User:Valfontis/Copied Discussions

Someone's class assignment
I don't even know where to ask about this. I have a user who is editing and begging us not to change anything because it is for a university class. I reverted changes or tagged with various cleanup messages here, here, and here, and left a message on the user's talkpage with this response. If I assume good faith (that this person is telling the truth), I really want to have a chat with this teacher about this assignment. Does someone more experienced with Wikipedia than me care to drop a note to this person or help me with what I can say? Has this come up before? It's bad enough when elementary school kids are all told to look up Oregon Trail or whatever and a rash of vandalism has to be reverted, without well-meaning college instructors adding to the mess... Thanks and happy editing, Katr67 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask them how long they need the information to remain on Wikipedia. In addition, suggest that their teacher check the page history. Perhaps they could do it in front of their teacher? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And let's hope the next assignment doesn't involve public graffiti ... "Officer, we need to leave it on the side of the building long enough for my teacher to see." I've left another note on the Talk page, talking about "history" pages, and reverted the Corvalis mess, as you did earlier. The Astoria additions weren't so bad; I did some preliminary cleanup to the golf courses. - DavidWBrooks 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL Thanks for your help--it all looks good. (Though I'm not sure we need *any* info on golf courses, but since I know I'm biased, I'll leave it alone.) Katr67 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If a teacher needs to see what a particular student added to Wikipedia, they can look at the diffs. The article can still be edited as normal after that. Tra (Talk) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of article talk pages
Someone just added a "history" of the city of Scappoose, Oregon on its talk page. I was about to commend the editor for his or her addition and point out that we would need better citation, etc., before the material was added to the main article. Then I read the whole thing and noticed this fine piece of creative writing moved from history to POV to patent nonsense. I am tempted to blank it, but I'd like some opinions first. Thanks! Katr67 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blanking someones comments on talk generally only leads to escalation of conflict. Merely post a response saying that the above is nonsense, etc.  Why deliberately provoke someone ? Wjhonson 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing peeves a person like being ignored or discounted without explanation, which is what blanking amounts to. Of course, blanking of material designed to be inflammatory (calling someone a poopie-head, spouting pro-skinhead material, etc.) deserves to be blanked.Pete 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne


 * I just read it, and while some parts in the middle have a definate anti-environmental point of view, and some parts near the end desend into the relms of questionable notability, I don't think any of it is patent nonsense. I would not blank it.  I would, if I were you, leave a comment about the first part being good and needing better citation, and then point out any specific concerns you have about the rest.  Let them know that if good citation is provided and all the concerns are addressed this bit of history will be in the article.  Try to work with them. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a temporary content fork just to work on it a bit, it might be more productive for everyone if it was worked on in userspace, or at least not on the talk page (though a link to it could be left on the talk page so people are aware of it). If it's a permanent content fork (eg. they don't intend to follow our core policies and don't intend to ever integrate it back in), then that's discouraged, and speedy archiving might be appropriate. --Interiot 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, the bit about albino nutria saving the town of Scappose is nonsense. :) BTW, when searching on "albino nutria" I got a google hit on this talk page, so apparently this has come up before... Katr67 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Text of old Village Pump discussion is here. Katr67 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the part you were refering to as nonsense ;). I did a quick search for nutria and came up with this redirect Nutria, so it apparently is a real animal which, while native to South America, has been introduced into Oregon and is considered a pest there, so there is at least a tid-bit of truth to that part of it.  As for it saving the town from flooding... some people get some strange ideas into their heads.  The person doing the writing may actually believe this.  Insisting on a proper source should keep it out of the article as I doubt one can be found. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, nutria are indeed real. Albino nutria are indeed real, but sentient albino nutria that worked to save a small town in Oregon...that's a bit of a stretch. :D I don't think the editor in question acutally believes this. I think this is in the fine tradition of an Oregon tall tale and s/he is pulling our legs. Katr67 16:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, the material on the talk page was added by an anon. (Which isn't to say anons can't make valid contributions, just something to consider.) I chose to archive the silly thing. Thanks for the input and for being so trusting. :) Someone else put Talkheader on the page so that should take care of that. Katr67 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherry Grove, Oregon
Hi Doc Tropics, since you helped me work with the editor at Klamath Falls, Oregon, after my request at the Village Pump, I'm wondering if you could take a look at this talk page. This is the interaction that prompted my subsequent caution with K Falls. You're very good at being tactful, so if you have any suggestions on how that interaction could have gone better, I'd appreciate it. (I think that particular editor is gone, and that it's not entirely my fault, but I hate to see a potentially valuable editor storm off in a huff.) Thanks! Katr67 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks for the compliment. I reviewed the article's entire edit history step-by-step since it wasn't very long. Needless to say, your contributions were right on the mark; you're a good wikignome. The same goes for the Talkpage itself. In fact, your posts on the Talkpage were a near-perfect example of How Things Should Work. It's a shame the other editor didn't seem to understand the process (even after you explained), since he had done good work on the article. Hopefully he'll come back one day and make more contributions.
 * There is only one area where I might suggest a different approach, and this isn't based on policy or guidelines, just personal experience. When I notice a new page I take a look with only one immediate concern in mind: Is this a reasonable article, or does it need a Speedy Delete tag? (I end up tagging a number of articles every day for being self-promotional or spam entries). If it doesn't merit a Speedy, I'll put it on my Watchlist and give the original author a day or two to add to it and polish their entry. Then I revisit it with an eye towards further improvements and general wiki-gnoming. I understand your point about "encyclopedic entries", but I tend to think that an article like this wouldn't get too many hits the first 48 hours, so it's a minimal issue. An alternative for a brand new article might be to start the Talkpage with some suggestions rather than doing it yourself. There's always the urge to just jump right into the article and make it better, but newbies tend to be very sensitive about their work (as you noticed).
 * In short, you did everything right; the only difference I'd suggest is a bit more patience for new articles. I hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sanity check! I've definitely been more cautious since then. Most newbies are pretty grateful for my meddling, but it seems like once a month or so I get involved in a "situation" in my zealousness to spruce things up. I'll definitely be using your suggestions in the future. Katr67 19:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about embedded links
A city like Eugene, Oregon ends up with a million embedded links to various organizations. ([ishkabibble.com Like this]) I once attempted to encourage the writing of articles by removing the embedded links and making them into redlinks with references, (Like this [ishkabibble.com]) thinking that if an organization isn't notable enough to have an article, it probably shouldn't have a link either, and that I would eventually remove the redlinks. Others disagree. The article looks like a directory. Am I taking the concept too far? Does anybody have any suggestions? Katr67 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Difficult. My personal view is that being named in an article does not entitle you to a link to your website but there are lots of editors I have run into who disagree with this, notwithstanding policy. My own approach is to stick to the more blatant cases of which there are plenty. --BozMo talk 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Embedded titled links are not appropriate per Manual of Style (links). So I think replacing such inline external links with article redlinks is exactly what should be done. And if it's not worth getting tied up in a debate over this, the external links can be kept as a bracketed citation-style 'reference' (which they are not, they're still mere web directory links, not citations for the article content). Not at all too far if you ask me. If anybody has a problem even with this approach, well, they're wrong. :) Femto 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and the policy links. I think I'll refrain from correcting editors I work with regularly, (in the meantime being secretly smug about the fact that I was right all along) but if I see any blatant cases coming from newbies or anons, I'll take 'em on. Civilly of course. :) Katr67 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorthand
There's nothing wrong with redlinks per WP:REDLINK and Manual of Style (links)

Dates in articles about U.S. soldiers
Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere before. If so please direct me to the appropriate page. I see a lot of bios of members of the U.S. military where the dates are shown military (or European) style, that is: 11 November 1911. I think because this is an encyclopedia for general readership, the dates should be American style: November 11, 1911. Is this in your style guide? Katr67 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is, US military date style is day-month-year rather than conventional US month-day-year. The MilHist style guide may not mention this explicitly but the generic WP MOS does, here (see sub-heading Strong national ties to a topic). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that the military uses day-month-year, as indicated above. But Wikipedia is not the military, so what I was really asking is would it be OK to change the format to conventional U.S. style. Thanks for directing me to the quote, which is "In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." I'm still a bit stumped about bios of historic (vs. modern) figures, which is mostly what I'm working on, but I'll leave the dates alone and just make sure that they are consistent in each article. I've also seen quite a bit of Day Month comma Year, which I don't think is correct in anybody's book... Katr67 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, Day Month comma Year is definitely out. Personally it doesn't fuss me whether standard US or military US is used in a US military article, as long as it's consistent, plus I can't say I know when "modern" cuts in for the US military... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that articles on American topics should, in general, use American spelling, grammar, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The MOS says that you have to use military date style. Likewise military time is given in articles concerning these topics, so changing it would mean that you first have to make a proposal for changing the MOS. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think unless there's a pressing reason to change dates from their current format, there's little benefit in doing so. Either format should be easily-enough understood by our readers (the one I struggle with is the US MM-DD-YYYY format when I'm used to seeing DD-MM-YYYY). EyeSerene talk 09:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know when "modern" cuts in either, but I can tell you that this date format has been used by the US Army at least since the Great War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)