendly. Thanks for the tip of linking them. What would be the correct abbrevation? And is my other advice correct? We're here to help Vaughan, after all, not me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're sort of right. The best advice would be to consult

Maybe someone should take a look at the article Mean Red Spiders and its revision history.

I came across it yesterday, apparently seconds after someone added a clean-up tag to it. I tried to do what I could with it (to clean it up), and some of my changes have stayed. Others... haven't.

There seem to be an account and an IP (I think they're the same person) doing most of whats being done on that article. A great deal of the content, both good and bad, seems to have been added by those two accounts. However, they keep removing attempts to clean the article up. When I started my clean-up, I ran into an edit conflict with the IP. The IP had removed the clean-up tag. After I posted my cleaned up version, the IP and the account both proceeded to undo some of my changes. I asked about these changes on the IP's talk page and got no response.

Some of the things that they are doing that don't make sense;

• Removing clean-up tags
• Linking to almost every word in the article
• Insisting on
  beingruntogetherwithoutspacesbetweenthem
  .
• They don't format their references correctly. I've tried to fix them, but I'm not very good at the whole getting wiki references to act the way they are supposed to act thing either.

The users are User:Dashumphreys and User:24.42.81.91. [Dif where Dashumphreys first became involved], [Dif where I first became involved], [Dif between my first attempt at clean-up and the current version].

Thanks to anyone willing to take a look at this. ONUnicorn 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this OK? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASteveGOLD&diff=62592334&oldid=47086076 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASteveGOLD&diff=62416865&oldid=62402855

Now we have dispute on UK wiki. Some active members are going to leave Wikpedia unless large Nazi symbols are removed from user page, and most of our contributors beleive that they must be removed

SteveGOLD says among other things, that this is allowed in tolerant English wikipedia

Straight out of

WP:USERPAGE, "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia (should not be on your userpage)." Images can be considered a statement or such, and such images do spark controversy. Yank sox

12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message for Steve Gold asking for him to remove the images. Yank sox 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also left him a message also requesting him to remove the symbols. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the flag after posting a note - which he reverted as well as the above note - we might need to watch this space! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think that this image may be consider as image that spark controversy. I'm already tired explain that this is ONLY in informative purpose, as somebody refer to his/herself as communist, liberal, muslim, jew, homosexualist, etc - I'm refer to myself as Neo-Nazi, because I'm Neo-Nazi. So what is bad in this statement? I DON'T MAKE TO NOBODY IN WIKIPEDIA SOMETHING BAD, SO WHY YOU ARE TEASING ME? Thanks. P.S.: I'll reverting my page to old version. Plz, don't make any change there until we make some decision on this. SteveGOLD 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do with this. This user, Vickilp recently added a bunch of "further reading" links to a few articles. Suspiciously, all the books are by the same author. I don't really think that these books are informative about the subject in any way; I think they're more just "read my book because it kind of pertains to this topic". Has she broken any rules or should I just go ahead and delete the links? Or both? Jesse 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: they are informative (with the exception of the one supposedly about dairy farming), but are children's books. Jesse 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled them all back and left him a note Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbie! :) I need assistance on the copyright status of Image:Darren Mack.jpg[1]. This is an internal link; I couldn't figure out how to link to the image page without the photo showing up here. This is the photo used on the police handout when Mack was a fugitive. The newspaper source http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060613/NEWS18/606130373/0/NEWS&theme=SNIPER did not give a photo credit. I believe this is public domain and/or fair use, but I didn't want to inadvertently get Wikipedia into trouble. --Kat'n'Yarn 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Kat'n'Yarn

Crap oh crap. I just created the suprisingly absent Category:Death by carbon monoxide poisoning. However, I screwed up: It needs to be called Category:Deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning in order to conform w/ the other deaths by causes categories. Can someone please add the "s" to death for me? Very sorry for the bother. Thanks for the help. J. Van Meter 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) :Come to think of it, I believe it should be Category:Deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning. -J. Van Meter 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

::* I just reposted this same request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I think that's the place where they handle this sort of thing. J. Van Meter 13:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)