User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 06

October 2010

Albums: Question about sourcing

Hey, Spike. I've read the section on Identifying reliable sources, but I'm still a little unsure. Is the information listed on an album's itunes page considered an acceptable source? I was trying to add sources to the article for the album Hopelessly Incapable of Standing in the Way, but I'm having little luck finding anything as the album is by a local band in Houston (most of the local paper stuff I find is Op-ed). Specifically, I was wondering if the info about track listings, release date, copyright date, and/or label could be cited. Here is a link to the page: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hopelessly-incapable-standing/id344832678. I have search for music databases that might be analogous to IMDB, but everything I find seems questionable. Maybe I have overlooked something. If itunes is not acceptable, could you point me somewhere that is? Could I use the album itself as a source, and if so, how would I cite that (I did not see anything about citing musical albums on the citation templates page)? Chris Fjordson 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I hope you’re enjoying editing and creating articles. Take a look at WP:ALBUM.

As for track listings, release date, copyright date, etc., the album itself should be perfectly acceptable as a reliable source expecially since it is verifiable. You can cite the album itself simply as follows:

<ref>Hopelessly Incapable of Standing in the Way. Lucid Records. 2005.</ref>

Songs would be cited as follows:

<ref>Lennon, John and McCartney, Paul.: “Eleanor Rigby,” Revolver. Apple Records. 1966.</ref>

Liner notes can be cited using {{Cite album-notes}}.

In general, look at WP:REFBEGIN. I personally do not use citation templates, preferring to do citations manually using either <ref></ref> or <ref name=></ref>.

For track listings, times, etc., you should be able to use iTunes as well as allmusic.com. My reading of the WP:RSN archives suggest that for this data, they are okay sources.

Finally, I should preface all this by telling you that I do not work on album-related articles. So, there may be certain “rules” regarding song and album wikiarticles with which I am unfamiliar. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 06:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man. You're awesome Chris Fjordson 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! — SpikeToronto 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A solution for best Education

Dear SpikeToronto,

I've made changes in my own content and this article belongs to my original creation. I'm not a advertiser or spammer my efforts are just to make the education system easy and affordable for common people. Its just a idea nothing else. If you don't like then you can remove happily my article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somanmohan (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Somanmohan. Thanks for the feedback. It will not be me who makes the decision regarding deletion. It will be up to an Administrator who will read your Hangon rationale on the article talk page and decide. There may also be a copyright issue since you mention that the article is taken from your blog. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huggle and warnings

Original Query:

Hi Koavf. For some reason your Huggle is only reverting. It is not warning vandals. Be sure to use the red button at the top left of the button bar. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

— from Your Huggle at User talk:Koavf

Response:

Please advise Am I obliged to use vandalism templates? I generally avoid it because I don't want to add these IPs' talk pages to my watchlists. If it's all the same to you, I'd just as soon revert and move on. Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum The documentation reads "Most of the time, a user warning should be provided along with the revert." Is it problematic if I don't want to give warnings? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Really you should. Not doing so is indeed problematic inasmuch as you are only doing half a job and creating significantly more work for the rest of us recent changes patrollers.

There are two ways you can prevent all the IPs being added to your watchlist:

1. Before a HG session, go to your preferences, and under watchlist, deselect Add pages I edit to my watchlist. You can reselect it after your HG session. (I keep it unticked always.)
2. Alternatively, after a HG session, go to your watchlist, select edit raw watchlist, and delete the IPs.

I do a combination of these two, depending on my mood. But, you really ought to template the vandals. Otherwise, you are doing nothing to control vandalism; you are only removing it. And, the rest of us have to do the other half of your work to pick up the slack.

If you really do not want to template the vandals, and really think that it is appropriate that they get away with such behavior, then pehaps it would be preferable if you just left the vandalism. Then, one of us would get it on our HG screen, do the revert, and template the vandal. The vandalism would not be overlooked. It is going to appear on someone’s HG screen, someone who will do both sides of the transaction. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I've just changed my preferences; I'll just have to remember to deliberately watch pages I create. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That’s excatly what I do most of the time: I deliberately watchlist the pages I edit and create. I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate this, as I am sure all the other vandal fighters also do. By the way, have you received your cape yet? :) — SpikeToronto 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks' I'm no superhero; just someone who has an uninteresting life and doesn't mind repetitive data entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest, most of the time when I’m Huggling it’s also out of boredom. I wonder if that’s true of a lot of other Hugglers? I do find, however, that recent changes patrol is not an easy task. I deliberate over each and every edit presented to me on my Huggle screen. More than half the time I open the page in a browser and look at the history, etc., especially if HG is presenting to me two edits from the same editor. I think the best vandal fighters are people who have a good deal of experience editing articles. That’s why, if I had my druthers, I wouldn’t give anyone rollback until s/he had a minimum of 1,000 edits under his/her belt. As for you, you’ll always be a super hero to me … :) As for me, I want a cape, a lair, a super car, and a cute little sidekick … I think I’ll be waiting a very long time! — SpikeToronto 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

That's a lot of reading though, I might not get through it all... :P Beth —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissWizzy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, it can all be so daunting. But, unfortunately, Wikipedia has a labyrinth of byzantine rules. You will be having all sorts of them thrown at you by your collaborators. However, the dense bureaucratic morass of Wikipedia is all for a purpose: building a worthwhile encyclopedia.

If you ever have any questions, or need any help, don’t hesitate to ask.

By the way, when you leave a message on a talk page (article or user), be sure to sign your comments by typing in four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~ Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do my homework. ;) Hopefully I haven't mucked up anything too badly yet! Thanks again. MissWizzy (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for the note, I'll watch that in the future. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The best reason for using them is that it reduces the likelihood that your edits will be reverted. Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of User:Uncle Milty

Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 06:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime Mr. Berle! — SpikeToronto 06:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In Defense of Reason

Hello! Your submission of In Defense of Reason at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Yoninah! — SpikeToronto 03:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jimenez

Original Query:

Hi NightScream. Great today work on the Phil Jimenez wikiarticle! It’s nice to have the stuff you added and to have it anchored by verifiable references/citations. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

— from Phil Jimenez at User talk:Nightscream

Response:

Any time. And thanks for the compliment. While we're on the subject and I have your ear, I have a question: In your opinion, do you think I should place this October 9 photo from the New York Comic-Con in the Infobox, or leave it there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article’s long enough that we can use both photos: keep the current one in the infobox, and put the newer one elsewhere, lower down, in the body of the wikiarticle. What do you think of that?

Again, thanks for your work on this article. Whenever the material that you added has been added by others in the past, it has always been done in a very negative, biased, homophobic way, and without any verifiable references/citations anchoring the statements. You have added the material in a neutral, non-biased, matter-of-fact narrative manner. I think that Jimenez is an inspiration to gay teens and young adults. So, being able to read the material the way you’ve inserted it can only be a positive thing. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System

Dude sorry for being rude i understand now that you must name your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3stside42 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi W3stside. You are referring to the now archived discussion at User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 05#Federal Reserve System. If you just click on that wikilink, you can read my response from that time. This’ll save me having to retype it all. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for In Defense of Reason

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Query:

Hi Yoni! Thank you so much for all your help with my DYK nomination of In Defense of Reason. I see it made it to the main page today. It would not have done so without your invaluable assistance. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

— from DYK for In Defense of Reason at User talk:Yoninah

Response:

Thanks for the thanks. Waiting to see how many hits it gets! And keep your nominations coming! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The In Defense of Reason wikiarticle was almost entirely written by someone else. All I did was wikify it (infobox, wikilinks, etc.), some minor copy editing (punctuation, footnotes, etc.), and add the book cover image. I am, however, working on another wikiarticle that started as a stub. While I am nowhere near finished — hope to work more on it all afternoon tomorrow — I expect that it will be more thoroughly referenced — as per DYK guidelines — than my first DYK nomination. I think that I will run the hook past you first and that way save time at the nomination page. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

ACC request

Hello, did you request an account in ACC for the username SpikeTorontoRCP?

User comment: I am SpikeToronto. I am seeking to create the account SpikeTorontoRCP strictly to use for Recent Changes Patrol (hence, the RCP at the end). I am finding it increasingly difficult to parse my content creation edits from my RCP edits and so would like to have them be henceforth separate. Thanks!

Bejinhan talks 05:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bejinhan! Thanks for the follow-up. Yes, I did make the request. I assumed that if I attempted to create the account at Special:UserLogin/signup, the similarity to my existing account would violate the similar username policy. Hence, why I asked at ACC. I also responded to the verification e-mail. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, noted; ACC are aware; just waiting to process the request - should be soon (hours, or a day at most) - cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. SpikeTorontoRCP (talk · contribs) etc. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz! Now I just need a friendly Administrator to give the RCP account the same privileges as the regular account so that I can use the new account as intended: for recent changes patrol. Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 04:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Chzz, on another note, I was thinking of helping out at ACC and was wondering if you would be willing to tutor me on it, until I get the hang of it? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, from about Thursday (21st) onwards I'm not going to be around much. But, ACC is pretty easy - just study username policy and the guide carefully, and above all only create the ones you are sure of, and ask about others. Most (well, lots of) ACC people are always in the IRC channel for it, which is very handy for seeking help and opinions on specific cases.  Chzz  ►  05:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Two people who I'm sure could help you, and I'm sure will not mind: Stwalkerster (talk · contribs), Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)  Chzz  ►  12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz for the suggestion. Thanks also for thinking of me and following up. I took your suggestion and asked Stwalkerster if he would mind showing me the ropes. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Captcha

I saw your post on the village pump. Your new account isn't autoconfirmed yet (not old enough), so you need to do the captcha test after certain edits. You can go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to take care of it. DC T•C 07:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Brilliant deduction! It’s less than four days old … I’ve made the request. Thanks DC! — SpikeToronto 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Thanks for reminding me of this. An Administrator just took care of it for me. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 08:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Donald Leifert

Why on earth would you restore the unsourced info to this article? Do you realize they are sourcing his death and entire life to blogs and facebook messages? You also introduced a copyvio by restoring direct quotes from a website (under the obituaries section). The article was stubbed down to the basics until it could be reviewed at WP:BLPN and I will revert it to that version per WP:BLP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. And while a Google search does suggest that WP:BLP no longer applies because he is dead, like you I cannot find a death notice published in a reputable source. Perhaps this is because the death is so recent.

If you look here, I am suggesting to the editor that he take it into his own user namespace to work on it until it is sufficiently sourced for inclusion in the main (article) namespace. Once userfied, then you or I can then revert it to its previous status. We cannot unilaterally put it there for him, because one cannot create pages in someone else’s user namespace without their permission.

How about we give him another half hour to respond and then go ahead and revert to a stub with an edit summary for him to userfy it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my message seemed abrupt, it's just that I've been trying to keep this article from turning in to WP:NOTMEMORIAL all day and stubbing it to ensure that material added was sourced. For my efforts I have been refered to as an idiot several times and painted as an uncaring monster denying his students an outlet for expressing their grief. I pointed the page creator to all the relevant policies and was obtaining input from the BLP board (as an unsourced death he still falls under BLP), only to have you restore ALL of the content. Userfication is a poor solution as I don't see how it could ever be a viable article. There is no WP:N category for "beloved teacher". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this has been such a headache. I am not convinced userfication is not viable since the subject of the article has acted enough that apparently he is known within the science fiction community, perhaps making him notable within that world. At any rate, userfication will get this editor out of the article namespace!

Also, I have flagged every problem section of the article so that he can see what is wrong with it. If you want to put it back to a stub, at least I can userfy this version of the article for him when, and if, he reponds on his talk page. As for the trouble he’s given you this afternoon, he wouldn’t be the first Wikipedian who refused to follow wikipolicies and wikiguidelines … Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I had stubbed it and had planned to try to rebuild it with sourced content, so that there would be at least a workable, policy compliant article. If I couldn't find any independent sources (and I'm pretty good at it as I essentially spend several hours a day adding souces to articles), then I had planned on nominating it for deletion. I would really prefer to stub it and see if I can't build up some good content, concentrating mainly on his science fiction career. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the subject is not notable as an educator which seems to be the focus of the other editor’s approach. So, you really only can write about him vis-á-vis his acting work. Good luck dealing with the other fellow who may never understand why his additions keep getting removed. I added {{Welcomeg}} to his talk page. Perhaps if he starts reading some policies and guidelines he might begin to understand. Best wishes! — SpikeToronto 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE:  Please see here. Perhaps while he’s working on his own copy, you can shape up the one in the main namespace. — SpikeToronto 03:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article. Hopefully it will remain stable since it asserts enough notability to avoid deletion in its current state. Cheers for all your help with this, and once again I apologize if my original message to you appeared rude - it came from frustration, not malice. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The other editor is not happy with the new version as you can see from the article history since your last edit. Well, unfortunately, he chose not to read and acquaint himself with any policies despite being gently instructed and reminded. He is currently at a Level 4 warning and will soon get himself blocked I imagine. Best of luck with the BLP work you’re doing. It is very important to the overall project. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: He has now nominated the article for deletion … or at least is attempting to. It’s interesting that the only instruction set he has decided to acquaint himself with is the one for AfD! — SpikeToronto 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Why Jezebel’s Ponyo? What’s the significance of Jezebel? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I've done what I can. Regarding the name, it's a mishmash of two nickname's. I originally just had 'Ponyo', but it seemed plain. Adding the 'Jezebel' gave it a dash of sauciness. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Does one pronounce it Pon-yo, or does one pronounce it Pony-o? :) — SpikeToronto 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pon-yo, the same as this, but otherwise completely unrelated. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Never got into Japanese anime myself … by the way, the deletion discussion is here. I think you should weigh in since you put so much work into it, eh, and you have made it notable as per WP:ENT. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's so very unrelated to Japanese anime, just a complete fluke. There should be a flashing neon notice when you register your account that says "choose your username wisely as it will become your committed identity for your entire Wikipedia career!" Oh well, at least we get to play with our sigs a bit! Regarding the AfD, he hasn't properly listed it, so I won't comment until it goes live. I think User:DumbBOT will fix it and I have it watch listed. Given the nominee's only rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT I'm not overly concerned. The good news: One week and it will blow over entirely and Wikipedia will have a nice little stub article on a cult sci-fi/horror actor. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the AfD isn’t listed properly! Why should he read those guidelines any more thoroughly than any others? It amazes me how he even knew of the AfD process. At any rate, as you say, there will be your little stub at the end.

By the way, while Leifert is notable as per WP:ENT, he is not notable as per WP:TEACHER. But, as I read WP:TEACHER, how could any secondary school teacher ever be notable enough? I guess if, say, a high school teacher became known for a certain way s/he ran his/her classroom — gets on the news, does workshops promulgating his/her method, etc. — s/he might qualify under WP:BIO, notwithstanding that s/he doesn’t qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. What do you think? (I do not spend a lot of time with WP:BLPs and WP:N, so this is why I am enquiring.) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You would have to be pretty revolutionary in your methods for a school teacher to meet WP:TEACHER, it's more for use in determining notability within academia. I suppose receiving a particularly notable award with significant coverage of your contributions to the education system would be enough to make an argument to keep an article based on notability. Using really solid reliable sources as a basis to build an article cannot be stressed enough for establishing notability - if they don't exist chances are the article will be nominated sooner or later. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Al Buehler Biography

Hello, I would love to update the Al Buehler biography. I produced/directed a recent doc on Coach Buehler and have no intention of violating any copyrights. I apologize for earlier posts as this is my first time adding to Wikipedia. May I write an original biography for Al Buehler and email it to you or what is easiest? Thank you, Amy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.57.107 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I look at your talk page, I had let you know that I reverted an edit of yours because the external link that you added violated Wikipedia’s policy regarding external links (see WP:EL and WP:ELNO).

As for copyright issues, that message came to you from another editor. It was for the material that you added at the bottom of the page with this edit. One cannot copy directly into Wikipedia from another source information that is copyrighted (see WP:COPYVIO). The other editor must have found the material elsewhere on the Internet. I found it here and again here.

To help you with your goals I have the following suggestions:

1. Create your very own Wikipedia account
2. Let me know your new account name, and then I can place a welcome message on it that will tell you everything you need to know regarding how to create/write/edit wikiarticles. (In the meantime, I have placed a less informative welcome message on the talk page for your IP address.)
3. Once you have created an account for yourself, and you have read the various things on article creation, you can then create a draft of the article in your own user namespace. This will let you work on it without the pressure of recent changes patrollers reverting your edits.
4. When your draft is ready, you can cut and paste from it into the article that currently exists in the main (i.e., article) namespace.

Best wishes! — SpikeToronto 07:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface

I have requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. — SpikeToronto 06:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Thanks

- for your exceptionally good work on vandalism and sockpuppeting.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It’s nice to be appreciated. — SpikeToronto 03:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs

See also: Talk:Little Green Footballs § "Alteration and Deletion of Posts" section; Talk:Little Green Footballs § Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing; Talk:Little Green Footballs § WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:V issues; Talk:Little Green Footballs § What you guys need to do; and User talk:SpikeToronto § Thanks for your help on my article

I want to discus the section-blanking of the Little Green Footballs article in talk, if you'd be so kind to join me. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

i really would like to work with you and the other editors on this in a good faith manner, but you make it difficult for me when you portray the issue in the terms you did at the request for protection board:

There is an edit war between IPs that cannot be dealt with through blocking because the IP addresses keep changing. The material being added fails WP:RS and introduces WP:BLP issues. Thanks! [[1]]

there are a number of errors in this statement of events. for one, whether the material in fact fails WP:RS or consequently introduces WP:BLP issues is highly disputable, and is in fact probably incorrect if what is currently the word at WP:RS is any guide. second, this material is not the material which is being added in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism. rather it is content which has stood for more than a month after having been tested by two other users at the time of its inclusion and is now being blanked from the article in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism.

with that in mind, i would prefer not to have the page semi-protected, as the effect of this action would be to freeze the article as it is, in turn rewarding the behavior of the two users who opened their accounts this evening with the apparent sole purpose of section-blanking items they didn't like, almost to the point of 3RRing themselves. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

1. The material clearly violates WP:RS as you can see from the response to the enquiry at WP:RSN.
2. There are clear WP:BLP issues as User:GB fan explained so perfectly both here and here.
3. I understand your concern regarding IPs converting themselves to newly registered accounts. However, the semi-protect only permits autoconfirmed editors to edit it. So newly registered accounts will not be able to edit it either, at least for a few days. Perhaps I should have asked for full protection so that no one could edit until the WP:RS and WP:BLP issues are fully resolved?

I have commented on the article’s talk page with this edit. Let’s keep the discussion there and not spread out over so many places. In the meantime, you might want to take some time and familiarize yourself with the various policies, guidelines, etc., at Wikipedia. A good place to start would be the welcome message I put on the talk page of your new account. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As for my comment at WP:RFPP that the IPs were changing, you have proven the point on your new account’s user page where you list not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six different IPs from which you had been editing! — SpikeToronto 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

William Garrison

Thanks for fixing that issue, don't know what happened. Well I do, but yeah, thanks for fixing the issue. --Jab843 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your help on William Lloyd Garrison Jab843 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jab! Thanks for the barnstar! You might want to give popups a try. It lets you choose the version you want to revert to and then it does it. Sometimes it is too tedious with Twinkle or Huggle to find the right one. And sometimes Undo simply cannot do the job. But, Popups can every time. Also, with add-ons, Popups can also be used to disambiguate wikilinks in articles. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my Wiggins, MS edit?

You told me to cite sources that Dizzy Dean did not live in Wiggins, MS. So I did (wikipedia itself agreed with me on the matter in the Dizzy Dean article) and then you reverted again. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it once, here, when there was no verifiable reference/citation provided. Another recent changes patroller reverted you the second time, here, using an edit summary telling you why. You used as your reference another wikiarticle. Articles on Wikipedia cannot use other articles on Wikipedia as citations. What you should do is:

1. Go to that other article
2. Click on the reference link for where it says Dizzy Lived in Bond
3. Read the external source and confirm that indeed it does say that
4. Then use that source as your citation.

But, it would be better to just remove Dizzy’s name from Wiggins — if you are sure he never lived there. You could then add it to the article on Bond, Mississippi, but it’s already there, with the reference you found in the other wikiarticle on Dizzy Dean. Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto 05:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would never remove it, because some idiot from Wiggins would put it right back. They must see that he never lived there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you’ve erred: When I do a Google search, there seems to be a lot of Dizzy Dean in Wiggins: his museum, Dizzy Dean Welcome Center, etc. But, I notice that he is buried in Bond, which may be significant. Or, perhaps he only lived in Bond after his retirement, having lived in Wiggins earlier in his life. The Congressional Record — the official record of debates in the U.S. Congress — seems to suggest that he lived in Wiggins at some point since the entire Mississippi delegation supported renaming its post office after him in 1999. Good luck with all this! — SpikeToronto 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. When you leave comments on talk pages, be sure to sign them by typing four (4) tildes at end of your comments like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 05:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND! I HAVE DRIVEN BY HIS ACTUAL HOUSE! IT IS A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM WIGGINS. I AM NOT CRAZY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

Bond is less than a half hour’s drive from Wiggins, about 26 miles. Perhaps, quite simply, Bond was/is too small to support a museum, welcome center, etc., whereas Wiggins is so much larger. After all, Wiggins is the county seat. Perhaps it’s a matter of economic convenience. Every reference I’ve seen since we began this discussion, says he lived in Bond after his retirement. So, it’s not like anyone is trying to whitewash his history and deny that he lived in Bond. It’s written everywhere! However, the entire county has less than 17,000 people. So, it certainly makes sense to me that they would have located everything in the county seat to make things easier for tourists. Similarly, the paternal half of my family comes from Jackson County, Kentucky, with a similar population to Stone County, Mississippi, and locates eveything in its county seat too.

Why not do a footnote in the Wiggins wikiarticle wherein you say that he actually lived in Bond and provide a reference? That way you are not removing it from the Wiggins wikiarticle; you are only clarifying the issue. The footnote would be entered something like this:

<ref>In actual fact, Dean spent his retirement at his home, ''Deanash'', in nearby [[Bond, Mississippi]]. See: Frick, Lisa. “[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407900133.html Dean, Dizzy]” ''[[Encyclopedia.com]]'' January 2004. ''(Retrieved 2010-11-02.)''</ref>

This would produce a footnote that would look like this at the bottom of the Wiggins wikiarticle:

In actual fact, Dean spent his retirement at his home, Deanash, in nearby Bond, Mississippi. See: Frick, Lisa. “Dean, Dizzy” Encyclopedia.com January 2004. (Retrieved 2010-11-02.)

You can copy and paste that into the Wiggins article if you want. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are still not signing your talkpage comments. When you leave comments on talk pages, be sure to sign them by typing four (4) tildes at end of your comments like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 16:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC Questions

See also: User talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive 9 § IRC Questions

{{tb|Fridae'sDoom#IRC Questions}}

In case you didn't see this on your watchlist, I hope this answers your questions, if not I'll be happy to further assist you. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:48pm • 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi FD! I have responded there with this edit Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc

• Thanx for the vandal revert :) Mlpearc powwow 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• You’re welcome! — SpikeToronto 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.248.103 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? — SpikeToronto 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article (publishing)

I'm afraid that when you reverted 59.95.22.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s blanking of the article, you failed to note that it had previously been vandalized by Captain Xman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I fixed the article, and warned the latter vandal, and commented on the IP editor's edits. Perhaps you might comment there, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Normally, when I unblank a page, I look very carefully at what appears after the transaction. This, apparently, I failed to do. Otherwise, I would have noticed that this text had nothing to do with the subject, Article (publishing). Usually in such instances, I then find the last clean version, even if it is several edits past, and revert to that version using Popups or Huggle. If, in doing so, this removes some edits that were added to later “unclean” versions that are themselves bona fide edits to the article, I will manually re-add them to create one good, clean version. Moreover, when I see someone legitimately trying, yet not quite succeeding, to revert vandalism, I usually leave them a Welcome message and an explanation about reverting, something akin to {{Uw-revertvandalism}}. Thus, you can imagine how embarrassed I am that I missed this one so badly. It is not uncommon for me to leave a message such as yours on another recent changes patroller’s talk page. This is the first time I ever remember getting one myself!

WP:AGF notwithstanding, I am curious, though, if a CheckUser would indicate any connection between the registered account and the IP reverting. It is not unusual to come across vandalism subsequently reverted by the editor who inserted it in the first place. However, they usually put the article back to its pre-vandalized state. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mitigate my error in any way. I should have looked more carefully at the result of the transaction and reverted all the way back to this version. I cannot believe I missed text so glaringly at odds with its subject heading!

Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. I feel utterly chastened. I have all these detailed procedures I follow when fighting vandalism to ensure that I don’t incorrectly, unwarrantedly warn bona fide editors. Yet I failed in this instance. Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, when I come across a blanked wikiarticle, before I take any action, I always open the history to make sure that the blanking editor is not the creator and only provider of substantial content to the page. In such an instance, of course, I flag the article for speedy deletion per CSD#G7. — SpikeToronto 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page with your alternate account! You deserve a cookie!

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect timing! We’re just about to have a pot of tea. You’re welcome, by the way. — SpikeToronto 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ripplebrook, Victoria

See also: User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 21 § Ripplebrook, Victoria

{{Talkback|JamesBWatson|Ripplebrook, Victoria}} JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This discussion can now be found here. — SpikeToronto 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thor Equities

Original Query:

Hi Drmies. There is an IP-only editor who is removing material from the above-captioned article with edit summaries such as “Unnecessary detail regarding unremarkable innovations in retail.” However, I think that these edit summaries are less than accurate as what is really being removed is material relevant to the history of the organization. Perhaps the anonymous editor has an axe to grind, an agenda, is a competitor, etc. Therefore, with this edit,^† I reverted a particular edit of his/hers. Then, with this edit,^‡ I reverted to the last truly clean version since, again, s/he seems to be removing valid material. However, with this edit,^¶ I restored your deletion of some material. Would you please review my actions and give me a second opinion? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

— from Thor Equities at User talk:Drmies

^†http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395889955

^‡http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395890292

^¶http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395890406

Response:

Thanks for cleaning up. It's really a shame--this topic looks quite interesting, but it's a poor and unexciting article. I removed some more puffery from it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the material you removed is two-fold: (1) it is not from an independent, third-party reliable source; and (2) it would be more appropriately placed in a separate wikiarticle about the man himself, unless of course he is not sufficiently notable to have his bio hived off from the article about his company.

Since I only came upon this article while on recent changes patrol, I doubt I’ll be involved in its future in any way. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blind man's buff & Blind man's bluff

See also: Talk:Blind man's bluff (game) § Bluff or buff?, and User talk:Materialscientist § Blind man's buff & Blind man's bluff (game)

I gave this user this warning because he redirected an article to the same article he's redirecting it to, and that why I gave him an error warning on Huggle. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wayne! I’m not really sure why you are telling me this. But, anyway, sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. Once I realized what had happened, I knew that further action was required. I wanted it to all be complete before responding.

It turns out that the editor you templated was attempting a good faith edit. But, since he did not use any edit summaries, no recent changes patroller could have surmised that. If you read this, you can get a full understanding of what happened. After that, look here, here, and here.

As regards your Huggle action, I would have handled it differently. If it was not a good faith edit, I would have reverted and warned him/her using one of {{Uw-redirect1}} or {{Uw-delete1}}. The template, {{Uw-error1}}, that you used, is more appropriate when an editor adds (or changes) information to an article that is a factual error. For example, suppose an editor changed the wikiarticle on Elizabeth Taylor to read, “Never married, Taylor lived her whole life as a bachelorette.” That is a factual error. One reverts it, and templates the editor using the appropriate Level of the template series that begins with {{Uw-error1}}. That was not what User:Grapegrape did in this instance. He wiped out the entire article replacing it with a redirect. So, {{Uw-redirect1}} or {{Uw-delete1}} would have been better.

Cheers! — SpikeToronto 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Spike because I thought he redirected to the same article he was redirecting it too. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For a moment, he did redirect the two things to each other, because he hadn’t finished the other step in his two-step process. But, that is not a factual error, which is what the {{Uw-error1}} series is for. You were correct to revert, given the information he had not provided in his edit summary. But, you gave the wrong warning. When we revert, we most often template the editor whose edit we are reverting as a way to provide him/her our rationale for the revert. Thus, the template has to truly explain to him/her where s/he went wrong so that s/he can learn from the experience and apply that to future edits.

You might be wise to spend some time reading the actual warning templates that are generated by Huggle when you template an editor. In this case, you would notice that when you use the Level 1 Huggle template for introducing factual errors, it tells the editor that her/his edit

“appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles.”

You will notice that when you use the Level 1 Huggle template for blanking pages, it says

“Please do not replace pages with blank content … as this is confusing to readers.”

Finally, you would also notice that the Level 1 template for malicious redirects ({{Uw-redirect1}} → you have to do this one manually; HG does not handle it) says

“one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted.”

You can see that the edit made by the editor we are discussing does not fit the text, appears to introduce incorrect information. (See Liz Taylor example above for the sort of edit that constitutes this.)

The more familiar you become with the actual templates you apply to editors’ talk pages, the more accurate you will be in informing them of the rationale for reverting their edits. — SpikeToronto 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Greg Kurstin

Just a heads-up, the user Windowhaircut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you reverted at Talk:Greg Kurstin is almost certainly the subject trying to remove inaccurate and unsourced speculation. This is legitimate even on talk pages. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I may, I would like to discuss a few points in regard to which my understanding may be incorrect.

You say that the single-purpose account, User:Windowhaircut, “is almost certainly the subject trying to remove inaccurate and unsourced speculation.” My understanding is that we cannot accept at face value that a given editor is the subject of a wikiarticle. We have no way of knowing this. User:Windowhaircut may be merely a committed fan who sees his/her role as protecting the sacred reputation of a much beloved individual.

My further understanding is that there is a process that one should follow in this regard. This is outlined at WP:BLPWMF, WP:BLPSELF, and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). I understand that verification of the user’s identity further requires the opening of an OTRS ticket by emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org.

I do understand that, per WP:BLPEDIT, such edits purportedly made by the subject of the article, are not to be treated as vandalism. This is why, although I reverted the deletions, I did not template User:Windowhaircut. However, User:Windowhaircut never made any assertions that s/he was the subject of the article. Morever, if one is Greg Kurstin, then would not one correct one’s own birthdate rather than simply remove it?

Regarding the talk page, the only comment that was finally redacted from the talk page seemed to me less speculative than it was forum-y. I would have thought it more appropriate to have removed that comment per WP:NOTFORUM than because it ran afoul of WP:BLP.

Thanks for the feedback and discussion! Always appreciated. — SpikeToronto 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You might find it interesting to note that another sysop elected to indefinitely block User:Windowhaircut. (See also here.) I’m not entirely certain that I would’ve done that. On the one hand, I’m not sure that there was enough dialogue with him/her. On the other hand, one might conclude that his/her lack of response on his/her talk page every time this manner of editing arose since January 2009, when his/her single-purpose account was created, suggests a lack of desire for dialogue on the matter. — SpikeToronto 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a WP:OTRS volunteer, I have seen email which I believe was from the subject and whihc makes it clear that this was him. In any case, SPAs removing material from biographies should be taken seriously, at least until it's shown that they are doing something bad. You know the issues with WP:BLP articles in the past, just tread carefully and AGF and you'll be fine. This was just a heads-up in case you see a similar case again in future, no biggie. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you might tell me if I had any of it wrong in my (longwinded) posting above. The reason I ask is that we (i.e., myself and other wikieditors) have experienced this recently on another wikiarticle and this was the route we suggested to the editor who was claiming to be the subject of the article. In doing so, we were able to obtain confirmation and work with her in correcting errors in the article. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, as far as I know the approved method for validating identity is email to OTRS, which is what happened here. But this is Wikipedia, stuff changes daily! Guy (Help!) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the common law! — SpikeToronto 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some IP

Thanks for the welcome! --91.55.24.91 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You’re welcome! You should consider registering. It protects your identity more than editing directly from your IP address and provides you more functionality such as the ability to watchlist wikiarticles you frequently work on. Have fun and, again, welcome to Wikipedia! — SpikeToronto 06:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganges vs Ganga

Hi Spike, could you please have another look at the issue; I've posted some data re WP:COMMONNAME at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. Cheers, --JN466 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure! No problem. Thanks for the update. — SpikeToronto 18:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up. With this edit, I posted the following comment

Comment. The problem with a Google search that uses Ganga, is that the results include the ubiquitous slang word for marijuana, ganga. Google.com is the international search engine for Google, not Google.co.uk or Google.pt. When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganges + river, one gets 811,000 results. (See here.) When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganga + river, one gets 448,000 results. (See here.) Jayen, one cannot initiate an argument based on Google counts, and then, when it is shown that the results are diametrically oppopsite to what one had interpreted, dismiss that methodology. One cannot have it both ways.

I’m sorry that I wasn’t persuaded to change my !vote. I do think that, one day, all of us around the world will be referring to the Ganges as the Ganga, much the way we now refer to Bombay as Mumbai. — SpikeToronto 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Google web counts are very unreliable, and we shouldn't really use them as an argument (I think various guidelines make that point). For example, I get completely different figures when I click on your links (3,400,000 for ganges + river, 967,000 for ganga + river). The "About x results" statement you get on your first results page can generally be out by several orders of magnitude. Sometimes they will say "around 21,000 hits" on the first page, and then when you click through them, you realise they stop at no. 31. Here is an example (that works for me at least): [2] This says "About 673,000 results", but the list actually stops at 36, or 47 when repeated with omitted results included. Now I've just clicked Search again, and the first page says "About 1,600,000 results". Etc. It's different if you search google news because you can narrow search hits down to a week or month or year, and if you get something like 120 vs 60 hits, that is a manageable number -- you can examine them individually to verify that they are not phantom hits, but actually exist, and you can weed out false positives. [3][4] You are right that the change will come sooner or later, but perhaps not just yet. Cheers, --JN466 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also [5], [6], used as references in WP:GOOGLE. Cheers, --JN466 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now when I click on the Ganges + river search, I get 3,380,000 results! And, 998,000 for Ganga + river. They’ve doubled! What gives?!

Nonetheless, one can’t help but notice that the there is still significantly more hits for Ganges + river than for Ganga + river. Plus, they are both searched in the same manner (i.e., without quotation marks) so that eliminates Liberman’s issue. So long as the comparison is rendered apples vs apples, by using quotes/noquotes equally, the issue he raises should not arise.

De Boyne Pollard’s article applies more when searches are made without quotation marks. So, let’s do our search with quotation marks. “Ganges river” yields 436,000 results, while “Ganga river” gives us 179,000 results.

So, in all these searches, Ganges occurs strikingly more than Ganga. Thanks again for the discussion. It’s quite fascinating. — SpikeToronto 04:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is. :) The intricacies of google. But remember, earlier on, when I clicked on Flamarande's links, I got 538,000 for Ganges river and 7,510,000 for Ganga river. These figures are so unreliable as to be meaningless. They really only ever work well as negative evidence: if there are just 5 hits for a topic on the entire web, it is probably not notable. Google books is a better method too, though there too I am not sure whether Google's coverage is even across the world, and you mustn't trust the number that comes up on the first page ("About 4720 results"), but have to click through to the end of the actual listing. So we have 82 books with Ganga in the title and river in the text, vs. 88 books with Ganges in the title and river in the text. (River in the text is just to exclude non-English books.) That's pretty even. What we'd have to do now is analyse the publication dates; older English publications are more likely to use Ganges. --JN466 05:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

11 of the books with Ganges in the title are from the 19th century (and there are a good few pre-1950s as well). All of those with Ganga in the title are from the second half of the 20th or the 21st century. --JN466 05:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a Google News search is that I would expect my null hypothesis ($H_{0}$) to be that, since more news articles are written in India about the river in question, then one would expect more occurences of Ganga. If in one’s Google News search, one were to eliminate any Indian sources (solely for math purposes, not meant in any way to discount Indian sources!), then one would expect the opposite: more occurences of Ganges. That is, if one were to do such a search — I haven’t attempted the Boolean parameters yet — I would hazard to guess (my $H_{0}$, as it were) that there would be more occurences of Ganges internationally than of Ganga.

Finally, if the wikiarticle gets re-titled, Ganga, there had better be some very good redirects, because few outside of India will be searching Wikipedia using that term. Thanks Jayen! — SpikeToronto 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the vast majority of Indian English news sources using or mentioning the name Ganga will be Indian sources, and that the rare mentions of the river in Western sources will in most cases use Ganges. On the other hand, the frequency with which the river is mentioned in Indian sources will also correlate with the location of readers who view the article. The river is simply of far more interest to Indians, for cultural, religious and current-affairs reasons, than it is to Westerners. Anyway, this has been a useful discussion, even if I haven't managed to change your mind. (If I have, please consider changing your vote to neutral!) Cheers, --JN466 04:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I am thinking about changing my !vote to neutral. I think I might have a word with a few of my non-Wikipedian South Asian friends and see what they have to say on the matter. Thanks Jayen. — SpikeToronto 05:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Google searches: Use precision

How do you do? (that was so typically British - which I'm not :)

Look I hereby asking you if you could explain me some details about Google if you have the time and patience. While I don't put much trust upon Google-results they are commonly used and I'm not that savy about their inner workings. I do know that the results largely depend upon the words one uses.

To my honest surprise as I made a regular Google-search (at www.google.com/webhp?hl=pt) with the words: "Ganga river" I received 7.880.000 results, way more than the results with the words: "Ganges river" which only received 534.000 results.

However being thorough (and quite stubborn when I honestly believe that I'm right) I took a look at the settings and found some flaws. First of all I went to www.google.com and changed the language from Portuguese towards English. Afterwards I made a new search with the words: "Ganges river" and now I received 812,000 results. Making the search with "Ganga river" I got 446,000 results.

Still not satisfied I went to "advanced search" and filled the "Find web pages that have... all these words:" with "Ganges river" and received 3,770,000 results. Making an advanced search with: "Ganga river" I received only 927,000 results.

I obviously believe that the last search is more trustworthy but I'm unable to understand the first results. Perhaps you could you shed some light upon these enormous discrepancies? Which results are in your honest opinion more reliable (and what are they truly worth)? Flamarande (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noting that I have presented what I believe to be a conclusive analysis over at the Ganges talk page. [7] Cheers, --JN466 10:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Flamarande. I wasn’t really able to access my computer yesterday.

Generally, I always use Google.com rather than any particular national site. However, if I want results limited to, for example, Canada, then I’ll use Google.ca; for the United Kingdom, Google.co.uk; for Australia, Google.com.au; for Portugal, Google.pt; for Spain, Google.es; for France, Google.fr; for Germany, Google.de; etc.

In order to ensure that your search results are in any way reliable, you need to use search strings that provide precision. Unfortunately, Google has made some changes to their search alogorithm over the last few years, so we sometimes get odd results. If you do not use double quotation marks ( " " ) around your search terms, Google often searches using an (unstated) wildcard operator. Thus, a search using the word bankrupt returns results containing both bankrupt and bankruptcy. I imagine that if one went deeply enough into the results, one would find that it also returns results such as bankrupts and bankruptcies. But, if all you want is for the results to contain bankrupt and no other variations, then you must enclose it in quotation marks like this: "bankrupt". This eliminates all the other variations.

We also have to apply logical, common sense and know when to apply further limitations to the search. Thus, one would never search ganga by itself because, not only would the results contain hits relating to the Ganga River, but one would also get an enormous number of hits related to marijuana, as ganga is a slang word for the mellow weed (see here). Because of the marijuana connection to the word, ganga, we must eliminate those hits from impacting our results.

In light of the above, our search terms must be enclosed in quotation marks. Thus, for the Ganges, enter your search thusly,

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"

For the Ganga, enter your search thusly,

"ganga river" OR "river ganga"

These are not exhaustive, of course. Often, one refers to the river as The Ganges or The Ganga, but we had to leave these out because The Ganga might also return marijuana hits.

Note that the search operator, OR, is in uppercase; were it in lowercase, the Google system would mistake it for the plain English word, or, instead of an instruction telling it how to deal with the search term(s) that follow. Conversely, the search terms themselves are in lowercase: only search operators (e.g, OR, AND, etc.) are in uppercase.

Ultimately, though, it will not be an analysis of search hits that decides the issue. It will be India and Indians that decide the issue. I am sure that when, for instance, Bombay was changed to Mumbai, it was irrelevant which was more common in English internationally. All that would have mattered was that India and Indians wanted it changed. Much the same will probably come to pass vis-á-vis Ganges versus Ganga. Therefore, when India officially changes the name from Ganges to Ganga, and the rest of the world’s governments, diplomats, international agencis, NGOs, media, etc., follow suit, so too should and would Wikipedia. Hope this long-winded posting helps you. — SpikeToronto 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an Indian government source stating that the Ganges is, in fact, officially known as the Ganga: [8]. The Ganga Action Plan is known as such on the appropriate Indian government website: [9]. Likewise the National Ganga River Basin Authority: [10]. A joint statement by the World Bank and the Indian government reported in the UK Independent refers to the Ganga (Ganges): [11]. --JN466 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen for the update! Now, we just need the rest — other governements, diplomats, wide-spread media, etc. — to also make the change. However, any attempt by a country to throw off the historical shackles of colonialism is one that should be welcomed and supported by the rest of the global community. Perhaps my !vote should reflect that sentiment. — SpikeToronto 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That change in !vote reflecting my long-held anti-colonialism sentiment was given effect with this edit. — SpikeToronto 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it, Spike. --JN466 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note [12]; what you wrote above about placing quotation marks around "Ganges" and "Ganga" does make a difference to some of the results. My search hits for "Ganga" seem to have included at least some occurrences of "Ganges", so placing quotation marks has reversed the preponderance for in-text mentions, putting Ganges back in the lead; in article titles, Ganga remains more common. Whatever the outcome of the move request, this examination of Google has been most useful. Perhaps we should write an essay.  ;) --JN466 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One cannot just put quotation marks around ganga and then run one’s search because that will still yield hits that have nothing to do with the river and everything to do with marijuana. That is why one has to further qualify the search by preceding and succeeding — within the quotation marks — the word ganga with the word river. Then, to make sure that one is comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges, one needs to do the same with the word ganges. This is why the search comparison has to be between

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"   versus   "ganga river" OR "river ganga"

I hope I am explaining this clearly. If not, please let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That part of it I was familiar with. I actually ran google scholar searches like intitle:ganga river, or ganga river without quotation marks, but the presence of river (as well as the fact that it was a google scholar search) pretty much eliminated the likelihood of matches relating to ganja (I looked through the listings and couldn't see any; what came up was very definitely about the river; e.g. see [13]).

What I hadn't realised was that a search like ganga river would also bring up matches for Ganges, because Google treats Ganges as some kind of inflectional form of Ganga unless you place quotation marks around Ganga (as per your "bankrupt" example above). So searching for "ganga" river, with quotation marks added around the single word ganga, eliminated those. The reason that I didn't run "ganga river" OR "river ganga" was that the name Ganga is frequently used by itself, or used in other compounds like Ganga plain, or Ganga basin.

Interestingly, the intitle parameter, e.g. as in intitle:Ganga, does not need quotation marks to prevent the search from straying into presumed inflectional forms. In other words, intitle:Ganga and intitle:"Ganga" yield exactly the same results, while Ganga Brahmaputra and "Ganga" Brahmaputra do not -- Ganga Brahmaputra also returns some of the same results as "Ganges" Brahmaputra, with "Ganges" actually highlighted in bold as a search hit even though you searched for "Ganga". That fairly surprised me. --JN466 22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing odd about Google suprises me anymore. I really wish that their system would permit those of use who are familiar with Boolean search operators to use them instead of just a few of them like AND and OR. I would rather it not return results like my bankrupt example above unless I ask for them using wildcard search operators like asterisk (*) or question mark (?).

As you know, my response to Flamarande was only with regard to Google web searches. Thus, if only ganga were in quotes with river not included within the quotation marks, one would still get marijuana results. This is because Google lacks a proximity search parameter. Thus, a search like "ganga" river is the same, in Boolean terms, as searching "ganga" AND river. Thus, it would include in one’s results a webpage about some adventurer’s rafting trip down the Mississippi River while smoking his ganga. It would also return digest pages wherein there are entires for articles on ganga (marijuana) as well as entries for some river other than the Ganges/Ganga.

I knew that when I suggested to Flamarande, and repeated to you, that the better Google web search was

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"   versus   "ganga river" OR "river ganga"

that such a search would not be exhaustive as it would leave out references to the river in the form of either The Ganges or The Ganga, in addition to any references that follow either of Ganges or Ganga with basin, plain, etc. But, here’s a fix for that:

"ganges river" OR "river ganges" OR "ganges basin" OR "ganges plain"     (About 4,010,000 results)

 versus

"ganga river" OR "river ganga" OR "ganga basin" OR "ganga plain"     (About 1,560,000 results)

Note that with these two new Google web searches, you will see that the Ganges search is about 2½:1 ahead of the Ganga search.

I have never done a search on Google Scholar, so I cannot speak to it. Nonetheless, I find your comments interesting. I do, from time to time, search Google Books, but my entry point tends to be as the result of a Google web search. I like Google web searches because they yield books, news articles, blogs, websites, government sites, etc. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although we have to bear in mind again that these estimated totals are the algorithm-generated ones. Sometimes, these collapse from "about 32,000" to "69", once you actually step through the search listings and find you suddenly hit the last page, where the matches run out. The other problem is that google searches are capped at 1,000 hits, making any total greater than 1,000 unverifiable (unless you do clever stuff like search splitting, first looking for X without Y and then looking for X with Y, hoping that each will come to less than 1,000, and then adding the totals).

Google Books has some useful parameters that are not widely known, such as inauthor:smith (to look for books whose authors include someone called Smith, or, with a minus, to exclude all such books from the search), or inpublisher:university (to look for books published by publishers with university in their name, i.e. university presses). Books that don't have previews in Google Books sometimes have previews in the linked amazon page. --JN466 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Operating system

Whilst I welcome your suggestions about NPOV, I would also question the quality of NPOV control in other parts of the article. A quick read through the Examples of operating systems section, and one notices a nice and friendly-looking screenshot of Windows 7. Then, when you go the Unix, instead, you see a complicated timeline graph that is nowhere near friendly-looking. Similarly, when one scrolls down to BSD, one can see an old and dusty PC. In contrast, go down a bit, and you'll see another beautiful screenshot of a Mac. How is that exactly NPOV, when wikipedia, through visual aids, seems to promote a different image of Windows and Mac OS, when compared to Unix and BSD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.58.6 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, you are already 5 minutes behind your claimed response time of 15 mins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.58.6 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit changed this:

Examples of popular modern operating systems for personal computers are Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and GNU/Linux.

to this:

Examples of popular modern operating systems for personal computers are Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. An example of unpopular, but frequently paraded operating system is the GNU/Linux. [Emphasis added.]

There was more than one reason for reverting that particular edit. Rather than editorialize with words like unpopular and paraded, you could have used the reference provided to note that Windows has 90.18% of the OS marketshare, MAC OS X has 4.41%, while Linux represents only 0.86% of the market. Just state the facts; don’t offer an opinion of them.

The issue with words like unpopular and paraded is that it interprets the statistics rather than presents them. Interpreting them amounts to original research — another reason to revert. Also, words like unpopular and paraded suggest a POV bias on the part of the editor adding them (more the paraded than the unpopular) — another reason to revert. For more on words that introduce bias, see the wikiguideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (shortcut → WP:WORDS). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, as regards the 15 minutes, I was actually no longer online. I had forgotten to change my status to reflect that, which is why you saw the green light rather than the red. In any event, even had I seen your query and started typing a reponse posthaste, I could never have got it finished in 15 minutes! I am just not that fast! :) — SpikeToronto 05:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Do not forget to sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes at the end of your posting like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society

Thank you for your help/suggestions/critique. Brand new user. Have no idea what I'm doing. Stumperc Stumperc (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Stumperc! To become better acquainted with everything that is Wikipedia, work your way through the information contained and linked in the welcome message that I put at the top of your talk page. Also, don’t forget to use edit summaries every time you edit: Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors.

Finally, if you ever have any questions or want any help, please do not hesitate to ask. You can either leave me a message here on my talk page, or place the {{help me}} template on your own talk page with your question and someone will come along to help you.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia users

Some Wikipedia users don't like me. Could that happen? WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be referring to two groups: (1) Vandals who do not like having their handiwork reverted; and (2) Good faith editors who do not like being (mistakenly) treated as vandals.

I would not worry about the first group. But, I would be extra diligent in my vandal fighting to ensure that the second group cannot come back at me for my reverts. Remember: Recent changes patrol is not a race. It doesn’t matter who gets there first. Keep your chin up! — SpikeToronto 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus users who don't want to respond to my messages when I message them on their talk page. I know RCP is not a race but some users can't be beaten out there sometimes. ClueBot and the new ClueBot (ClueBot NG) and previous anti-vandalism reverting bots have to be fast. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

When I said that RCP is not a race, what I meant was, take your time over every diff that shows up in your HG screen and do not worry if once you make a decision, you discover that some person/bot has already done it. At least you will have made a decision that you can apply in a similar situation in the future. — SpikeToronto 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It may take me a few seconds to look at the edit to see if it's vandalism or not in order to revert. Sometimes I may need to scroll down because the vandalism may be at the bottom when I scroll down. Sometimes there may be more than 4 users on Huggle at once which could be hard to take your time to look at the diff carefully before reverting. But when you see the diff, it may take you longer to revert than other diffs depending on the edit that person made. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my article

See also: Talk:Little Green Footballs § "Alteration and Deletion of Posts" section; Talk:Little Green Footballs § Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing; Talk:Little Green Footballs § WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:V issues; Talk:Little Green Footballs § What you guys need to do; and User talk:SpikeToronto § Little Green Footballs

As I said, I'm new to Wiki so I don't know if leaving a message thanking you is appropriate. But thanks. I'm still reading through the 'how to' pages so hopefully I won't commit as many basic errors in the future. Obdicut (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m not done going through the article. But, I had to spend the day hooking up and programming a bunch of audio-video equipment, a router and some gateways, and an NAS. So, I’ll finish up with the article this weekend. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I just did a whole bunch more, but I’m still not finished. More tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. — SpikeToronto 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to thank you for my patience; thank you for taking the time to work this over with me. I can't understand how I messed up the formatting for the last section. Can you explain? P.s. I'm not sure I've got the hang of talkback yet. Obdicut (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} is meant to be used to keep the discussion in one place. So, when I place {{Talkback}} on your talkpage, it is meant to direct you to the string on my page where we can keep the whole discussion together. Similarly, if someone leaves a message here on your talkpage, and you respond here (as you should), you would then put a {{Talkback}} on their talkpage to let them know that a response awaits them here. Hence why I left you a {{Talkback}} here on your talkpage, to let you know that there was a new addition to our discussion on my talkpage and for you to respond there if you had anything further to add. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’ll take a look at the formatting issue and get back to you. — SpikeToronto 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Fixed with this edit. You had forgotten to use <ref></ref> at the beginning and end of the citation. You had also forgotten to use {{Cite news … }} at the beginning and end of the citation. Since you had not had that problem earlier, I think you just might have been tired. Sometimes, I cannot make head nor tails out of the coding when I am bleary eyed! — SpikeToronto 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done  I’ve finished with your draft of the article.

Using the {{Cite quote}} template, I noted a few quotations you give that are lacking citations. You should fill those in.

Also, you mention some claims made by the neo-Nazi, Bill White, that were reviewed by the website, and The New York Times Magazine’s Heffernan’s referring to this review. But, you do not state what White’s claims were and what the blog ended up saying about them. That needs to be fleshed out a bit.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragon tales: Mighty thanks!

The most recent edit to Dragon Tales involved removing three verified sources. This has occurred many times from time to time, but you helped make sure it doesn't happen. I support your help on keeping this piece of information. Jonghyunchung (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You’re welcome! I was doing recent changes patrol using a browser-like program called Huggle (HG). That particular IP-only editor was making those sorts of edits on several articles. So, when one of his such edits appeared on my HG screen, and I reverted it, I then opened his contribs to see what other of his edits might also require review. That was when I came upon his unreverted deletion of material from the Dragon Tales wikiarticle. Glad I could help! — SpikeToronto 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)