Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 13

Good Editors Beginning as Vandals?

I reviewed a user’s sandbox that had been submitted to AFC. It was a one-word test edit, and I declined it as a test edit. The user was then indeffed as not here, among other things for vandalism. I then nominated the sandbox for Miscellany for Deletion. Two editors agreed to Delete. One editor said to Keep, citing WP:BITE, and said that user sandboxes are the proper place for test edits (which is true), and that deleting a sandbox for no good reason was rude. One of the other editors who favored Delete noted that the editor had been blocked indefinitely, and so “rude” did not make sense. The editor who favored Keep said that many good editors began as vandals. So my first question is: Does anyone here think it is true that many good editors began as vandals? I am aware that some good editors began as net negatives to Wikipedia, because they were flamers, or added unsourced material, or were edit-warriors. Does anyone have evidence that many good editors began as vandals? It just seems to me like a strange statement. Also, it is possible that some editors began as vandals, but we will never know it, because they may have then created a new account and began editing reasonably. That would technically be sockpuppetry, but would be a case where ignore all rules should apply rather than blocking them and forcing them to request unblock of one account or to submit a standard offer. In an unverifiable opinion, do good editors often begin as vandals? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about "many", but there was someone at the Wikipedia 15 event in Seattle who said that his first few edits were vandalism as tests to see how quickly they'd be fixed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I know of at least two valuable and accomplished contributors whose first edits were vandalism. I hope there was some additional context behind the block you refer to above, because indeffing a user after nothing more than a test edit and some sort of mishap is poor form, I think. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I declined a test edit, simply as a proper exercise of Articles for Creation review. The editor's other edits were vandalism. An admin then indeffed the editor as not here. I am not an admin. I would have indeffed the editor for vandalism-only account, a distinction without a difference. I think that the indef was correct, because they hadn't made any constructive edits (e.g., gnome edits, questions on talk pages). I don't think that there was a "mishap", unless submitting the test edit to AFC was a mishap. If the editor wants to start editing constructively, they can request unblock, or they will establish a new account with no history. (As noted, the latter is technically incorrect, but actually constructive and should be allowed under IAR.) If the editor is unblocked within six days, they can ask to keep their sandbox. In my opinion, there isn't value to keeping sandboxes of indeffed users. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and I see now I misinterpreted your first post, thinking the sandbox test edit and the AFC submission were the only actions by that user. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Are So Many Test Sandbox Drafts Submitted for AFC?

Many user sandboxes are submitted to Articles for Creation that clearly do not appear to be draft articles for review. Some of them are just test edits, which is the primary purpose of a user sandbox, but it is not what AFC is for. My question is whether there is some user interface reason why new editors submit these test edits to AFC without intending them to be draft articles, in which case the user interface can be improved? I understand that occasionally a new editor who is even more clueless than most new editors doesn't know that Wikipedia doesn't have articles that are test edits, but I can't imagine that all of the test edits that I see are due to complete cluelessness as to what is right for Wikipedia, but to some other cluelessness about what Submit is. (Also, the Submit button isn't obvious, except on a draft that has once been declined. My user sandbox has an AFCH button, which would permit me to Comment or Submit. Are these due to new editors wondering what AFCH means, and then not knowing that Submit means Submit for review and publication?) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My question is primarily about edits that appear to be test edits. A different matter, easier for me to understand, is one-or-two-sentence statements as to who the editor is. They may either be intended for publication as autobiographies by editors who don't know better, or they may be intended to be social media profiles by editors who don't yet know that Wikipedia isn't a social medium. (In some but not all cases, the latter might be reasonable user pages, and many new users don't know the difference between articles and user pages.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with missing spaces

Can anyone work out what's gone wrong at Exchange Building (Seattle)? E.g. " Art Decooffice building", "Razorfish(a". Offhand, the source looks as I'd expect it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Something strange happened with this edit, but I have not yet figured it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem has something to do with the included designation list ( remove it and things look fine).--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, and it cleaned up the spacing. But now I don't know what to do with the removed material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been further followed up and is fully fixed now. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for a specific template or function

Is there a template, built-in function, or external tool where you input an article's title and it outputs the "final destination". For instance, inputting USA would give me United States, and inputting Canada would give back Canada. Is there anyway of doing this for a long list of articles? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs: I have one method of doing this. Do you want it for one-time use or regularly? If the first option, then you can tell, what list do you have. If the second, then most probably my method won't be good option. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably just a one-time thing. I'm all ears.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and the list, which is just a list of unicode characters (warning, fairly long) User:Brightgalrs/Unicode List. I really want to sort out the unicode articles and redirects. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a lua module that might do what you want. I grabbed the unicode character Ϻ from your page of unicode characters and tried this:

{{#invoke:redirect|main|Ϻ}}

which returns:

San (letter)

put that in wikimarkup:

[[{{#invoke:redirect|main|Ϻ}}]]

to get:

San (letter)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you, thank you. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

batch complete source removal advice

Hello, There is a lot of references to FILIT, an external source of information, in Slovak version of Wikipedia. The source is not reliable due to the usage of circular definitions. These definitions are beeing transfered to wikipedia articles consequently. I did try to update the source definition page to point the issue sk:Filit

and start to remove( or replace, when in my powers) themsk:Smrť sk:Rozdielnosť

, however this activity has been stopped by Editors/Moderators, because of the missing source replacement advice. E.g.: It may be wrong, but unless you make a page with different lies, status quo remains, even if it is not proven right. Basically, the source does not comply with the Second pillar of Wikipedia, beeing written from a neutral point of view, and blocking the change on wikipedia with "shut up, unless you agree to follow the existing rules" with the Fifth pillar, Wikipedia has no firm rules.

Regards

p.s: The pages are directly linked from english version via language selection in left columns.In example clicking "Slovenčina" on Death points to a page, containing the data, partially created by some Ashtar Sheran's follower(s) on primary source(FILIT) without mentioning it. This IP is currently blocked on the Slovak language Wikipedia due to non-constructive changes( yes, data cleansing means removing, so it stands for non-constructive changes definitions). Meanwhile the Wikipedia is another missinformation source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.6.184 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@78.99.6.184: This is the English language Wikipedia- we have no power on what any other language Wikipedia does. If you have a problem on the Slovak language Wikipedia, you need to discuss it there (do they have a helpdesk like this one?). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Try the Slovak Wikipedia Help desk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Image placement

Can someone please fix the image size and placement in List of locks and dams of the Upper Mississippi River? The present configuration looks awful. Maybe if the images were adjacent to the table on the right? Thanks. 32.218.45.170 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the images into a gallery towards the end of the article. Another editor may wish to re-position. Eagleash (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. 32.218.45.170 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

I just edited an article with the phrase "concluded with conclusions". As I filled in the edit summary, I wondered what the term for that type of 'dancing of words' is called. Its not an Oxymoron. But something like that. Buster Seven Talk 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are probably better off at the Language Help Desk. Here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be thinking of tautology?:--David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thats it. Thank you, David. Buster Seven Talk 07:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on context. Could be "blunt talk".Contexterr (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Marlies Somers

Hello, why my articel is planning for deleting? It is the same refrence with the articel Mirjami Heikkinen. So why this articel is for deleting andn ot mirjami heikkinen? Iti s the same refrence! Delete mirjami heikkinen to!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just what it says at Marlies Somers. It is a biography of a living person that has no references. You have seven days to add in-line references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with the recently closed Keep on the other voice actress, because it was actually No Consensus, but since No Consensus leaves the status quo, that is not worth taking to deletion review. I will comment that the article that is currently tagged is in much worse English than the one that is being kept. My suggestion is to submit any future articles via Articles for Creation, where the English can be cleaned up. Bad English is not a reason for BLP proposed deletion, but it is taken into account in formal AFD deletion discussion. If your English isn't good, rely on other editors for help with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that, probably in response to your post here, a footnote has been added to the draft, the English has been improved, and the deletion tag has been properly removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)