User talk:Spike-from-NH/Archive 1

Previous correspondence deleted

A welcome from barneca (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A welcome from SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An apology for an inadvertent, and undone, edit by DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous correspondence moved elsewhere

A conversation with LOL ^T/_C about the fact that template tables for minor-league teams generate red links, and a solution; moved to Template talk:Player2.
A related conversation with LightningMan (talk) on consistency in the game-by-game tables on the articles for teams in the Premier Basketball League; moved to Talk:Halifax Rainmen.

Defect in the USCensusPop macro

{{help}} The table of population by decade in the New Hampshire entry (Sec. 3, Demographics) is done by the {{USCensusPop}} macro. In two cases in that table (1880 and 1930), the percentage growth is a round number (9% and 5%). These should be 9.0% and 5.0%. They would line up better with the other percentages, and putting 9% in a table like this means to a scientist that you are only sure it's between 8.5% and 9.5%, which I'm sure is not the case. Thanks. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a way to change it from 9% to 9.0%. Try asking at the talk page for the template Template talk:USCensusPop. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS--I did so; there were no takers. But I just noticed the problem has been fixed. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Potentially removing the current season tables and replacing them with a link to CREZ

Again, the point is not to be a clearinghouse for stats; I agree that CREZ does that better. This is rather a quick look at the season provided without leaving Wikipedia or the article. You'll note that pages like 2008 Cleveland Indians season have tables just like the ones you and I have been maintaining, even though MLB stats are everywhere. I also haven't worried about modifying the season template since these tables will disappear once the season's over. I have left the Manchester page to you, figuring if anyone has a real beef with what you're doing, they'll tell you. I will also post this on your page, in case you don't see the answer here. Have a good one. LightningMan (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Millrats

I took upon myself the unhappy task of moving Manchester Millrats to Saint John Millrats and put in a paragraph about the move. Since you were clearly the most interested and active Wikipedian while they were in Manchester, I'd like you to go over the Manchester portions of the article and the move section and make sure they tell the full Manchester story. If you'd rather not given the circumstances, I understand that too. Sorry things broke this way. LightningMan (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(replied to on his talk page) Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged: Part I

A tip o' the hat for your improvements to Atlas Shrugged: Part I. regards, Rostz (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Digital

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Spike-from-NH, I hereby present you with this Barnstar in recognition of your elegant writing skills during the cleanup of the Secure Digital article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad all of us couldn't write like you, because wikipedia would be incredibly polished. I know that I'm not the best writer, but I try to make up with being as accurate as possible on wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move your discusion from my talk area, over to the article talk area? I was going to reply, but wondered if we should be discussing over there. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, move it there if you think it's appropriate. My note to you is because I can finish my work on Section 4 with "elegance" but not necessarily "accuracy," as I can't tell exactly which interfaces the paragraph on ganging chips together is referring to (though I have my doubts that anything in this section is necessary). You might be able to resolve this but it's okay to expose the dialogue to other editors. I bring no knowledge of SD to this work; as I mentioned on its talk page, I'm editing partly by way of repayment for finding out the cause of that chronic failure to read 2 GB cards. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in April 2011, I cleanup a section of this article to be more accurate, and it might be useful to you. Wikipedia:Database_download#Dealing_with_large_files • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photos to Wikimedia Commons

I noticed that you uploaded your photo to wikipedia, instead of wikimedia commons. I think the commons is the desired area, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I upload all mine to wikimedia commons. Here is one of my "ongoing" write ups to remind myself how to do it. User:Sbmeirow/HowToUploadPhotosToWikipedia • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd; the last time I did so, it went to Commons. (Was annoyed that I had to log in again!) This time, I just typed Special:Upload in my search bar, and it just went in, and I was able to reference it just fine. Evidently, though, it would not be usable if someone on a foreign wiki wanted to translate Secure Digital and use its pix. If you are able to easily move that photo to the Commons, you are welcome to do so. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever moved photos from wikipedia to wikimedia commons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in IBM 1130

Okay by me....I guess I didn't realize it was a war;-) but it sounds fine the way you got it, Peter Flass (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a war! but thanks. Now please apply your expertise to my question on the talk page! Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Spike-from-NH, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for improving the prose of so many articles, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that your edits to Secure Digital have really improved that article. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Period and comma outside quotes"

begun on his talk page

I have no problem with any of your edits yesterday to Magnetic-core memory. But on your change summary: While conventional English usage is that period and comma are inside quotes because they look better that way, Wikipedia policy is that period and comma are inside or outside quotes depending on whether there was a period or comma in the thing being quoted. Cheers. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know the rule. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government of New Hampshire

Well, I thank you for assuming good faith, but disapprove of being reverted. The year of adoption of New Hampshire's constitution is not notable; the fact that it has not been recodified every half-century, as is the case in many U.S. states, is the real reason for leading with this aspect of the state constitution. So I favor the word "still," though not enough to start an edit war. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a good point that needs to be in the article, that the constitution remains unchanged for x years, the longest (or whatever) for American states. Student7 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Futures Collegiate Baseball League

No problem, Spike. I happened to be checking NECBL/FCBL news just as that story came out today, so I figured I'd change the league article. Thanks for making the change on the pages I didn't get to, as well. Seven months 'til summer ball! Kithira (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Digital pinout

If you have a little bit of time, please see the following discusion. I'll investigate further tonight. Please leave comments in that talk section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Secure_Digital#Incorrect_SPI_Pinouts_for_microSD[reply]

Uncyclopedia conflict of interest

Hey, I noticed your recent edits regarding Uncyclopedia. Given the contentious nature of the our situation and your particular closeness to the topic, there is a clear conflict of interest here. Basically this applies:

People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

But while it is possible to edit such articles despite being so close to the topic, your recent edits to it have indeed indicated your bias, and such does not help Wikipedia's neutral point of view - the same reason that I and others have also refrained from editing it, and I would strongly advise you to do so as well.

A good way to avoid biased editing (and also folks questioning the changes later), however, even without stepping away entirely, would be to propose any wanted changes on the talkpage instead, and if there is consensus, bring in someone uninvolved in the topic to make those changes for you, rather like described in Wikipedia:Third opinion, though in this case it's not a dispute so much between editors as wikis. Alternately stepping away from the article entirely does work well - just take it off your watchlist and forget about it.

Thank you for your consideration. -— Isarra ༆ 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrithya, the edit of mine in question was to revert a global change by Anon that replaced links from the original database to your own private copy of it--You have talked to Anon about his own conflict of interests, haven't you? of course not--not insert my own opinion into the article. You are shifting the burden of proof, as L7H habitually does, something sneakier than openly presenting a disagreement for analysis. So the revert is controversial although the original edit supposedly isn't. And it must seem easier, and free of the usual level of intellectual rigor, to simply try to induce an adversary to go away.

By the way, I did bring the last two recent disagreements to the talk page, didn't I? Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing stick

Wow,

I'm a bit ticked that you didn't try to revise my edits on the trackpoint article. You just reverted them.

I made the article way way way better, and you replaced it with the BS wrong wording that was there before. I may have had some typos, but it is way more technically correct than what was there. What was written is just "The user may do this, and may do that"... When in reality, I had to return my Lenovo T430 because I couldn't do a very basic feature.

I pointed more problems with the damned device... and relabled the design challenge, (which was listed as problems, which at least to me means problems with the design, not challenges that are sometimes overcame and sometimes not)

Also, if you don't like the link to sofpoint, freaking remove that. It took me about an hour to locate the people who make the damn nubs.

So basically Please freaking work with me rather than piss on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.88 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: You have no user name, a robot had to sign your post to this page, and you seem to have prior issues with equipment vendors to boot. Citing "a certain a Toshiba Libretto mini laptop" [sic] is not encyclopedic. And your revised text is only "way way way better" in describing your personal experiences. It is way way way less English and it does not stick to the essentials.

The text "On a QWERTY keyboard, the stick is embedded" still does not need the word "typically." You may find sticks in places other than the keyboard, but on a QWERTY keyboard, the location documented is where you will always find it. There is nothing wrong with the heading "Problems," as problems are often solved; whereas "Design challenges" is a euphemism.

Finally, when addressing a disagreement, don't lead with a description of your anger, don't swear, don't refer to the prior text as BS, don't use the time you spent as an excuse, and don't dish a guilt trip for other Wikipedians to "work with you." Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Spike-from-NH (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First attempt to edit through a new ISP was blocked due to the /16 block on 68.247.*.*.

Accept reason:

IPBE granted. See below Elockid ^(Talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bought a MiFi hot spot and registered for a new service and my first attempt to edit Wikipedia (Fraser Field) was blocked. I presume that IP addresses are assigned dynamically and a previous user of this or a related address is responsible for the ban. I am not inconvenienced, as I have completed the desired edit and can do future editing for another month using my old ISP. Blocking 64K addresses based on misconduct by some user of the Internet-on-the-Go service sold at Walmart is likely to affect many editors who use this service but are not responsible for the misconduct. Are you able to restrict the block to users without a username? Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pretty annoying and prolific vandal on that range. The rangeblock is marked as a checkuser block so that indicates there were registered accounts involved as well. This seems like a good case for WP:IPBE. Let me consult with a checkuser to make sure I'm not missing anything. Kuru (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investigating on my behalf! I switched the MiFi hot spot off and back on and am now somewhere in 108.113.. and am able to edit mainspace. Don't know how frequently the problem will recur. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS--I have read WP:IPBE and have no problem with the preconditions. I don't think I have ever edited except through this username since registering it. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; thank you for your patience. I'd apply IPBE right now, but I'm a little out of date on the policy for it. If you didn't have the back-up connection, I'd just do it and beg forgiveness, but since you're comfortable I figured we could wait. The checkuser I contacted is professional and has experience in unblock requests. Kuru (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal regarding COI editing

I appreciate we have not been on the best of terms for quite some time now, despite what I had thought to be a rather amiable relationship prior to 2012, but I remember you as you were then. You were lovely.

In that vein, I would strongly urge you to rethink your approach to Uncyclopedia - to the article here, to the users elsewhere, and to the entire subject of the fork or move, whichever you prefer to call it.

Basically, please let it go. uncyclopedia.wikia.com is there, uncyclopedia.co is there, and they need not interact and indeed normally do not, to my knowledge. Wikipedia's article on uncyclopedia does not benefit from biased editing from either side, so please, let the sources speak for themselves, without influence. Wikipedians are good at sources and editors not connected to the topic will keep what is verifiable and kill what is not.

I bring this up in part because as it is, you appear to be fighting to keep several statements in the article that are not verifiable - even some statements that are provably false, including about what I and others have said and done, despite a lack of sources to back it up. But precisely because I am involved, because some of this is about me (and, for that matter, about you), I also cannot reasonably contest this without risking imparting the same level of bias, and have instead generally recused myself from the entire topic. So I ask you once more to consider your own involvement and do the same, without ill will - recuse from the topic here, and let it go in general.

I know we can't go back how things were, but we can do what's best for ourselves, and you were much happier without this, merely doing what you enjoy. Please go back to that, and be happy, wherever it happens to be. You do not need the stress nor the trouble associated with any of this, let alone with labelling templates and the potential bureaucracy of a larger scale nuetrality check.

-— Isarra ༆ 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this relates to my edit yesterday of Talk:Wikipedia, the subject at hand was the Russian Uncyclopedia, not the English. I replied to the comments of a user who had been banned, apparently for persistently trying to direct readers to a fork site. My comments there are useful since I am completely uninvolved, but knowledgeable of a comparable situation (ours) and of Wikia's policy.

Now, your message, beneath the I-used-to-like-you veneer (and yet another pseudonym), is basically a threat to subject me to stressful review, based on the falsehood that I am actively "fighting" over the contents of Uncyclopedia. The fight has died down, in favor of a presentation that everyone regards as neutral, unless you are in fact contemplating new fights to end the neutrality in your favor, and are here trying to preemptively discourage opposition. I am baffled about how the text references you personally. I am not buying your vow to recuse yourself too, as in previous rounds there was no shortage of Anons to do the controversial editing. If you call the cops, they will find it easy to compare my professionalism to your attempt to manipulate. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to your edits over the past several months. I am not threatening you, merely imploring you to cease your POV-pushing. As you are, from what I understand, a user directly involved in running and promoting the Wikia site, your involvement and is not in question, honest though your motives may well be.

Simply put, I have seen too many users already who have gone down this path and wound up on various sorts of dispute resolution, and even cases that have wound up on ANI and arbcom. It always begins the same, fighting to get an article to say what they want regardless of what other sources say, or if there are sources, and it never ends well. It's simply better to avoid entirely than to play out to the end, and for what little it is worth I do hope you will consider this. -— Isarra ༆ 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add, except that I think Lyrithya has a legitimate point here and that I was not 'persistently' directing users anywhere but had only made one edit before being indefinitely blocked. Whatever. Llwy-ar-lawr/Cathfolant (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HEY SPIKE!!!

GUESS WHOS HERE SPIKE!! IM HERE!! Be afraid. The Tamerial Horror (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing to Uncyclopedia

I see you have been warned twice by other users about WP:COI. You are an admin on Wikia's version of the English-language Uncyclopedia. You insist on repeatedly removing material information from Wikipedia's article about Uncyclopedia. I am taking the matter to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as you are in a very clear COI with this. K7L (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K7L (talk • contribs)

Notice of discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war on Talk:Uncyclopedia. Thank you. Cathfolant (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for correcting my first Wikipedia edit gently. :)

Rob Adler (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalism on Zimbabwe hyperinflation article.

Please stop deleting large amounts of content. Not everything in the opening paragraphs of the article is referenced with outside sources. Citations required requests could lead to the removal of these referenced content from the opening paragraphs. I was personally involved with hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. I know a lot about it from personal experience. I also know where to get all the exact references. I just do not have the time right now. But, I will supply all the sources.

Just remember, Not everything in the opening paragraph is referenced. Citation requests will lead to the legal removal of some of the content in those paragraphs. Outside wikipedia, it is normally better to be reasonable about things.2PensAndAPhone (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your large, uncited insertion of polemic was not vandalism. Your threats are offensive. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you: I pointed out Wikipedia Policy. If that is a threat to you, then all WP policies would be a threat to you. However, I can clearly see what kind of an editor you are. I will remove all my contributions from the Zimbabwe in Hyperinflation article and it can thus continue to contain the lies that are stated on there. That is what you want. Good luck! 2PensAndAPhone (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2PensAndAPhone (talk • contribs)

Decimal computers

As Jeh noted in a reply on my talk page, there were a number of decimal computers, complete with decimal addressing, up to the early and mid 1960's, such as the IBM 1400 series, the IBM 1620 and the Burroughs Medium Systems. The Honeywell 200 was sort-of-decimal, but addressing appears to have been binary, according to the manual. Once the System/360 came out, IBM went fully binary, albeit with some decimal-arithmetic instructions; most of the lines of decimal-only computers died out after that. Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WEZS logo (2014).gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WEZS logo (2014).gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memo. Salavat knew the magic words to save this illustration; one earlier logo used on the page was deleted. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

~~could you please point out where in the article it mentions the fork? I can't see it. Like bonjour, mon amore~ 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Scratch that; found it. Like bonjour, mon amore~ 00:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page says you were banned from Wikia. Including Uncyclopedia? I don't see it. Who were you? Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program counter vs. "next instruction" field

That's a Talk:Program counter#IBM 650-style "next instruction field" as a PC equivalent discussion topic; I'll discuss it further there, not on personal talk pages. Guy Harris (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Uncyclopedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shalir Salim (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you and you don't like me

But for now, let's put that aside. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Specifically I've taken Shalir Salim to AN\I. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification and have gone to that page to second you. We shall put those feelings aside (as we could have done even more easily if you didn't begin with it). Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Uncyclopedia. Shalir Salim (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate a four-day-old user giving me repeated warnings and threats, accusing me of doing exactly what he is doing, and removing my replies from his talk page. You have not studied the history of this article, you evidently either have not investigated the real-world situation or think you can override reality by continuing to deny it, and you do not know what you are doing. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Uncyclopedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shalir Salim (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spike-from-NH reported by User:Shalir Salim (Result: ). Thank you. Shalir Salim (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location of archives

Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Spike-from-NH!

Happy New Year!

Spike-from-NH,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DSA510 Pls No Bully 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Better late than never!

Fritter

I reverted your revert of my edit on this page. It's not referring to any kind of brand, nor is it referring to spam email. It's talking about the type of food, hence why it's linked to spam (food). Makes sense because the whole page is talking about food. All the best, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Flames

: Yes, I understand what you are talking about. But Spam the food is a brand name (whereas spam the email is not), so it should be capitalized. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: two boxes of cards

Unfortunately, no, I don't have a photo. It would need some idea of scale also. Anyone who worked withan1130 would know how big this was, but most people today would have no clue. Peter Flass (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cry of Dolores, Eve (disambiguation)

I know this is an very minor issue, but the disambiguation page for "eve" doesn't mention the definition of the word or how it relates to holidays, that's why I removed the wikilink. Also, WP:DISAMBIG recommends not linking to disambiguation pages, with few exceptions (like hatnotes or the "see also" section). If a non-native speaker is reading the English Wikipedia, they'd have to look up words they don't know anyways, they can't expect to get a link to a page that has a link to Wiktionary. --Surachit (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surachit: You're right, that disambiguation page is useless to that reader. A link to Wiktionary would be better. Spike-from-NH (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]