User:Ohiostandard/Workinprogress1

Nothing in progress here at the moment.

How to refer to a user with no user page?

Hi! Can someone please tell me what the right wikimarkup would be when, on a talk page, I want to (1) refer to a new user named "twelvefootzebra", let's say, who has yet to create a user page and, (2) simultaneously make the reference "clickable", and (3) keep it red, and (4) make the click land on the "special/contributions" page for that user? That's what you're supposed to do, right? Or am I out? Many thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Like this? Twelvefootzebra

Using this: <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Twelvefootzebra <span style="color: red">Twelvefootzebra</span>]</span>

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! You guys are the best! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the example provided by TeleComNasSprVen, while in line with your request, is not the best way to "refer to a new user...who has yet to create a user page ", and may in fact be a confusing and pointless use of code. I would recommend linking to contributions, piping the link so that only the username is shown, for example: [[Special:Contributions/Twelvefootzebra|Twelvefootzebra]], or better, using the template {{user}} to generate the relevant links to user, talk, and contributions, like so: {{user|Twelvefootzebra}}, which outputs Twelvefootzebra (talk · contribs). Incidentally, it seems that you have misspelt the username; there is no user registered under the name "twelvefootzebra". Intelligentsock 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd use {{user}} as well. The other example looks like a custom signature which I would take to mean that the user has a bit of WP knowledge and the sig was copied from somewhere. The red isn't the same shade of red as WP's redlinks. Dismas|^(talk) 04:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that Intelligent & Dismas. The second method Intelligent suggests does seem preferable, since the first puts the link up in blue (by default) rather than red, and it seemed to make sense that it should appear in red (although I don't like forcing it to that color permanently with code). The "twelvefootzebra" literal was just an example, btw. I used it because I didn't want to mention the actual user account name here, is all. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fastflow

Hello, all. I'd like to see action taken on a problem that appears to include COI issues, sock-puppet issues, spam and notability issues, and even trademark issues, and I'm unsure how to proceed.

I'm involved in this only in a very peripheral way, btw, at least so far. I'd prefer to keep it that way, actually, but I do feel a responsibility to speak up about the problem, at least.

Please note that out of sensitivity to possible concerns about outing, I've created and employed fictitious stand-in data in the following post: Both the user-ID "Albini" and surname "Albinitelli" used in this present context, as well as the word "SnowGlow" to identify a software product, are fictitious stand-ins I came up with to shield the real data from disclosure for the purposes of this query. My hope is that doing so will give admins here enough familiarity with the nature of the problem that they can help me figure out how to proceed without undue concern for "outing" anyone. So here goes:

Late last year a new Wikipedia account was created with a particular user-ID that we'll call "Albini" here.

• The user immediately started disseminating information about software he calls "SnowGlow" ( as we'll refer to it here ).
• His first action was to make 8 distinct and non-trivial edits (saves) in 16 seconds about "SnowGlow" to an existing article.
• Within his first 24 hours he created an article entitled "SnowGlow" and brought it to high degree of sophistication.

At this point in the sequence the "SnowGlow" article already included a description of ( we'll say ) "Albinitelli" as one of the software's two creators. Note the similarity between the user-ID and the surname.

• User "Albini" then created a main user-page describing himself as an academic in computer science, and gave other details.
• He next submitted "SnowGlow" to a request-for-feedback. No one ever responded, perhaps because of the very technical subject matter.

His user account was two days old at this point.

• He proceeded for two weeks, until mid-December 2009, to insert "SnowGlow" info and links into 15 - 20 articles.
• He assigned "SnowGlow" a "mid" level of importance in two categories that he also appears to have added it to.
• He continued to expand the "SnowGlow" article and create links to it from other articles.

Then, in mid-December, 2009, he submitted the article a second time to a request-for-feedback.

• Some experienced users responded, one noticed the apparent COI - and a notability problem - and warned him about it.
• User "Albini" continued the same single-purpose editing, disseminating info and links about/to "SnowGlow".

Early this year an academic named ( as we're calling him, here ) "Albinitelli" contributed a paper about "SnowGlow" to what I infer was a mini-conference, albeit one sponsored by a very prestigious professional organization in computer science.

• User "Albini", as we're calling him here, incorporated references to that paper into the Wikipedia "SnowGlow" article.
• He recently submitted "SnowGlow" to requests-for-feedback for a third time.

I could go on, but I'll only add that the ( real-world equivalent for the stand-in ) name "SnowGlow" is, according to the U.S. Government's Patent and Trademark Office's web interface, a registered word mark for an unrelated computer science process in chip design, with a first-use date occurring in 2001. It's on the principal register. Any promotion using the ( real-world equivalent for the stand-in ) name "SnowGlow", for a different organization's technology in computer science would appear to constitute a trademark infringement.

I do have the specific details in this matter, of course, but I'm concerned that disclosing them anywhere on Wikipedia might allow many users to make the evident connection between Wikipedia (stand-in) user-ID "Albini" and ( the real-world surname of ) the computer scientist "Albinitelli". I've placed a COI tag on the equivalent of the "SnowGlow" article here, but in light of Wikipedia's policies against so-called outing I've not done much else. I'm not sure how this can be remedied. My impression is that all the user's edits that directly promote "SnowGlow" may have to be reverted, and since that's almost all of them but for maybe two or three, it's likely to be both difficult and time-consuming to accomplish, and to be vigorously opposed by the user, of course.

There appear to be COI issues here, sock-puppet issues, spam and notability issues, and trademark issues. I'm somewhat beyond my depth here, and would greatly appreciate some help. Thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Main body of text

<! BEST TO KEEP THIS AND THE FOLLOWING "FURTHER READING" AND "REFERENCES" SECTIONS LAST ON THIS PAGE !>

Here's how to cite a journal's abstract on PubMed and also link to a separate URL for the full-text in a pdf. Note that you should probably use a different format for free full-text via PubMed Central, however; I think there's a distinct format for that.

Most of this was generated via a great citation generator that can be found here, btw. I had to tweek its output just a bit, by filling in the URL field manually, and adding the lay-url and lay-date fields and contents.

References

<references>