User talk:Spute/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Spute/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breast

Phroziac beat me to it in welcoming you. Concerning breast, I dispute the need for the link you keep on inserting. Not all information is also informative, and this page is rather biased towards one particular view. Please discuss on talk:Breast and hear what others have to say; also have a look at Wikipedia:External links concerning what links qualify for insertion in articles (yes, I know, this policy is widely violated). JFW | T@lk 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. Your edits to breast were actually very good. I must admit I had not heard of virginal breast hypertrophy. The question of external links is always difficult; some articles grow very long lists of external links which often have only marginal overlap with the actual article (the LLL link is a good case study). Ideally, Wikipedia should need external links only as direct references or occasionally as examples, not as "further reading".

Please hang around. Wikipedia is fun (and addictive). If you run into trouble, just drop a message on my talk page. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vbh

Actually, the main reason I nominated 'Vbh' for deletion was because I was thinking the TLA disambiguation page should really be 'VBH' (all caps) instead. For now, feel free to make it a redirect, and if someone else has a VBH they want to add, they can separate it out into a new page later. :) --Alan Au 20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Love (band)

The last sentence in the two sentence stub looked like nonsense (albums love and glitter hot days and muzik). Please write a paragraph, or at least keep the sentences clear, as the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. Feel free to rewrite it, but try and make it a little cleare that this is an encyclopedic article. All the best. --Scimitar ^parley 15:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I wouldn't speedy the new stub either- it's clear what it's talking about. Have fun editing.--Scimitar ^parley 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Would you please see my remarks at Talk:The Mountain? And I suspect you may not have seen (or may not have read through) Wikipedia:Disambiguation; if you are going to move things around and make disambiguation pages, it really is a must-read. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Passat spec

On Passat, do we really need the full spec of one specific 4-year old car owned by some guy called Ralph (who's admittedly clearly very proud of his car)? Will links to the current spec not suffice? I really think it'd be ludicrous for Wikipedia to have such detailed spec for each and every Passat model ever produced, and there's no encylopedic reason to single out the 2001 Passat GLS V6 Sedan (North America), is there? Spute 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no reason to single out that one model. I'd prefer to expand it to all models, perhaps as a table. Why would it be ludicrous? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose i said it'd be ludicrious because it just seems a bit over the top to have details for each and every model, particularly if it's listed in such a long winded way. No other car page i've seen has such detilaed specification, and i was considering the article's need to be accessible to a general reader - someone who wants to know the turning circle or compression ratio of a specific could look it up at a specialist site. On reflection though, I would support the introduction of a concise, well formatted table. Spute 14:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VW Polo

I noticed you copied information from this page without editing it - thus making it a copyright violation. I should also warn you that text has a few mistakes. The 1043cc engine was never available in the MkI, and only debuted with the MkII. I'd also like to ask you to avoid using a country bias toward market specificity, unless the country in question is the same as the car's home country. There are a lot of mentions about prices in pounds, and I'd rather they were in deutsche marks wherever a possible - if not possible, no price should be mentioned (and that tends to change several times in the same year anyway). And MPH should be converted do Km/h, with this one being the primary unit, as the car is German. --Pc13 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually most of my recent edits were taken from the ones added by User: 81.179.241.125 the other day, as mentioned on Talk:Volkswagen_Polo, which was copied and pasted (from Club Polo UK Website) over the top of the whole VW Polo article. On checking, i see that this (which is stated as a source on the article page already) is the same as the text from the page you mentioned - i don't know which is the original. It certainly wasn't my intention to make a copyright violation. I know, it's full of mistakes, unencyclopedic in style and i don't like the UK pricing either. I think it has useful info, so stuck it up there, with a quick read through. There's still bits i don't like, and i'm trying to tidy it up, hence my recent edits, but would appreciate any help. Agree with you about mph too. Spute 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Hi Spute. I began trying to police this ?#!@, but gave up because it’s aggravating and time consuming, especially for someone still figuring out Wikipedia. But here’s what I got. I suspect these are all the same person, and there’s possibly more: User talk:Theradioguy, User talk:88.108.57.57, User talk:88.110.161.3, User talk:88.109.218.223, User talk:88.108.58.129, User talk:74.231.219.98, User talk:88.108.49.184, User talk:88.108.51.238, User talk:88.111.14.2, User talk:88.108.59.49, User talk:88.108.52.34, User talk:88.108.51.191, User talk:88.108.63.44, User talk:88.108.63.88

The following are most of the pages that are vandalized is the same way, i.e., adding in bizarre/inappropriate gender references. Most are fairly trivial articles, i.e., recent fashion trends, but some are big and sensitive topics, like rape. In the past, comments people made on talk pages were erased, which is a big faux pas on Wiki. Boyfriend, Hoodie, Brassiere, Violence against women, Breast cancer, Sagging (fashion), Phat pants, Rape, Rape culture, History of rape, Types of rape, Low-rise jeans, Pageboy, Bridesmaid.

General vandalism information is here. As I understand it, vandals are to get warnings on their talk pages, 3 or so, from this selection of templates. When that’s been done, the next step is to report the user here, and I guess some admin checks the user out to see if they should be blocked. This particular case is a little more complicated because I think it’s a sock puppet, i.e., using more than one identity to create illusion of support or to evade final warnings and the like. In that case, they can be reported here, but I think you’re supposed to monitor the suspect first to make sure it’s recent violations and so on. I’ve been spending way too much time on Wiki lately, so I’m not prepared to try monitoring this stuff myself, at least for now, but hopefully these resources will be useful. Bobanny 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Mandy from Atlanta, Georgina it was my son who was resposive for the recent activities with regards to the IP vandalisation (he is currently being treated for schizophrenia and is currently under treatment). The vandalism will no longer continue as I have removed his computer for the foresable future. Thankyou for your understanding. If you can removed the IP and name log from your front page I would be appreciative. User:Mandy34535 13th October 2006.

Me again. I did an IP search and IP addresses 88.108.0.0 to 88.111.255.255 are registered to Tiscali UK Ltd in London, so if Mandy from Atlanta is legit, most of this aint from her kid. Theradioguy's IP seems to be 88.110.40.188, according to the entries on his user page.Bobanny 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no more vandalism will occur OK, I am not well and have learnt my lesson? Mandy

Hi Mandy. It seems most of the vandalism is coming from the UK. I assume you are IP 74.231.219.98, but there's no reason to erase that from this page. Thanks for your cooperation, and thanks Spute for letting us use your talk page as a message board.Bobanny 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move on now and I do appologise for the inconvenience - friends? Mandy

FYI: This same 88.108... person who keeps trying to change breasts to "breast area" etc. is doing the same on the en Wiktionary; we've reverted changes 5 or 6 times over the last few days. wikt:User talk:Robert Ullmann Robert Ullmann 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more for your collection here. User talk:Theradioguy, aka User talk:88.108.49.184, aka User talk:88.108.52.34, has now opened up User talk:Michael Adams for the purpose of vandalizing the Spaghetti strap article. I'm hoping somebody has more energy than I do to keep up with this guy. Louche 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breasts

I've left a message for you on the relevant discussion page.

--Amandajm 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

308

Hello!
Its being a well-known fact, that when people talk about just "the year", they usually mean the year AD is one argument. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't say AD on any other year article, but the reason for this, I don't know. I tried to add it in the template Otheruses-number, så that it would say This article is about the year XXXX AD. For other uses, see XXXX (number). However, this was very soon reverted by people who, for some unknown reason, didn't like it. So, if I wouldn't remove the AD notion, somebody else would. I'm not doing it out of spite (I also think it should be there) but many people seem to disagree. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]