User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 02

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. Teapotgeorge^Talk 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)

Joan Rivers

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)

Y Done I put your invisible quote back. See here. SpikeToronto (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved

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

Aerated Bread Company

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

Rollback

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) But how is that possible? It defies logic. Virtually all IP addresses rotate dynamically. I can blank my page because it is always mine, yours is always yours. But, his might be someone else’s tomorrow. I just don’t get it. But, I certainly take your word for it! And, it’s even highlighted at WP:BLANKING! <blush> But surely if they blank when there is, for example, a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning on their page, the next editor who comes along to give them a warning won’t know to have them blocked and they can thereby avoid blocking. <sigh> Thank you for the correction and guidance! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. Should I go back and blank it all out? — SpikeToronto (talk) As a human editor, I've learned to check history when I don't see any current warnings so I'm not fooled (usually:). My standard is to check user-contributions before warning, so if I'm catching one of a larger pattern I can adjust the warning I give and also see if user is editing own talkpage. From what I've seen, It's more of a problem for some bots that auto-escalate the warnings or file block-requests if already at #4, and I don't know a good-and-easy solution there:( Oh well, I'd just leave what's-done-is-done alone and know for the future. Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) You took the words right out of my mouth! I too always look to the contribs before placing a warning. I never understand when I see an anon getting {{uw-vandalism1}} warnings repeatedly for the same act without an escalation. And, I had been wondering, if they are allowed to blank their pages, how that would affect the bots. Now I know! Thanks again! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:17, 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 :) -- œ™ 05:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) OlEnglish: I cannot stand IP editors! I think that Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as an encylopedia so long as it permits anonymous IP addresses to edit articles. They are and should be treated as second-class citizens. Virtually all vandalism is committed by persons using IP addresses. And, if they are dynamic, they need only recycle their modem to get another one assigned to them once they’re blocked. I believe firmly that they blank their talk pages to prevent admins and bots from blocking them when their warning levels have risen to the point that the next one would result in having their access blocked. They’re such whiners! All they have to do is register, anonymously, and they can have all the access that they want. Moreover, it will become much harder to trace them. It amazes me how they do not understand how easy it is to locate them when they edit using IP addresses. <grr> Anyway, OlEnglish, I do not think it appropriate for me to add my comments to the discussion you referenced since it seems to be mainly admins and editors who are far more versed in the ways of Wikipedia, and possessed of far more experience, than am I. Thanks for directing me to it, though; it was a fascinating read. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:20, 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)

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) Since I do not like discussions spread over multiple Talk pages (see policy), here is what I posted to your Talk page at, apparently the same time as you were posting here: Hi! As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to 350 (organisation). When I follow the link provided by the footnote after “Prominent global figures,” it lists Hansen as a “messenger” of 350.org. He seems to be permitting his name and face to be associated with them, so who are we to rub him out. :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Everything you have said here on my Talk page is probably correct. I personally have no love of this wikiarticle and cannot help feeling that it smacks of self-promotion. Moreover, I found that the anonymous editors who were pushing it were bombastic, belligerent, and overly agressive, especially with their edits to others’ Talk pages. But, none of the admins that have looked at the article has found a basis for proposing deletion, suggesting that the wikiarticle passes WP:NOTE. And, as I said earlier, Hansen’s name is still on their site. It’s up to him to deal with that not us. The inclusion of his name as a “messenger,” as it appears on their site, should satisfy WP:V since what is in the footnote is clearly stated within that which is cited. By way of analogy, when one says that a cat is “a carnivorous mammal (Felis catus),” and provides as a footnote the following, “Cat,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. (Retrieved 2009-09-05.), and one is able to verify that that is what is found at the place cited, then how can one remove the definition for cat? The source is reliable and verifiable. Whether we like it or not, 350.org’s list of “messengers” is easily verified and is reliable since they surely maintain the list just as Webster’s maintains its dictionary. To remove this name from the list requires us to have a wikirule or wikiguideline to hang it on. So, unless we can come up with some wikirule or wikiguideline that is being violated, there does not appear to be a justification for removing one particular name from the list, or removing the wikientry altogether. However, there’s a part of me that wishes we could … <sigh> — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I fail to see how the article currently passes WP:NOTE as there are no reliable secondary sources that have discussed this subject. Also, I think the names can be removed per WP:BLP as the source is self-published. -Atmoz (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Man, you’re fast! You responded too quickly. I was still editing, so you may want to re-read my comments above and see if it affects your reponse. As for WP:NOTE and the like, I don’t really want to argue that with you. As I have said: For me, this article is little more than a headache! So, if you can come up with a way to get rid of it, be bold and go for it! Why not try a speedy delete or, at the very least, a discussion for deletion? Good luck convincing people that an organization is a living person. If you can do it, my hat’s off to you! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Have you spoken to Vsmith about this article? He is an admin who has been editing it, yet is usually one of the first to get rid of articles that fail such things as WP:NOTE. — SpikeToronto (talk) UPDATE: I didn’t know there was a separate notability guideline for organizations and companies. I just noticed that you added it to the article. Is there a separate deletion criterion too? Good luck! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Just one big ol' deletion policy, lots o' notability guidelines. I started a discussion to merge the content to another article. I'll be away from civilization Internet access for at least 36 hours, but I'll look back in on the discussion when I get back. -Atmoz (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I like your username. -Atmoz (talk) 07:07, 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) Btw, how do you think the merge suggestion for this article is going to turn out? I for one think it was a great idea on your part! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I think the merge suggestion is good idea, hence my suggestion to merge it. ;-) As for the actual merge discussion, I don't know. 3-1 is probably not a consensus in WikiLand. And it doesn't look like anyone else is particularly interested in the article. You could try being bold and merging it (or I could), but it would likely be reverted. -Atmoz (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I haven’t checked it lately, but I seem to recall that there was really only one fellow who was against the merger with the founder’s article. He had some idea about merging it with an article on the big day that the org supports, or something like that. Question: I was wondering if your primary goal was to get rid of the article as a stand-alone, would it matter much to you which merger eventually occurred? As for me doing the merger, my lack of knowledge in the subject area makes me wary of doing so. — Spike (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) The opposer wanted to move the article and change its scope to a day that the organization was sponsoring (or something like that) because they thought the day was more noteworthy than the actual organization. I obviously dispute that assertion, as the day is not notable either. My goal isn't to get rid of the information, but to merge the content from the current 2 article into 1 because the organization does not meet the notability guidelines, and by merging the articles the information would still be able to be found if someone was interested. (And there's no need for the talkback templates, I've got your TP watchlisted.) -Atmoz (talk) 05:16, 15 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) Please note that my assertions were based on multiple WP:RS (linked in the same discussion) that do seem to establish notability for the date, and could make a weaker but plausible case for the article as it currently stands. No need to make this so complicated, or to let it spill out into multiple fora. MrZaiustalk 07:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mr. Zaius, I have several questions for you: What is your objection to merging it with the article on the organization’s founder? I don’t see what is wrong with that, and redirecting the article to it and redirecting a would-be date article to it as well. You do understand that this does not result in a loss of any of the information, and the wikilinks still work, only they redirect to the section of, say, the founder’s article wherein the info has been inserted. Anyone typing in 350 in the search box is still going to get to the info! Are there other wikiarticles solely about event dates? Are their precedents for your suggestion? Is not what you are proposing merely a name change to the article and not really a merger? I’m a little confused on this point. Regarding verifiable references/citations, I think that the issue is not the quantity of sources that you can come up with, but rather their significance (which, as I understand it, is Atmoz’s issue with them); and, items taken from the 350.org website do not count, as per WP:SELFPUB. Finally, please don’t lecture/scold me about multiple fora: This discussion here between Atmoz and I had nothing initially to do with your proposal or his. It had to do with some of the text in the article that he wanted to delete and that I did not. (As an aside: I like the format of your signature, by the way.) — Spike (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. If you think WP:ORG is satisfied, what about WP:WEB? I only ask because I had wondered if perhaps that should (instead? also?) be looked at? — Spike (talk) 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: Smith, Dr. Adam Stuart. “A review of the evidence for living plesiosaurs,” The Plesiosaur Directory. No publication date. (Retrieved 2009-09-14.) Alternatively, it can be entered like this: Smith, Dr. Adam Stuart. “A review of the evidence for living plesiosaurs,” The Plesiosaur Directory. No publication date. <http://www.plesiosauria.com/hoax.html> (Retrieved 2009-09-14.) 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) Oh, I don't care anywhere near that much - I've tried to clean the article up a little bit, but I'm far from interested enough to heavily rework it. I was just encouraging you guys to deal with the difference of opinion concerning WP:ORG and notability threshold on the talk page rather than here. As the WP:N problem was the main reason given by Atmoz for the merge, I was suggesting that the merge was unnecessary. To answer a couple of your questions, though: Obviously myriad dates for holidays and similar events and organizations exist - System Administrators Day and Critical Mass are a couple of examples, although the latter has a far more obvious case for note. I've performed more than a few merges in my day, so I understand how the process works, but I also understand that even if you manage to pull it off without any substantial loss of information, it'll still bury the lead. If notability can be established, either for the piece as it stands or for the day after a simpler WP:MOVE, that would save you guys a great deal of trouble and avoid the possibility of losing the piece and, just as troubling, having to start from scratch when an outsider or newbie inevitably decides to recreate the page over the redirect sans sources and all the various niceties of the syntax that they generally miss. A merge is a fine thing for a truely non-notable topic, but when the case is borderline, it tends to just be more hassle than it's worth. KISS principle and all that. Hope this was of some use beyond the current case, MrZaiustalk 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Mr. Zaius (I love writing that!): Thank you very much for the above. It was most instructive. Seriously, it taught me a lot. I see your points about merger meaning that sometimes the thing being merged gets lost deep inside a larger article. I guess, though, that that is mitigated to some extent by the fact that if the redirect is set up correctly, it goes straight to the proper sub-section of the larger article. To be honest, I am not that invested in this particular wikiarticle. I came to it to deal with vandalism and extremely poor edits, incorrectly entered references, and WP rule/guideline violations by the anons. Once the temporary protection went on, I decided, since it was such a small article, to try and clean it up. I am beginning to be on the fence about it after today’s efforts. I do think, eventually, it will be possible to get the notability template removed, but that it will take independent sources that deal more with the organization and less with its founder. (This, again as I understand it, is Atmoz’s major issue with the article, one that, if resolved, I imagine he would remove his objections.) For instance, that long list of friends of the organization is essentially self-published, and thus problematic. Using your word, borderline, I think that that is what this organization is now. But, I think that that is going to quickly change. I think that as their special date approaches, there will be more and more articles dealing with 350.org. By which time, the article can be fleshed out and the notability template removed. Thanks again for your message above! I love learning this stuff! — Spike (talk) 04:22, 16 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) Will do! How much time is left on the AfD discussions? I don’t think I can get to it today. Also, any idea why the Sinebot never came through and put your signature in above? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) First one’s done! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Y Done I have weighed in on both of them. You will notice some repetitiveness. Since the reasons for deletion are all pretty much the same for Press’s articles, I could not see any reason to reinvent the wheel each time and so cribbed from myself. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the input. By the way, you don't have to place a {{talkback}} for votes on AfD's. I watch those pages anyway. Talkback should really only be used for replies on your talkpage to comments I've made there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) You can remove them after you’re through with them. That’s what I do, plus it’s stated in the Talkback box. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 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.

GroundZ3R0 002

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

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) Hey Tommy! I looked at it, and unless I read it wrong, which is definitely possible, it does not work with Microsoft Internet Explorer. I don’t want to have to learn to use a different browser for working in Wikipedia. I’m too old and decrepit, as opposed to young and dumb … — SpikeToronto (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Another option is Huggle, which also, I believe, does not work in MS IE. — SpikeToronto (talk) P.P.S. Thanks for thinking of me and bringing it to my attention! — SpikeToronto (talk) I'm a mac user... btw, I'm sure it works on IE... I think... I abandoned Microsoft when i was 16... just now people are finally getting it. gosh! <tommy> (talk) Smartass! — SpikeToronto (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Apparently I have rollback rights when I use twinkle!?!? XD its so cool! <tommy> (talk) 19:17, 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) ahh.. I see.. XD = super happy lol. X = eyes ... D = mouth.. ya.. lol. PS I'm more concerned about this damn 18 yr old constantly biasing the AB 390 because he doesnt like what's true. SIGH <tommy> (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Ha! I can’t help but chuckle at a 20-year-old dealing with an 18-year-old’s immaturity! :) But, I know what you mean. I was looking at some articles the other day where this one fellow eventually got blocked for a while because he kept trying to make edits that were both tenditious and against consensus. Then, when I looked at his userpage, it all made sense: He was only 18. Basically, he is a boy at odds with his sexuality so he eschews labels to the point that he was trying to “de-label” articles about sexuality. In other words, his edits said more about him than the topics at hand. This is but one more example of why WP will never be taken seriously. I used to worry that it would never rise to the level of Britannica. Now, I worry that it won’t even make it to the level of World Book! I guess your 18-year-old is either totally against marijuana, as the product of 30 years of American Christofascist leadership; or, he’s totally down with it because it’s so “shtreeet.” Either way: BORING! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) ha ya...... 18 and 20 is a big difference. ones in high school.. and ones thinking about a career. <tommy> (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Well put! You never did tell me: second (sophomore) or third (junior) year? — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) First (freshman)? Last (senior)? — Spike (talk) 19:48, 15 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) lol I'm a junior and i use twinkle and friendly... :) Theyre really nice -- i was intimidated cuz theyre all like "ohh you take full responsibility!!" like I;m worried that theyre gunna do crazy mistakes so I was intimidated but Im really glad i gave it a try.. and huggle I tried but it's too complicated and I'm happy with TW and HG <tommy> (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) So, if I were going to try just one, which one would it be? Thanks! — Spike (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) If supported by IE (lol) use Twinkle and friendly and WikiEd... theyre awesome. You get LOTS of options from the drop down button at the top (I use the "Vector" skin... love it) <tommy> (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) But, I just want to try one of them! <sigh> Why do I need all three? Are they mutually exclusive? You’re killing me here … :) — Spike (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Then just use Twinkle. :) Although you already have rollback rights so idk what good it'd do you. And you can use them all at once. <tommy> (talk) Have you tried WP:AWB yet? — Spike (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) No <tommy> (talk) 06:45, 18 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) PS I also updated my philosophy section... ! <tommy> (talk) I’ll answer in order. 1. Signature: What I would do, is find someone’s signature that you like, and then decode it. Here’s an example of a particular signature that you might borrow some ideas from: [[User:Tdinatale|<span style="color:#00AA11">'''Tdinatale'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Tdinatale|<span style="color:#FF9933">'''''talk'''''</span>]]</small> Which produces: Tdinataletalk So, this signature — borrowed from Netalarmtalk — creatively provides a link to the editor’s user page and talk page. Others also creatively provide a link to an editor’s contribs page. Keep an eye out for things you like from various signatures and then use these different elements to create your own unique signature. I would also suggest trying it out in your own sandbox, which I have gone ahead and created for you here. (Aside: I also took the liberty of creating a listpage of all of your subpages that you can refer to as a way to keep track of them all. You can find that here.) You can use your sandbox to test anything, especially font and color formatting. So you can test out versions of your signature there. Once you have created your new signature, click on Preferences at the top of any Wikipedia page, and enter your new, creative, unique signature in the Signature area under the first tab, User profile. You can find how to change print sizes, fonts, and colors in various articles throughout WP. Here is a list of the most useful of them: WP:COLOR List of colors HTML color names X11 color names and a another X11 color names For fonts, see: WP:How to edit a page#Character formatting for how to format text. WP:Font for when to format text, in wikiarticles. 2. Background Color: I did a search and could not find anything directly on how to change the background color of a wikipage. However, in the color articles listed above, there is the odd mention of background colors that might guide you. Otherwise, perhaps a more experienced wikieditor can assist you. Alternatively, when you come across a userpage that has a colored background, click on the edit this page tab at the top of the page, and find the coding that created the effect. Be sure to select Cancel when you’re through reading it. Finally, I would guess that a wikieditor who has created a colorful signature might also have an answer for you as to changing background colors for wikipages. 3. Philosophy Update: I didn’t have your page watchlisted, so I didn’t see it. Just be sure that none of it runs afoul of the rules/guidelines found at WP:USERPAGE. By the way, you have a double negative in the sentence that begins, “Everyone should not be afraid …” and continues “… without the tyranny of fear … .” [Emphasis added.] Also, while one might agree with each of the statements in the numbered list that follows, the statement that concludes, “Regardless, whatever one’s beliefs are, I respect,” seems contradictory. 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) Yeah, you're right it was too negative. Well thank you for all the info!! That makes a lot of sense.<tommy> (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC) No, no, I did not say too negative. I said it had a double negative, a situation in grammer in which the second negation in a sentence cancels out the first. For instance, “I don’t want no bourbon,” means “I do want some bourbon” since the second negation, no, cancels out the first, not. Correctly put, it should have been, “I don’t want any bourbon,” or simply, “I don’t want bourbon.” Your not in “should not be afraid” conflicted with the -out in “without the tyranny of fear.” Thus, the sentence would be corrected by having it read: “Everyone should be able to voice their opinion without the tyranny of fear, social or future (monetary) anxiety, religion, future jobs, families or other's opinions haunting him/her.” You’ll notice that this re-write removed the double negative and conveys your true meaning. I’m sorry I did not make myself clearer: I did not say that it was too negative. It would not be my place to have said so. On another note, when are you going to unveil your new signature?! — Spike (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC) tommy talk 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Spike (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC) My "talk" button doesn't work when it's on my own talk page.... but only on others.. see it works here! haha So weird. ..... tommy talk 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Again, I wished I’d known that before writing my loooonnnnnggg message to that effect plus trying it out all over the place! <grrr> But, to be fair, you had no way to tell me while I was in the middle of editing. So, be nice, and read every word that I've written, please! :) — Spike (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Ha, ya, it just hit me when I noticed that and told you before you got too into it :P. And I read it all.. I know a really experienced admin. tommy talk 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Do you like this sig? tommytalk 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I think that all in lower case, and having tommy and talk only separated by their differing colors and not by a space, makes for a more elegant signature. Like I said, it looks like a logo, which is why I had asked you after you revealed it to do one for me! It’s terribly creative, whereas the one with a capital T and a space is more ordinary, more run-of-the-mill. On another note, I think I have an answer to your background color question: If you take a look at the coding of this page and this one, you can see where the authors changed not only the colors, but the font faces. (I’m toying with different font faces at the bottom of my signature sandbox.) Now, to view the coding, you have to click on the Edit this page tab at the top. Just remember: Exit by clicking on Cancel. Do not make any changes to their pages. And, if you accidentally do, immediately Undo with an abject apology in the edit summary. Have fun! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:30, 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.

Sock puppets

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)

Vandalism

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)

{{Reference necessary}}

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

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)

— from Archive 2 at User talk:Intelligentsium

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)

— from Vandalism by 170.185.169.19 at User Talk:Academic Challenger

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

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) Thanks. I made it a bit smaller from the first one you saw. My spousal unit told me that at the regular size,  SpikeToronto , it looks on a talk page like I’m yelling. So, I shrunk it to this:  SpikeToronto . What do you think? Also, the reason that I went with red was that I was trying to make it look like a chop like the ones in a little collection that we have. But, now I’m thinking that it might have too much of a stop sign-like effect on a talk page. So, I tried some other colors. You wouldn’t mind taking a look at my test page of signatures and give me an opinion whether you prefer the current one,  SpikeToronto , or one of the blue or green ones, would you? The ones to choose from are all in a numbered list towards the bottom of the page. Either way, let me know! Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Have you figured out how to change the font? I would like to use a font that has serifs like Times Roman or Georgia. Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  oh no i don't know how to change the font... you know more on that than I do... :( tommy talk 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Did you have a chance to look at the other examples? I’d really like your opinion if any of the others — numbers 3 through 13 — are better than the one I am using now (number 2). —  SpikeToronto  I like #12... but without the border, personally. tommy talk 11:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC) #12 … hmmm … without the border … you know, I can make the border much, much smaller … I only made it as large as it is now since chops often have thick borders … lemme go and take a look at #12 …  SpikeToronto  18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Here is the one in the color (DodgerBlue) that you liked:  SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto  Now, which do you prefer? #1? #2? #3? #4? Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 4! :) tommy talk 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks! I’ll play with that size, shape, etc., a bit a decide. —  SpikeToronto  21:41, 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.

UFC 108 & Huggle

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)

— from UFC 108 at User talk:Jusdafax

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

User 85.216.25.203

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.) (cur) (prev) 20:58, September 8, 2009 Tide rolls (talk | contribs) m (10,747 bytes) (Reverted edits by 124.185.83.132 to last revision by SoWhy (HG)) (rollback | undo) (cur) (prev) 20:58, September 8, 2009 124.185.83.132 (talk) (18,827 bytes) (undo) (Tag: repeating characters) (cur) (prev) 07:17, September 4, 2009 SoWhy (talk | contribs) (10,747 bytes) (→Deleted revisions: change, new MW version allows diffs in Special:Undelete) (undo) 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: I have had run-ins with two or three editors and they would come back to haunt me in the Oppose column. Every day I learn some new rule or guideline here at Wikipedia. I imagine that successful applicants/nominees for Adminship know everything about everything before they become an Admin. I still know way too little. The Administrative duties that would interest me as an Admin would be somewhat narrow, and I don’t suppose that one is permitted to focus oneself narrowly. I would be primarily interested in AIV, speedy deletes, deletion discussions, and ArbCom. The last of these interests me because I think that my law degree might provide useful tools in settling the matters that would come before ArbCom. Alas, since only 18 people out of the millions that are registered can be on this committee, the probability of such an opportunity would be infinitesimal! 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) There’s fellow who recently had his Rollback rights removed who is now challenging that removal over at at WP:ANI. You may find the discussion very useful as it serves as a reminder of how we’re supposed to use the tool. It made me examine my own use of Rollback to ensure that I’m not going to get in trouble. The key issue is that because Rollback does not permit you to alter the edit summary, its use is very limited. When one sees the standard Rollback edit summary in a page history, it should mean that the action was taken only because of blatant vandalism. The thread is a long one, but all very instructive. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Ha wow, he clearly doesn't get it. I would not have used rollback in those scenarios. She was fairly quick to remove it, but her actions were not wrong. And he said they were for "unproductive" edits... but those edits were not necessarily unproductive. Tommy talk 13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) At first, I thought she took them away too soon also, but now I think she acted admirably. This editor who has had his Rollback rights rescinded is caught up in an edit war with another editor who is far, far worse than he is. However, this guy’s response has been to use Rollback to undo the other’s edits when what was called for were clear use of edit summaries and discussions on the article’s talk page. He clearly abused his privileges. But more to the point, after she warned him, he responded by saying that she, an experieced and long-term Admininstrator, did not understand Rollback as well as he did, that he was going to ignore her warning, and continue has he had. Thus, no further warnings were required. He had clearly indicated that he would ignore them. So, she (quite rightly) took his Rollback privileges away (i.e., she changed his “bit”). He has a very long history of Rollback abuse and other warnings on his talk page. In this instance, he even went to another Administrator to get that fellow’s help, only to have the other Administrator politely tell him that he was wrong. Of course, he disagreed with that third-party, arm’s length, uninvolved Administrator too! Not one Administrator has agreed with him, yet he persists. It is his persistence that he is right, that he is correct and everyone else is wrong, that is keeping him from getting his Rollback rights returned. This insistence of his means that he has learned nothing from the loss of his privileges, nor the ANI, and will thus continue as before. As long as he continues to think that he used Rollback correctly and has nothing to learn from any of these many Administrators that are telling him otherwise, he should never get the privileges back. I only use Rollback for clear vandalism: page/section blanking, “hi mom!”, “Spike sucks big ones,” etc. For anything else, I use Undo, wherein you have the opportunity/obligation to expand on why the edit is being reverted. He was using Rollback in an edit war, a content dispute, wherein he was deeply involved! You know, while Huggle (HG) uses the Rollback feature to achieve its edits, it permits you the opportunity, through its advanced features, to provide an explanation. Thus, had the Rollbacker who’s in hot water been using HG, he could have provided a clear explanation. The standard HG edit summary looks like this: 01:10, October 8, 2009 (hist | diff) m Talk:Proteans Software Solutions ‎ (Reverted edits by 64.195.130.114 to last revision by Vipinhari (HG)) (top) [rollback] But, this can be overridden and replaced with one of your own. Well, I have to say that it pleases me no end that you get it! I’m so proud! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, by the way, I am very impressed by this Alison admin. She keeps her cool. As you have experienced, some of them are not necessariy as mature as one would expect WP’s “civil servants” to be. She has been trying to broker the edit war between this editor and another editor at the article where all this inappropriate edit warring has been occurring. And, when each of them threatened to haul her before the courts (i.e., appeal her decisions), she not only told them to have at it, but she told them where on WP to go and how to do it! She acted admirably, commendably, calmly. She didn’t call anyone an “idiot.” That really impressed me. I think I’m in love … File:Blush.png — SpikeToronto (talk) Hahahaha, Yes, she is a good role model for an admin. Kudos to her! :) Tommy talk 18:50, 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.

User 86.134.159.126

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)

Jim Jones & User 96.253.221.207

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) Answered Wildhartlivie at his her talk page: Hi Wildhartlivie! You were right about that last revert. I should have manually added back in the maintenance templates only. Thanks for adding the reference as per WP:LEADCITE. While I only came upon this article doing recent changes patrol, I did read an article some time ago in The New York Times Magazine dealing with Jones’s sole surviving son who was away at a basketball game the day of the mass deaths and it discussed much of what was in that particular paragraph. So, I knew it to be true and was not doubting you. My only concern was that, to the uninitiated, it’s a very dramatic statement that is all the more forceful when it is supported by a verifiable reference/citation. Plus, with the footnote, it complies with WP:LEADCITE, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. By the way, the anon that you reverted in that introduction came to my talk page to yell at me for reverting him! I explained to him that he had his gun pointed at the wrong man. Oh, and I also put a {{Uw-npa3}} on his talk page! As for my signature, thank you for pointing out the problem. I was trying to create something that looked like the chops I and my spousal unit collect. <sigh> Since you have special insight into these difficulties, do you think that any of the following would be easier to read/perceive:  SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto   SpikeToronto  I would very much appreciate your input. Also, would a lighter shade of blue be better perceived? I have a whole raft of test edits here. Any input you would be so kind as to provide me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Wildhartlivie! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — from Jim Jones & Signatures at User Talk:Wildhartlivie Response: First things first. Her talk page. (Just a pet peeve.) :) Okay then. Another editor and I worked long and hard on the Jonestown and Jim Jones articles and a lot of the wording was hammered out over l-o-n-g discussions, so when I see an IP come in and start rewording things with no historical knowledge of the genesis of the wording, I just cringe. I think some of our edits were bumping heads. For a long time the article was semi-protected and sometimes I wish they all were, especially this weekend with the Polanski debacle occurring. I'm sorry if you were accosted. I'll trade you places - yesterday it was suggested that I make a userbox saying I support child rapists because I reverted a significant WP:BLP violation on Woody Allen. *shudder* Policy vs. emotional edits never work without conflict. Now for the legibility. Bear in mind that a lot of visually impaired persons have diminished sight (me) and small font sizes have a huge impact on what one can read, especially when it is contained inside a frame. That's basically what I was encountering. Any of the signatures on your list that creates low contrast between the font color and the background will limit visibility also. More people who are color blind are so in the red/green spectrum, so the red is a bit dodgy. I'll go down your list on what I can see well and what I am aware that others encounter. #1 is legible but is blurry due to the bolding. #2 is a bit of a blob. #3 is legible and I like it, but it might cause problems for persons with other visual problems. #s 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all quite legible to me. #8 and #9 are hard to discern. I totally like #10 (heh, personal likes). #11 looks the same as #4 to me. #12 is quite clear. #13 is a bit hard, and I can't see the print on #15. All the rest, the ones with white font on the color background are very clear. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC) By the way, I know the article you were reading about the surviving Jones sons. Did you know that one of Jim's grandsons was a college basketball player? [2] He was on a tv news show in the US last year in connection with the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown deaths. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, quite right. The NYT article was mainly about him and his father, Jones’s son. I will review your note above in more detail tomorrow. I am heading off to dreamland soon. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Hi Wildhartlivie! Is this signature easier to read? What do you think? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) By the way, that anon came back after me again thinking I made your edit. See here, above under the sub-heading, loser. — SpikeToronto VERY legible. Thanks for looking into it. And sorry about your anon. Send 'em my way! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I tried that! He wouldn’t bite. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:47, 10 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 (http://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.wiki.x.io/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

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. Original Post: Your uw-npov was arrogant and inappropriate. You disagree with me about covering a notable controversy related to Byron York, fine. But keep the templates to yourself, that was just childish. 64.231.164.148 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Since you love slinging around policies to win content disputes, why don't you quote me the policy that says "people who understand wikipedia are required to have accounts, and if they edit from an IP, other wikipedians should make derogatory insinuations about them and demand they log in." Jackass. 64.231.164.148 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC) While doing recent changes patrol with Huggle (HG), I came across the edit reversions in this article. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that deleting material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) can be also be construed as a violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, the person deleting material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), is most likely going to receive a warning of between {{Uw-delete1}} to {{Uw-delete4im}}, depending on the Level of recent, previous warnings. Had the reversion of the material accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) not been returned to the article just before I was about to Huggle it back, HG would have issued you one of those delete templates. Realkyhick, if you seek to remove material that is accompanied by verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), you need to first check that the references can be verified to contain the information that they are purported to contain. If they do not, then you can delete and say in your edit summary that the refs/cites are improperly used, and that they failed verification. If the refs/cites are indeed verifiable, and you still have a problem with them, you are required to open a new discussion thread in the article’s talk page. I am saying all this to keep you two from ending up in a possible edit war and receiving inevitable 3RR blocks. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC) — from Re: warning at User talk:Realkyhick 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) My only point is that when a recent changes patroller is Huggling, he knows nothing about the article, nothing about the context, nothing about any feuds that may be raging. All he knows is that he sees the removal of material that, prima facie, complies with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. Therefore, he’s going to use that pulldown menu at the top of the HG screen and revert it with a removal of content warning (HG’s equivalent to the {{Uw-delete1}} through {{Uw-delete4im}} family). Your edit summary alleging WP:NPOV violations may not stop the more zealous Huggler. As for WP:3RR, remember that the policy clearly states, “Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.” Good luck with this. I hope it all works out. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. If I may be so bold, and hopefully not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE, from what part of KY do you hail? My people are from Jackson County. — SpikeToronto (talk) No problem at all. I'm originally from Glasgow, Kentucky. As for Huggle, I use WP:Twinkle instead. As for Byron York specifically, that article is on my watchlist. There may be a slight COI here: Byron's father, Tom York, is a friend of mine, though I've only met Byron once. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:21, 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) P.S. With this edit, I took back my comments over at Administrator Manning’s page. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:34, 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: Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Edge School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. You removed material that did not cry out for removal. Since the article was not a biography of a living person, there were no WP:BLP issues. Also, the text was not malicious, vandalizing, or in any other way negative. Therefore, the appropriate thing to have done as to have added a {{Citation needed}}, {{Cn}}, or {{Fact}} template at the end of the sentence in queston. Welcome to Wikipedia, happy editing, and don’t forget to register! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — from October 2009 at User talk:99.152.115.143 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) Hi 99.152.115.143! I appreciate your following up on this. The edit that I reverted is this one here. You had deleted a sentence that read, “Edge School offers high performance training in dance, golf, hockey, soccer, rugby and basketball.” I do not read that as promotional (other than the phrasal adjective, “high performance”) so much as it is a simply statement about the school. Additionally, as I said in the above, low-level warning, which I am sure you read, Since the article was not a biography of a living person, there were no WP:BLP issues. Also, the text was not malicious, vandalizing, or in any other way negative. Therefore, the appropriate thing to have done as to have added a {{Citation needed}}, {{Cn}}, or {{Fact}} template at the end of the sentence in queston. The statement you removed is the sort of statement that one expects to find in an article about a school. Whatever deficiencies there were with it — namely the need for a verifiable reference/citation — could have been fixed by the editors working on the wikiarticle if you had merely drawn their attention to the need for a citation with an appropriate citation required template. This solution leaves the non-offending text intact, but draws attention to its deficiencies. However, I accept that I may be wrong in this regard. Amongst what seems innumerable, myriad Wikipedia rules and guidelines, can you point me to something that says that this sentence would be promotional material? Thanks 99.152.115.143 for following up! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I read high performance as an peacock term that creates the impression of being promotional. I view it this way because it would have been enough to simply have said "Edge School offers training in dance, golf, hockey, soccer, rugby and basketball." Or, in my opinion, that line is entirely unnecessary as most schools do offer sports similar, yet their articles do not specifically point that out. Thank you, and please correct me if I am wrong. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You may have a point, re: WP:PEACOCK. But, again, there is a simple template that fixes that, or rather informs the article’s editors of the need of a fix: {{Peacock term}}. (If you go to this edit, you can see where I added it, upon your advice.) Again, these inline templates tell the editors what fixes need to be done by zeroing in their attention to the problem areas. The norm is not to delete text unless there are WP:BLP libel issues, or the text is vandalism, or the text is otherwise more problematic than the text under discussion here. You should take a look at {{Fact}} and {{Peacock term}}. If you click on the hypertext between the squiggly brackets, it will take you to the pages for those templates. Once there, you will see, on both pages, a wealth of different inline templates that are the preferred way of dealing with these sorts of edits, as opposed to outright deletions. Thanks for being so thorough! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Regarding that, so I have to wait for another user to come by and fix that? Why couldn't I have removed the term myself, or you? I'm not really sure what's preventing me from doing so. Thank you. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I'm leaving to do some homework now. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 05:40, 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)

— from Archiving at User talk:Tdinatale

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)

That's fine with me, no rush to archive. Thanks for all youre help. :) tommytalk 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)