User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 02
This is an archive of past discussions about User:SpikeToronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: |
January 2009
TfD nomination of Template:User Fox News Sucks
Template:User Fox News Sucks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. B (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your tireless edits on Ashley West Ben Credland (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
The Ashley West article has been deleted as per the deletion discussion. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
Welcome Back
I know you don't like the "you have new messages" banner. (And neither do I.) I just wanted to let you know that I'm glad you're back. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just didn’t like the “you have new messages banner” a year ago since it meant more drivel from that fellow who could not comprehend the phrase, “apprehension of bias.” Even in general, it can give one a real knot in one’s stomach: Is it a diatribe? Have I stepped in it? But, when it means I have a new message from someone as amiable as JackLumber, that’s a different story! SpikeToronto (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ashley West: Hunting Prize (Not Winner)
What I meant by failed verification was that the document does not mention Ashley West but is placed as a reference for him exhibiting. TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I realized afterward that that is probably what you had meant. Would you mind checking out the new section I added to the discussion page on the Hunting Prize? Perhaps you might have a better suggestion. Thanks! As for writing an article myself on the award, I would have little expertise to offer in such an endeavor. SpikeToronto (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ashley West article has been deleted as per the deletion discussion. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The stuff I had left in HTML quotes was also placed on the talk page, but it was meant to keep edits like this which, in addition to regular editing guidelines, have very real WP:BLP implications. I won't be around tomorrow but the article may need to be semi-protected if things escalate further. Recognizance (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry ’bout that. Now I understand why you put it there. Perhaps you should put it back in. That way, as you point out, before anyone makes a similar edit they would see the HTML-only “warning” (as it were) before they continue. It might give them pause. Perhaps you should keep an eye on the Annie Duke page: It might be used as another way to malign Rivers. SpikeToronto (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done I put your invisible quote back. See here. SpikeToronto (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. It is nice to know some people notice us Gnomes
It's a silly story:- I found that I had mis-spelt retrieved, "ei", three times in an article I had written (One initial mistake, copied & pasted)
As a pedant, I was embarrassed, and set myself a "penance" (nothing like a bit of masochism) of correcting the "ei" versions in Wikipedia articles (Talk & User pages would take forever)
I only intended to do the 100 there were at the time, but I have now adopted "retreived"
Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
May/June 2009
Hi. I deleted the general Bakeries category in favour of the country cat, Category:Bakeries of the United Kingdom. However, I don't know that it can't appear in both: guidelines on this tend to vary from category to category, I've found . If you feel strongly about it, please do restore the main category. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I think you are correct and I will leave the categories as they are. To be honest, I had never added categories to an article before. Thus, I am grateful for the opportunity your correction and explanation afford me to learn to better categorize the articles. Thanks!! I apologize for taking so long to respond… SpikeToronto (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
Changed your user rights, you now have rollback. Use with caution. Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Use with caution?! More like use with fear! I’m sure the first time I use it, I’ll make a huge mistake. So, I intend to spend some time practising! Thank you for having the faith in me to entrust me with this tool. It is very much appreciated! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- With this edit, I did my first rollback to two edits by a single IP editor. All done with one rollback. Thanks for the privilege! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
August/September 2009
Anon-IP Talk Pages
Anon-IP Talk Pages
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Not that I agree with the current WP:BLANKING guideline, but even anons are allowed to blank their talkpage warnings. DMacks (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion regarding this, you can find it here. Oh and I replied to your message on my talk page too btw :) -- Ϫ 05:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
September 2009
350 (organisation)
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The text on 350.org that supposedly shows James Hansen as an "associate" [1] is stolen directly from this article. Hansen has not supported this organization and is in no way an "associate". It's just another non-notable organization trying to boost their credibility. (The same probably goes for the rest of the "associates" too.) -Atmoz (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion. I’ve learned a lot, especially re: WP:ORG! I like your merger proposal and think that adding 350.org as a section under the article on its founder, and redirecting the current 350.org link to that section of the founder’s article, is a good idea. As for my user name, years ago a friend of mine was trying to get me to sign up to some site that he liked and when it asked me to come up with a userid, I was stumped. He suggested Spike since I had spikey hair at the time. I’ve been using it ever since. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%. The day is not notable in of itself since it only exists because of the organization! Which we agree is not notable enough to stand on its own. Question: What do you think would happen if you were to go ahead and do the merge setting up a redirect with, perhaps, {{R to section}}? Why not be, as you say, BOLD? Feel like I’m egging you on?! :) — Spike (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Mr Zaius: I just had a very quick look at the article. And, if it keeps improving, the notability template may eventually come off, assuming the references are independent and about the organization and are neither self-published nor primarily about its founder. Remember: a notability template is not the same as a discussion for deletion. No one is suggesting deleting the article. Also, the editor who added all the new references should try and make them more complete. Here is an example, from another article, of a web-published article and how it should appear in the footnote:
Alternatively, it can be entered like this:
Both of these are the full citation method required at Wikipedia and stated at WP:CITE. By entering the citation fully, if the link ever goes dead, you still have a fully-cited source supporting the statement(s) in the article text. If instead, all there is a url, or an incomplete citation, then the footnote will be deleted and replaced with a {{Fact}} tag, which could ultimately result in the deletion of the statement(s) in the article text if a new verifiable reference/citation cannot be found to take over supporting the statement(s). However, if the citation is fully entered, as shown above, then it remains and the statement(s) it supports remain. It would thus be no different than citing an out-of-print book, a perfectly acceptable practice. — Spike (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Dr. Stephen J. Press
Dr. Stephen J. Press
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Since you have weighed in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Stephen J. Press, and expressed your concerns about his related articles, why not express your concerns on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iaoco and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Federation of Sports Chiropractic as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
Why did these require a deletion discussion? Was there no speedy delete criterion that could have applied? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Thanks for letting me know about this. It looks like this user is legitimate, and primarily edits computer game articles, a genre in which I am unlikely to ever develop an interest. I am glad to be made aware of the potential for confusion, though. Thanks. Regards, the original Ground Zero | t 08:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. So, I've recently discovered WP:TW ... it looks cool, do you use it? <tommy> (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You may remember that when you asked me about rollback awhile ago I mentioned then that you could get virtually the same features through Twinkle and Huggle. I interpret Twinkle at Browser support to be saying it doesn’t work with IE. I’d like to try it if it did. Btw, what’s XD as in “XD its so cool?” Ciao for now! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, Tom, having tested them both, do you prefer Twinkle or Friendly? Also, have you tried Huggle yet? I’m kind of counting on you for a recommendation … — Spike (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried WP:AWB yet? — Spike (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I’m so dumb. I installed TW and cannot figure out how to use it! :) — Spike (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Background Colors & Signature Design
Background Colors & Signature Design
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Is there a way to change the background color? Also do u know how u can change the signature font? Thanks! <tommy> (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I’ll answer in order.
Good luck with your search for a background color answer and creating a new signature for yourself! Say, maybe you can create one for me, because I am about as creative as a rock. <sigh> — Spike (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
tommy talk 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Spike (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you like this sig? tommytalk 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
You can have as many accounts as you want, so long as you don't use them for duplicitous purposes, such as multiple !votes on RfAs, AfDs, etc., for nominating your other account for amdinship, for supporting each other in discussions, etc. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn’t realize that! Question: Does that mean that more than one registered account can emanate from one IP? The reason I ask is that I was afraid that if I and my spousal unit both edited from home using registered accounts, the fact that edits are coming from the same IP would trigger a sock puppet investigation. Our IP address is neither static nor dynamic: It’s what I call “semi-static,” or “semi-dynamic,” in that the ISP gives us an IP address for several weeks/months and then one day it changes to a new one for several weeks/months. So, bottom line: Question: Does that mean that both he and I can edit from whatever our current IP address is without fear of accusations of sock puppetry? Thanks! (P.S. I’m really sorry to drag this out for you with so many questions.) — Spike (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, that's correct. You might want to ask on the Village Pump for verification. And no problem with the questions. :) 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! — Spike (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted some vandalism here, although I'm frankly a bit surprised that it took an internet search to determine that the edit was in fact vandalism! Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 22:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- <laughing> Well, I was pretty certain that it was vandalism, since that particular anon had been vandalizing wikiarticles all day. But, I wanted to make certain, and since the only Google hit that came up was the wikiarticle in question, I figured that was confirmation enough for me! Plus, there is an active ANI right now on a fellow who allegedly has not been using Huggle correctly, so I am making sure to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s these days wherever there may be doubt. Thanks for noticing! I’ve been doing a lot of RCP these days. It’s gratifying to have it appreciated. Thanks again! — Spike (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, SpikeToronto. I put the Tfd-tiny link back into {{Reference necessary}}. It is there notify readers that this template is being considered for deletion, in case they want to participate in the discussion. It shouldn't be removed until the deletion discussion is closed. Normally these are for seven days, so it should be over in a day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I started a thread on this over on your page at the same time as you were starting this one! Until it gets archived, it can be found here. — Spike (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Funny. I just figured you were responding to me there instead of here. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I like to keep an entire thread together. I didn’t even know this was here until a few hours after we had been corresponding over there! :) — Spike (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Ummah is an Arabic word. Its neutral when it was created. Wikipedia is wikipedia not an urban dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 (talk • contribs)
- I appreciate your interest in the topic. And, your knowledge is no doubt greater than my own. The reversions were because of the removal of maintenance templates ({{Merge}} and {{Unreferenced}}) without explanation. Removal of maintenance templates without prior resolution/consensus/explanation is a violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do notice that the article now has references and so have removed the {{Unreferenced}} template, with an edit summary explaining why this was done, as per guidelines.
- The other edits appeared to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policies/guidelines. Such edits should be discussed on the article’s talk page beforehand.
- You may wish to acquaint yourself with How to edit a page. It is very useful for learning how things are done at Wikipedia so that your edits are not reverted and warnings are not placed on your talk page.
- Thanks, happy editing, and don’t forget to register! — Spike (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
IP vandal 66.204.28.201
Original Query:
Hi Intelligentsium! I noticed that Huggle added several warnings to the talk page of 66.204.28.201. The last one put that anon at Level 4. Unfortunately, HG doesn’t report the little vandals. When you see HG applying a Level 4 warning, you might want to go and file a report at WP:AIV. It only takes a minutes or so and it gets the miscreants blocked for a time. I took the liberty of reporting this particular offender to WP:AIV. Thanks! It warms my heart to see yet another toiler in the fields of RCP! — Spike (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Response:
I noticed you posted a note at my talk page. I agree that this user should have been reported, but unfortunately, some kind of error caused Huggle not to recognize the previous Twinkle-issued warnings; otherwise, the user would have been reported long ago. I had to log off for a brief period after issuing the level-4, and so did not report this user manually; I agree, however, that I should have checked the vandal's talk page for this sort of error. Thank you for your comments. Intelligentsium 00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Update:
I learned a fews days after the above interaction that HG does indeed report vandals to WP:AIV when the Level of their vandalism warnings warrants it. — SpikeToronto 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Your AIV Report
Original Query:
Hi Mr. Challenger! Twice I reported 170.185.169.19 at WP:AIV only to have no action taken, yet no explanation provided. I went through all of the versions of the AIV page from my second report to the deletion of the report, and there was never one of those little explanations as to why a block was not going to be placed. I realize that the IP address is for an educational institution, but I understand that in those circumstances a {{schoolblock}} is usually applied. I realize that I am new to AIV, but I try not to file a report until the offender hits Level 4 or Level 4im. Did I do something wrong with this one? Thanks! … — SpikeToronto (talk) 4:12 am, Today (UTC−4)
Response:
Hi Spike,
That IP had not been active for nearly a day, and had been warned after it's last edit. I think that this IP will probably end up with a long block at some point, but it is better to wait until it vandalizes one more time, and then it should not be warned again. However, since this is the weekend, it probably won't happen for a couple days, and IPs can't stay on AIV for that long. We should certainly both watch that IP though. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation! I’ve become addicted to RCP, so am learing new rules, guidelines, and nuances everyday. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Signature
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I like your signature :P It's SchEEk! tommy talk 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is the one in the color (DodgerBlue) that you liked: Now, which do you prefer? #1? #2? #3? #4? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Original Query:
Hi Jusdafax! While Huggling, I noticed that you were trying to fix some vandalism at UFC 108. However, in those instances, by just using Rollback, it wasn’t catching all the vandalism. It was reverting one instance of vandalism while putting back other instances of vandalism. If you scroll through the diffs on the page history you’ll see what I mean. In those instances, it is sometimes best to find the last clean version of the article and use Popups to revert to that version, which can be done regardless of the number of intervening editors. As regards UFC 108, an anonymous editor has fixed it for us. … — SpikeToronto 05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks for the advice. As you may have noticed, this is my first major use of Huggle, and this case was indeed good for my learning curve. Thanks again! Jusdafax 05:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
I'm minded to block, but am not sure of the Wikiquette as no vandalism has occurred after final warning. Raised at WP:AN and awaiting guidance from more experienced admins. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with this particular anon is that he spaces his vandalism edits out so that he avoids blocks. But, if you go through his contribs for the last few months, he never edits in good faith and almost always vandalizes. Were he a registered user, I don’t imagine that there would be any hesitation to block him after four vandalism edits in one night, especially given his history. Why extend a greater courtesy to an anon? Why not put on one of those blocks that permits account creation only, and blocks anonymous editing, like how a {{schoolblock}} works? By the way, thanks for the update! — SpikeToronto 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm only in my first week of adminship so am going easy with the tools at first. Think of it as learning how Wikipedia works all over again. Yes, I could steam in and block anyway, then discuss it but I'd prefer to take some advice first, bearing in mind that the 4im means that one more vandalistic edit will bring a block with it. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per discussion at AN, I've blocked the IP for a week. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
While I would have preferred an indefinite softblock, whereby the anon could freely edit so long as he registered, I am nonetheless glad to hear that a block was given, however brief. I am afraid generally that we are carving out special treatment for anons who vandalize. Here’s what I mean: If a registered editor did what this fellow does — only use his account for vandalism — the account would be indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. If he subsequently edited from the same IP or created another account, he would again be blocked for sock puppetting and/or trying to evade the original block. The effect is virtually a permanent block. Yet, for the anon editor, he gets to come back in a week even though his edit history shows the same behavior of only using his access for vandalism. Why do we accord anonymous editors such kid-glove treatment? Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to have all the answers, I’m just thinking aloud … Thanks again! I really appreciate the update! It is extremely thorough. You are to be commended! — SpikeToronto 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult with IPs. Blocking an IP can affect people other than the actual vandal. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Rollbackers: Old & New
Rollbackers: Old & New
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm the newest rollbacker!!! XD aren't u proud! High 5! ... PS when are you going to RfA?? I know you'd be a great admin! tommy talk 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Rollback: Congrats! Just remember it is a powerful tool that can get its users into a lot of trouble. This is especially so if you use it in conjunction with Huggle. There was an ANI recently where a rollbacker was being raked over the coals for reverting every problem edit as vandalism when not all of them were such. For instance, he would revert some edits where the edit was such that the only problem was that a verifiable reference/citation was required. In those particular instances, unless there are WP:BLP issues, the appropriate thing to do is simply place a {{Citation needed}} template at the end of the edit. It is not appropriate to revert. The lesson for him was to choose his revert reason with care. Also, when you’re Huggling, or Twinkling, usually only one diff at a time is shown. The editor whose diff you’re looking at may have done more than just what you’re seeing and if you do not call up the page edit history and manually look at the edits, you may revert too much, or revert the wrong thing. Sometimes, in such cases, you may have to manually undo the edits. Or, if you’ve stumbled upon an edit war, and the history is a mess, others have shown me that it is often best to use WP:Popups to revert to the last clean version, and not rollback. Always remember to check the bits/bytes count to make sure after you revert that the total is what you want it to be. See below how, after TideRolls’ revert, the total is 10,747 which is exactly what he wanted it to be. (Mind you, this revert was quite routine and straight forward.)
Finally, remember what I told you earlier about warning Levels for anonymous editors. Huggle and, I assume, Twinkle, automatically apply the rules to correctly set the warning Level. But, if you’re working manually, you have to start warnings at Level 1. You can only start at a higher Level if you’re escalating from a previous warning, and that warning is “fresh.” If the last warning was more than two or three days ago, you have to start back at Level 1. This is because the anon editor who had the IP address last week may not be the same editor that the ISP has assigned the IP address to this week, if the ISP uses dynamic IP address allocations. Incorrect escalation of warning Levels is a problem because, when an anon editor’s warning Levels reach Level 4 or 4im, you are supposed to go to AIV and file a report so that the editor can be blocked. The blocking admins are very thorough. If the warnings Levels were not escalated properly, not only will the editor not get blocked, you will get chastised. Plus, all the various systems that automatically apply warnings after you will set the wrong Level basing it off of your Level. So choose wisely! :) RfA: Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don’t see that happening soon, if ever. I think this for three reasons:
Congrats, good luck, happy hunting, and have fun! — SpikeToronto 05:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) thank you! Really helpful! And I think you'd be a great admin! tommy talk 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
who are you and how do i see your message and use this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.159.126 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Messages were left for you on the talk page for your IP, which you can find be clicking here. — SpikeToronto 01:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I edited the last paragraph in the Jim Jones introduction because it was poorly written. You are a petty, ignorant and illiterate moron who contributes to the inability of this country to read and write by wielding your special "reverting" power in the amorphous internet field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.221.207 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have come to the wrong user talk page, my friend. I reverted an edit of yours that was much deeper down in the article, and that had deleted material that was accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation. Your deletion of this material was done without explanation or discussion on the article’s talk page. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.
- Another editor reverted your work to the introduction, not I. In fact, all I did to your edit in the introduction was add a missing word, to, and a maintenance template. The editor that you want to talk to is Wildhartlivie. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
loser
get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.221.207 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I told you before:
You have come to the wrong user talk page, my friend. I reverted an edit of yours that was much deeper down in the article, and that had deleted material that was accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation. Your deletion of this material was done without explanation or discussion on the article’s talk page. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Another editor reverted your work to the introduction, not I. In fact, all I did to your edit in the introduction was add a missing word, to, and a maintenance template.
- Again, the edit revert that you are complaining about was done by another recent changes patroller. Nonetheless, I have placed a {{uw-npa4}} on your (anonymous) talk page. This is subsequent to the {{uw-npa3}} warning you have already received. As I told you elsewhere,
You can correct anything you want so long as you follow the rules. Namely, anything you add has to have a verifiable reference/citation. And, you cannot delete anything that does have a verifiable reference/citation without explaining it either in the edit summary or on the article’s talk page. Finally, if your edits get reverted, first check the edit history to find out why. If that doesn’t answer your question, then contact the editor who reverted you, and civilly ask him/her why.
- I trust that this puts an end to the matter. Welcome to Wikipedia, happy editing, and don’t forget to register! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim Jones & Your signature
Jim Jones & Your signature
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Original Query: I don't know if you realized it, but your signature isn't legible for a lot of persons with some types of vision deficits. For instance, I can only see a one colored blob with yours. You might want to look at WP:Accessibility and Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles for some tips on that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Hi Wildhartlivie! Is this signature easier to read? What do you think? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Chris Webber: Not constructive?
no peacock terms are allowed on wp, also, the additions i made are in context and fully appropriate for the article. please take to talk, do not revert. Deucecrewforu (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You keep adding the phrase, “in one of the NBA's most boring cities,” which violates WP:NPOV. Also, you keep removing material which is accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, another unacceptable practice. Such removals require, at the very least, an explanation in your edit summary or a discussion in the article’s talk page. Finally, your explanation re: Peacock terms does not seem to jibe with WP:PEACOCK, and one cannot see any peacock terms that you are removing. — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
FAR on Hungarian Revolution of 1956
I want to make you aware that comments are being solicited on User:Fifelfoo's request to "delist" this article from FA status (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1).
I have read your comments recently in the discussion on ANI/I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo), regarding his use of personal criteria in editing.
I think your comments are quite relevant here also. Regards Ryanjo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Ryanjo for notifying me of this. I do not feel qualified to comment on this FAR review. I have read it, however, and concur almost completely with Elen of Roads’ comments. Also, I find User:Fifelfoo’s manner and doublespeak to have such a chilling effect on participation, that I would prefer to say well out of it. Thank you again, however. — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand entirely. Your earlier comments on the ANI/I page are actually quite a helpful guide in dealing with User:Fifelfoo. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Byron York & WP:NPOV
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Response: Spike, I'm not going to violate 3RR, but there does seem to be a concerted effort by those of a left-leaning bent to insert their political views, and disparage those whose views they disagree with. Levin's methods of imploring people to vandalize WP is not a good thing, but he does have apoint in complaining about the one-sidedness of many articles about conservatives, and the seemingly never-ending effort by opponents to "tag" those articles with any excuse they can to link to liberal blogs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If one has Rollback rights, Huggle works really well. I find that TW has this weird habit of issuing a Level 1 warning to someone who is already at Level 3, say. That is, sometimes, it goes down rather than escalating as it should. Regarding Byron York, here’s where I plead my ignorance and say I don’t even know who he is. But, if he’s on the right, as your above post seems to suggest, then wouldn’t the stuff added by the anon editor have been good since it said that Obama’s ratings are not as high as they appear? As for KY, since I buried my Dad in Richmond in 1997, I have only gone back once. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You know, I have been thinking about this some more. As I understand WP:NPOV, it is the wikiarticle in its totality that is supposed to be neutral. Thus, if the wikiarticle were about a movie, it should present both cited reviews that were favorable, and cited reviews that were negative. Similarly, if the wikiarticle is about a political figure (e.g., politician, pundit, etc.), NPOV would suggest that, in its totality, the wikiarticle be neutral. Thus, it should include viewpoints, vis-à-vis the wikiarticle’s subject, that are representative of both the political left and the political right. Consequently, the position on the political spectrum of the wikieditor contributing to the wikiarticle is irrelevant so long as the net result to the wikiarticle is that it remains politically balanced. To suggest otherwise is to say that NPOV permits only persons of the right to contribute to an article on George W. Bush, and only persons of the left to contribute to an article on Barack Obama. That is not what WP:NPOV is about. In fact, as a leftist who believes in balance and neutrality in wikiarticles, it is incumbent upon me, if I am a wikieditor of the Obama article, to add the positions and viewpoints of writers from the right, if the article is to achieve NPOV balance. Therefore, a wikieditor that deletes referenced/cited material from the left added to an article about a person from the right merely because it is leftist, would be in violation of WP:NPOV. This is what I meant at the start of this conversation when I said that the person making the deletions could be the one violating WP:NPOV, and may end up being the one who has to prove his innocence at WP:ANI court. Moreover, depending on the frequency of his reverts, he could be in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:OWN. — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
User 99.152.115.143: To Revert or to Flag?
User 99.152.115.143: To Revert or to Flag?
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Original Posting:
Reply: Hey, could you please check the warning you just issued? I had removed what is considered to be promotional content, which is allowed. Thank you. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that you could just change the phrase “high-performance.” I was merely pointing out to you that for non-egregious edits, and non-BLP libel edits, to rely more on maintenance templates instead of outright deletions. In this particular case there is nothing wrong with changing it, as you suggest. But, it is possible that the editors of that wikistub might have a verifiable reference/citation to back up “high-performance”. Thus, by using an inline template like {{Peacock term}} or {{Whom}} you draw their attention to it and give them an opportunity to back it up. Or, one could take the attitude that it is their responsbility to keep their favorite articles watchlisted, review the change in the history — hopefully you will use a detailed edit summary (you can get a longer edit summary line if you edit with a registered user account) — and put back in the phrase, “higher-performance,” when they can support it with a cite/ref. But, those inline templates exist for a reason. Other recent changes patrollers Huggling through recent changes might not be so generous with these deletions you and I are discussing and might have hit you with a deletion template for each questionable deletion, escalating you from {{Uw-delete1}} up to {{Uw-delete4im}} and then file with WP:AIV, all of which Huggle (HG) does automatically. In my case, I have dealt with all of your deletions manually to prevent HG from warning you and filing with WP:AIV since we are discussing the matter. For instance, with this edit, I just put the text back in and added {{Unreferenced section}} to the section in which it was included, since again it did not cry out for deletion, and merely requires citations. Just be careful 99.152.115.143, if this were at a time of day when tons of recent changes patrollers are Huggling, a lot of these edits would not have been so kindly dealt with. All of yours seem to keep coming up on my HG screen and I am only reverting the ones that could be fixed with a ref/cite. I am leaving the others alone and dealing with them manually to prevent HG from templating you. Some of your edits are okay, like one in which you deleted the list of courses for a law school, for the reason given in your edit summary. But, others are questionable since they can be fixed with a citation. Simple rule of thumb: If it can be fixed with a citation, add the appropriate inline template found at either {{Fact}} or {{Peacock term}}. Do not outright delete and accrue warning templates to yourself. These inline templates exist for a reason. Now, if I don’t go to bed, I am going to be served with divorce papers in the morning! Thanks, happy editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Archiving: Thanks!
Original Post:
Hey Tommy! As requested, I set up automatic archiving for you. It is set to archive any discussion thread over 45 days old. If you find you want this shorter, just reduce the number. Usually, article talk pages are 45 days, while user talk pages, especially busy ones belonging to Administrators, can be as little as 5 days.
You will notice that as at 11:15PM EDT, the archive box towards the top of the page, below the table of contents, contains no archives. It will not contain any until the archiving bot comes through and creates it first archive. Let’s keep our fingers crossed because I’ve never done this before! I always archive my own talk page manually. — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
For the archiving! :D. PS Nice userpage! Tommy talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don’t thank me yet. It has not worked so far! The parameters are set so that only threads over 45 days (a month and a half) are archived, and only so long as no less than 4 threads are left behind. So, at least the first thread should have archived by now. But, I may have had one variable set wrong, which I just changed. TTFN — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve been re-reading the MiszaBot documentation and the reason that nothing has happened so far on your talk page is that you have only one thread that is older than 45 days. The bot will not archive unless there are two or more threads to archive. So, unless we lower the parameter to 30 days or less, nothing’s going to happen for awhile. You know, the archives are accessible directly from your talk page, so you don’t need that parameter set so high. They don’t go away to some basement somewhere. They just become subpages of your main, current talk page. (Btw, that extra whitespace I had put after the {{archives}} template, and before the first heading, Homosexuality, was so that the archive box would not be jammed into the first topic, but rather would sit above it.)
Anyway, that’s my update! Any change in your instructions, oh master? — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve been re-reading the MiszaBot documentation and the reason that nothing has happened so far on your talk page is that you have only one thread that is older than 45 days. The bot will not archive unless there are two or more threads to archive. So, unless we lower the parameter to 30 days or less, nothing’s going to happen for awhile. You know, the archives are accessible directly from your talk page, so you don’t need that parameter set so high. They don’t go away to some basement somewhere. They just become subpages of your main, current talk page. (Btw, that extra whitespace I had put after the {{archives}} template, and before the first heading, Homosexuality, was so that the archive box would not be jammed into the first topic, but rather would sit above it.)
- That's fine with me, no rush to archive. Thanks for all youre help. :) tommytalk 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:SpikeToronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |