User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 03
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SpikeToronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: |
October 2009
Is in "do not include"/"previously discused list" and still the reverts continue. Suggest banning user.
- i had a source, and the user keeps deleting it. i'll stop if you want me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.184.113 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- You should both read WP:3RR. And, since the rules do not allow you two to revert each other over and over — again, see WP:3RR — you should work out content disputes on the various articles’ talk pages. Reverting each other will not solve anything. You have each reverted one another 10+ times. That’s like being in a shoving match! Work it out in the talk pages. Try to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. If you cannot, then ask for outsiders to help resolve the conflict either through WP:RFC, WP:THIRD, or WP:DRR. After you read WP:3RR, you should each read WP:DISPUTE. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 05:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Verifiable Reference/Citation Issue
Verifiable Reference/Citation Issue
|
---|
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. Get a load of this arrogance... notice the history of deleting the talk page of this user. PS - I learned how to collapse ;) tommytalk2me 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Well, let’s use this as an opportunity to learn.
I know this is not the response you expected. But, man, you have got to cool it on talk pages. Plus, with citations, the focus is on the publication, not the URL. In the case of this fellow’s cite, why not go to the Atlanta Magazine website yourself and see if you can find a link to the full text of the article and, if successful, use it to replace his fansite URL. Work with each other, not against each other. Were I him, since it is the URL that is engendering the objections, I would simply remove the URL from the cite, but leave the rest of the cite intact. Then, all you could do is flag it with {{Verify source}}. And you should know, it’s because I’m your friend that I’m giving you this kick in the a**. — SpikeToronto 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The bigger issue here is about the citation: You challenged him on the citation based on the URL. The URL is not key to the citation. If you had gone to the magazine’s website, you would have discovered that the 2008 issues are not available online. Therefore, the only way to provide an online link to the article was for him to point our browsers to a reprint of it, or simply leave out the URL altogether. URLs are the gravy; it’s the full citation that is the meat and potatoes. The URL is optional, but what cannot be left out is the full citation. The link is provided for easy verification purposes only. You were wrong about the verifiable source, challenged him about it in an undiplomatic, uncollegial way, we’re surprised when he responded in kind — not that you would ever do that — and then took the bait when he tried to lure you into an altercation. You need to slow down, cool down stop getting in jams, and start admitting when you’ve made a mistake or you’ll never learn from them. I warned you that a lot of editors here are anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive, thin-skinned individuals, who will give you enough rope to hang yourself with and then gladly pull the lever that opens the trap door. Don’t get yourself in situations where that can happen. Control the situation, don’t let it control you. If you cannot, then extricate yourself from the matter and let someone else lead the charge for a while. Don’t become your own worst enemy here. — SpikeToronto 05:32, 12 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.
|
Removing Stale WP:AIV report
Original Query:
Hi Fastily. With this edit,† you said you were removing a “stale report.” But, you also removed a report on an IP vandal that I had only filed one minute prior to your removing it, and the IP editor is continuing to vandalize. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- †[1]
Response:
Hi SpikeToronto. I can't believe I removed your report along with the stale report!! Terribly sorry about that. I've reverted myself and blocked the IP. Thanks for letting me know. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! By the way, he’s sock puppeting, so you may want to block the other account too. He is making the exact same edits under both names. Once you blocked the IP he was using, he came back under his logged-in account and replaced, word-for-word, an edit that had been earlier reverted by a recent changes patroller. See here and here. He was editing earlier under the logged-in account, but when his edits started getting reverted, he switched to the IP that you have since blocked. I assume that he has now gone back to the logged-in account since its warning Levels have not hit 4im. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Man! You are fast! — SpikeToronto 06:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! Well, I suppose the user couldn't have made it any more obvious they were socking with their edits on Haines Falls, New York. I've blocked the sock. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know you blocked the sock! That’s why I was commenting on how fast you were. :) Would it be appropriate to change the block on the IP to a softblock so that he cannot just come back and edit anonymously now that his logged-in account is indefinitely blocked? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I enabled autoblock when I blocked both the socks so unless this user is somehow able to change their IP address, they definitely won't we able to cause any more trouble. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Great! I went and read WP:AUTOBLOCK after you mentioned it above, so I now understand what you’ve done. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
go to this link www.finalsolution88.com it has all the propagandist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suolith (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume your posting here is in respose to my revert at 15:53 EDT of your contentious edit to Reinhard Heydrich. That revert was then followed by the placing at 15:53EDT of the {{Uw-huggle1}} warning on your talk page for failing to provide a verifiable reference/citation. That is a summary of the facts prior to your posting at 15:59EDT here on my talk page.
Your suggestion that I should consult the website whose URL you have provided, I assume, was meant to provide the citation required for your reverted, contentious edit. My thoughts on this are twofold: (1) it is the responsibility of the editors of the article in question to enter their own verifiable references/citations, not that of the recent changes patroller who performed the revert, and (2) prima facie, the website to which you directed me, Final Solution 88, is a Holocaust denial website and would most likely fail the tests set out at WP:RS and at WP:NPOV. My prima facie conclusion regarding this website is supported by the site’s alternate name, White Pride 14.88:
- White Pride speaks for itself;
- The number, 88, is often used as a neo-Nazi symbol (see here),
- The number, 14, often accompanying the number, 88, is also used as a neo-Nazi symbol (see here).
If you feel otherwise, you are of course free to take this up on the article’s talk page or at WP:RSN. Thank you for your follow-up regarding my earlier revert of your edit and for the opportunity to provide you with an explanation. — SpikeToronto 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverting Vandalism & Applying Warning Templates
Original Query:
Hi Vishnu! Glad to see you’ve joined the recent changes patrollers and are reverting vandalism. I just wanted to let you know that reverting the vandalism is only half the job. The other thing you need to do when you revert is to go to the offending editor’s talk page and apply the appropriate warning template. These can be found at WP:UTM. Thanks! If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. — SpikeToronto 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks for the Warm Welcome. Should I apply these warning templates to IP addresses as well? --Vishnu2011 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- When performing recent changes patrol, Warning templates should especially be applied to IP-only talk pages. While a wealth of contributions to Wikipedia are made by IP-only editors, unfortunately, the bulk of vandalism is also done by anonymous editors. So, it is especially important that appropriate warnings templates be applied to their talk pages when their edits are reverted. This alerts the editor using that IP address as to what behaviour will and will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. Of course, it is not appropriate to use reversions and warnings in content disputes. This discussion relates solely to vandalism, deletions without explanation, libelous additions to biographies of living persons, page blanking, etc. (Each of these has their own warning template at WP:UTM.)
One more thing to remember regarding IP addresses, because of DHCP, an IP address used by an anonymous editor today, may belong to a different editor tomorrow. Therefore, when applying warning templates to the talk pages of IP addresses, remember that they have an effective stale date of about 24 hours. (In fact, this is built in to such vandalism tools as Huggle.) By way of example, if the previous warning template is a Level 3, yet dates from four days ago, it is appropriate to start the warning Level back at Level 1 rather than apply a Level 4 warning. This is because DHCP means that the editor using that IP address today, may not be the same one who was using it four days ago. This explains why upon reviewing IP address edit histories, you often discover a slew of vandalism edits that were preceded days/weeks/months earlier by edits that made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi Coemgenus! Thanks for your edit summary.† After I read it, I did a quick search and found this at WP:ALT:
- Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image.
- It summarizes the image's appearance, not its meaning, and typically has little in common with the image's caption.
- Every image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative and does nothing when you click on it.
I never would have thought that since on most websites the alt text so often just repeats the caption. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- † [2]
Response:
This whole alt-text thing is new to me, too, but it seems to be becoming standard. Glad I could help -- happy editing, --Coemgenus 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Posting:
Thank you for reverting the vandalism at William III of England today. It’s a shame when any wikiarticle gets targeted by a vandal, but it is all the sadder when it is a featured article. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
You're welcome. I'm glad to help whenever I can. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
October/November 2009
Howard University School of Law: Thanks for the cleanup!
SpikeToronto:
I appreciate the corrections. The article definitely looks a lot better with your edits. After looking at other articles on WP, I have realized that the best articles have the most clear and most accurate cites/links. Thanks again. Kadri123 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- You’re welcome Kadri! Thank you for the positive feedback. It’s a rare sight. I try to flesh out incomplete references/citations whenever I can. WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE are good sources for how to do this.
The problem with only inputting a URL (i.e., internet address) is that if and when that link goes dead, the statement that it was meant to be a citation for becomes essentially unreferenced. Consequently, the URL will be deleted (if it cannot be fixed), and it will be replaced by a {{Citation needed}} tag. Conversely, if the citation is entered completely, and the external link should one day go dead, the citation is still good and the worst that could happen is it gets flagged with either a {{Deadlink}} tag or a {{Verify source}} tag. It would be no different than citing an out-of-print book in the bad old days before the Internet.
Thank you for writing the article. That was the truly great contribution! — SpikeToronto 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
November 2009
Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page, I really appreciate it. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aw-shucks, I just did what any other red-blooded recent changes patroller would have done. In all fairness though, I was doing recent changes patrol using Huggle and the vandalism just appeared on my Huggle screen. Thanks, though. It’s always nice to be appreciated! — SpikeToronto 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I wish Huggle worked worth half a crap on Mac :( --Fbifriday (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think MAC users find success with Twinkle. Give that one a try! — SpikeToronto 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I see that you already use Twinkle, so disregard the suggestion. — SpikeToronto 23:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do use it for new page patrolling, but I'd like to do more vandalism reversions, and Twinkle does not assist with that really. Anyway, thanks once again :) --Fbifriday (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You may want to look more at the Twinkle documentation. Loads of recent changes patrollers use it for vandalism reverts. (Personally, I wish everyone with rollback privileges used Huggle since Twinkle reports its vandalism reverts in such a way that Huggle does not pick them up, so we Hugglers cannot see Twinkle-executed reverts. <sigh>) You might want to speak to A8UDI who is one of the many MAC-based recent changes patrollers who use Twinkle. He may be able to assist you. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism? On My User Page?
For reverting it, Crafty sez "Ta, fanx." :) Crafty (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aw-shucks, I just did what any other red-blooded recent changes patroller would have done. In all fairness though, I was doing recent changes patrol using Huggle and the vandalism (and here) just appeared on my Huggle screen. Thanks, though. It’s always nice to be appreciated! — SpikeToronto 07:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- How efficient. Templated responses to thanks. It's like living in the not-to-distant future! :) Crafty (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn’t entirely templated. I did update the vandalism links. In all honesty, I’m just basically lazy: Why stand, when you can sit? Why sit, when you can lie/repose?! That’s my philosophy. :) — SpikeToronto 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all! I'm fully in favour of time-saving devices, given to indolence as I am. ;) Crafty (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
November/December 2009
El Lissitzky
|
---|
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. Thank you for noticing this and reverting it. One youngster won't be able to use that Comcast Cable Communications IP number for a few hours, but do please continue to keep an eye on the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am more troubled by the inconsistency with the blocking admins that “staff” (if you will) the AIV desk. Given my legal background, I see AIV for what it is: a well-intentioned, good-faith process for meting out punishment to vandalizing miscreants. But, nonetheless, punishment it is. Therefore, should we not model it after penal policy in the larger society in which we live (assuming that, like I, you live in one of the world’s many English common-law based societies)? That is, should we not aim for consistency in the “sentences” meted out? Here in Canada, where no punishment-dispensing judge is ever elected (cf the United States), consistency of sentence is a given. By way of wikiexample, I observed one night where a blocking admin (sounds like a gridiron football player, eh?) immediately blocked an editor for using the n-word in a blatantly vandalizing edit, notwithstanding that that editor had yet to have his edits escalated to Level 4/4im. Contrastingly, that same blocking admin, when asked to block another editor for virtually identical, blatantly vandalizing edits wherein Jews were the object of scorn instead of Blacks, responded that that matter should instead be reported to WP:ECCN. Frankly, I fail to see why an issue of Jew versus non-Jew is ethnic conflict while an issue of Black versus non-black is not. I fail to see why both matters were not dealt with in the same manner. That is, either both editors should have been summarily blocked, or both issues should have been referred to ECCN. The primary reason why a system of punishment seeks to be consistent is that it allows the populace to order their respective lives accordingly. For instance, because one knows that burglary is a punishable offence, one does not commit it, especially when one sees burglars receiving consistent punishments for their crimes. Similarly, the Wikipedia populace should be able to order their respective wikilives according to the punishments one sees handed out for wikicrimes. Yet, within the world of Wikipedia, the inconsistent manner in which fairly similar and congruent fact scenarios are handled at AIV makes such ordering of one’s wikilife difficult. Thanks for letting me go on this way. I am merely taking advantage of having the ear of an action-oriented admin to bounce these ideas off of. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 21:23, 30 November 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.
|
Mike O'Connell
|
---|
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. How does removing false information constitute vandalism? The statement, as it stands today: "In trading Thornton, however, Boston freed up the necessary cap space to sign or re-sign free agents such as Zdeno Chára, Andrew Ference, Chuck Kobasew and Marco Sturm. He was replaced in his position as general manager by Peter Chiarelli. Many important players on the Bruins roster are products of O'Connell's drafting, including Patrice Bergeron, Mark Stuart, P. J. Axelsson, David Krejci . O'Connell is currently Director of Pro Player development with the Los Angeles Kings." 1. Marco Sturm was not a free agent, nor was he in the final year of his contract. He was signed through the 2006-2007 season and signed a new contract in February of 2007. 2. Zdeno Chara's salary and cap hit alone exceed Thornton's cap hit. 3. Andrew Ference and Chuck Kobasew were not free agents, either. Both came over in a trade for Wayne Primeau (part of the Thornton trade) and neither have been signed by Boston. Kobasew was traded for Paille, Ference is on the same contract as he was when he came over for Primeau. 4. P.J. Axelsson was drafted in 1995, when Mike O'Connell was the Assistant GM to Harry Sinden. O'Connell didn't become GM for another 5 years. If the focus is on free agents, the point should be that Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara signed in Boston, which wouldn't have happened if Thornton's salary was still on the books (though Thornton's salary is still about 6M less than their aggregate salaries). I cleaned up what was just bad information. Anyone who follows hockey would see this and know it's untrue and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.12.197 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 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.
|
December 2009
MetroFan2009
(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC))This is MetroFan2009. Thank you for that lesson and I appreciate it!! I am kind of new to this editting on Wikipedia. I have only signed up for three weeks. If you want to write me, you can do it any time. Thank You!!!!
- Great! Now if we could just get you to use edit summaries … — SpikeToronto 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the warning
What happened to the warning you gave me? I'm thankful you did that, but why did you remove it? Я£ΙИӺΘЯСΣĐᴙᶕᵻᴎᵮᴓᴚᴐᶒᵯɘᴎᴛᶊTalk 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I immediately realized that a timing error had occurred and that you were trying to revert vandalism, not cause it. From your subsequent edit to your talk page, it would appear that I made the right call. — SpikeToronto 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. In the meantime, perhaps you should consider not doing any vandalism reverts until you can get your Internet connection fixed. — SpikeToronto 06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Edit Summaries
Re: Edit Summaries
|
---|
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 not sure what prompted you to leave this message on my talkpage, we do not seem to have any recently convergent edit history and I generally use edit summaries Mathbot data confirms 97% for my last 150 edits. King of the North East 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is the north east like Manchester? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. I never did thank you for directing me to WP:CATEGRS. I did not know of its existence until you pointed it out. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:20, 15 December 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.
|
Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- Hi ChaosMaster! I appreciate that you are very interested in the Twilight films and the names of the wikiarticles associated with them. However, I neither contribute to nor edit either article. I may stumble upon them occasionally while doing recent changes patrol to revert vandalism; and, if so, that would be the extent of my interaction with either of these articles.
Therefore, I think, perhaps, it is possible that you meant your comments here for TJ Spyke’s Talk page, who I notice proposed the renaming of the first of the two articles in question. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for revert
Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I guess it's to be expected that once you start making a serious intent to remove and prevent vandalism elsewhere, your own userpage becomes a target. Thank you once again. Kartano (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- You’re welcome for the revert. What’s funny for me is that I have been doing recent changes patrol for some time now and had never had my talk page vandalized … until last night. I guess it’s a new day dawning. — SpikeToronto 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, as far as I've been able to ascertain, there is no Toriville in Indiana, and never has been. So your reversion was especially to be desired. —SlamDiego←T 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thanks. And, you’re welcome! — SpikeToronto 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.125.191 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was great to see you clear up that other person’s vandalizing edit! And using UNDO makes sure that all of the “bad edit” gets reverted, and saves you having to manually delete every character the person added, etc.
Also, when you have more experience editing and writing articles, and come across malicious edits that you revert, you might want to have a look at the warning templates at WP:UTM.
There are two halves to the vandalism coin: reverting the “bad edits”, and warning the vandals.
By the way, I took the liberty of going ahead and warning that particular miscreant for you with this edit.
Have fun and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. When you leave a message on a talk page, be sure to sign it by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of the message. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mark Ingram Jr.
|
---|
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 saw you reverted an edit at Mark Ingram Jr. here. Please take more care when reverting; I realize it's hard to recognize that IPs removing content can actually be good, but here, the IP you reverted was removing irrelevant POV (their opinion of who should have won). Don't worry, I've made the same mistake a couple of times, but (as an IP once said to me): "Believe it or not, not everyone editing anonymously is out there to destroy Wikipedia with every edit. :) But plenty are, so please stay vigilant, but also exercise caution". Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(←) I just read the Huggle developer’s response to your suggestion. I don’t think he gets it. <sigh> — SpikeToronto 08:04, 14 December 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.
|
Random Dose of Joy
SURPRISE!
Hajatvrc has targeted you for a
|
You and I seem to be the manning the recent changes patrol tonight. I keep coming across the same miscreants as you and finding our warnings “comingling” on the same talk pages! As for me, it’s way past my bedtime … so I’m about to pack it in. Keep up the good work and thanks for the RDJ. — SpikeToronto 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy Stamper Articles
Original Query:
Hi PMDrive! I marked two almost identical articles on Jeremy Stamper for A7 deletion: Jeremy L. stamper (note the lower case s) and Jeremy Stamper. It’s possible that G10 might be more appropriate. Anyway, I am not a new page patroller, so I may have it wrong. But, the articles seemed duplicative and “fishy” to me. And, since I know that you work on page deletions, I thought that you might know best how to deal with them. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
At first, I thought these were legit...but some of the references at the bottom of the "Jeremy Stamper" version had nothing whatsoever to do with this individual and a Google search of the name turned up very few possible matches. Since it is easier to beg forgiveness tham to ask permission, I deleted them both as possible hoaxes. If another admin feels that there should be an article on the guy and he's a legit subject, it wouldn't bother me. What steams my fleckmans are plausible-sounding hoax articles and given the subject matter, it may have been just that. Thanks for alerting me; gotta split. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Michael W. Dean Vandalism Revert: Thank you
thank you for the reverts on the Michael W. Dean article. I've put in a request for semi-protection, because it seems to be still happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaBarrington (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- You’re welcome! That one vandal just would not stop. But, the warnings seemed to work. He stopped after receving his third anti-vandalism warning, so he wasn’t blocked. I don’t know if that article had been chosen by the editor at random for vandalizing, or if Dean had recently been in the news. But, there has been no vandalism to it since 01:29EST, so your request for page protection may be declined. Good luck and thanks for the thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't make Ragib angry!
Don't make Ragib angry
|
---|
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. Ragib is the most powerful Administrator of wikipedia and he can easily kick your butt out from the wikipeidia if you make him angry! He has lots of *living socks* who can make prod-attack to your articles or harass you in other ways if you go against him. For example, currently a well-established editor Phil Bridger is suffering with lots of prod-attack to the articles he created because he contested a prod-attack by Ragib to the article Hridoy Khan. So, don't touch any article that Ragib wants to delete and stay away from his anger.--Jimmydarocker (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand your comment regarding Ragib. If you look closely at the AfD for Tapan Chowdhury, Ragib clearly !voted: “Strong Keep: per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians (first level national office holder).” [Italics added.] (See here.) If Ragib had wanted such an article deleted, as you suggest, he would not haved !voted for it to be kept. Rather than coming to my talk page casting aspersions, when you see an article that is nominated for deletion that you feel ought to be retained, participate in the deletion discussion. I notice that you have yet to do so with the deletion discussion for Tapan Chowdhury. What’s stopping you? Finally, if you truly believe the claims you are making are justified and provable, then file a report at either WP:ANI or WP:SPI. But, be prepared to back up your claims with sufficient evidence. Otherwise, continued personal attacks on another editor could cause a report to be filed against you at WP:ANI. So far, you have made two personal attacks against User:Ragib, on my talk page alone. You need to desist from such action and instead either: (1) participate in the various deletion discussions (i.e., AfDs) of which your speak, or (2) make the appropriate reports in the appropriate Wikipedia venues, namely ANI or SPI. Thank you Jimmydarocker for your consideration of the foregoing. — SpikeToronto 05:14, 23 December 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.
|
Recent Changes Barnstar
You've probably already got one of these...
![]() |
The Recent changes Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts in patrolling the Recent Changes and quickly and efficiently dealing with any issues that arise HistoryStudent113 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) |
- Aw gee, thanks! I kind of thought that my anti-vandalism work went unnoticed, that I was some invisible editor toiling away in the grafitti-stained byways of Gotham … er … Wikipedia … cleaning the walls. Thanks again! I’ve only ever received one other barnstar. I shall prize this forever!
— SpikeToronto 08:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I noticed that we were both dealing with the work of one persistent IP editor who spent approximately 12 hours today vandalizing. (See here and here.) He received a 55-hour block from the wonderful admin manning the WP:AIV desk. — SpikeToronto 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- YAY (does a little dance) I was hoping that "user" ("abuser"?) was taken care of. We seem to be online and patrolling at similar times and I keep running into edits you've already done so I figured I'd say "Hi". HistoryStudent113 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- At least for you a way out there in B.C. it’s still a reaonsable time to be working on RCP. As for me, it may one day lead to divorce! <grin>
With that particular miscreant, I did what I often do after Huggling a warning on to their talk page, I called up his contribs and looked at everything else he had done that had yet to be reverted. I reverted those that were “bad” and manually placed warnings on his talk page for the benefit of the blocking admin to see (hence all those Level 4 warnings!). I like the particular admin that was working AIV tonight, Materialscientist, because he’s not timid about blocking. He is one of the reasons I like doing RCP so late at night. Also, there are less other people doing RCP and thus one can take one’s time and do it carefully and properly. During the day in the Eastern Time Zone, a lot of the RCPers seem to think it’s a race!
I take it from your user page that you’ve received a history degree and are working on a teacher’s certificate. What level are you hoping to teach? Anyway, I am off to bed! — SpikeToronto 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- At least for you a way out there in B.C. it’s still a reaonsable time to be working on RCP. As for me, it may one day lead to divorce! <grin>
- I'm aiming towards High-School Social Studies/English, which is what led me to editing WP in the first place. Using WP as a research source, while frowned upon, is increasingly prevalent so I figured I can at least do my part to make sure it's accurate. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. HistoryStudent113 (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish I were a teacher just so I could teach my students how to do research without using Wikipedia! When I was at law school, even though everything is pretty well all available online, my small section prof insisted that we learn to do legal research as if it were still the 1950s. I think it was wonderful!
Are you in the middle of finals? When do you break for Christmas? — SpikeToronto 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish I were a teacher just so I could teach my students how to do research without using Wikipedia! When I was at law school, even though everything is pretty well all available online, my small section prof insisted that we learn to do legal research as if it were still the 1950s. I think it was wonderful!
Original Query:
You deleted all of the text of the above-captioned article. Wikieditors cannot participate in the AfD if they do not know the content about which the are considering deletion. So, I have restored the content. Although, I have to admit being perplexed as to why you moved the contents of Daniel Gray (Entertainer) to About Blank. — SpikeToronto 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Dear Spike, I moved the page to the title about blank because it seems that the article is offensive to others and therefore I deleted it's contents and didn't want to take up the space on wikipedia, because it seems that's all the the article is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot unilaterally delete an article, especially one that has an ongoing WP:AfD. The whole purpose of an AfD is for wikieditors to determine whether an article should be retained or not. Also, once the time limit has run out on an AfD only an administrator can deal with its outcome. S/he will determine the consensus of the deletion discussion, mark the AfD as closed, and then delete or retain the article, as per the resultant consensus. You are not an administrator. As a regular wikieditor, you are not empowered to perform these functions.
Also, and by the way, you did not “delete” the article. All you did was rename it (via a move) and then place a redirect on the properly named page redirecting to the improperly named page.
So, just in case I am not being clear enough, you need to put it back the way it was before an administrator does it for you.— SpikeToronto 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)P.S. When you leave messages on another editor’s talk page, be sure to sign your message by typing four tildes at the end of the message like this: ~~~~ Also, you create the new message by pressing the new section tab a the top of the page, not by just adding at the bottom. You might want to look at WP:TALK for more info on this. — SpikeToronto
P.P.S. I see you put everything back. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Adminship
Hi there. :) Would you be interested in running for adminship? I've been looking through your contribs and logs for a while, and I think you have what it takes to push the mop responsibly. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have responded elsewhere. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Novice needs mentor…
Would like to ask for your help/guidance. Moreso for the fact that I have run blind into a brick wall. That of course being the issue of Wiki politics; seasoned users finding offense to newer user input without first posting in discussion page, for example. And of course, then comes the bullying and trolling. If you can help me out, that would be much appreciated. BTW, I got your name off of a message you left on A8UDI page... I had wondered what happened to him/her. Thanks! --NayadethFigueroa (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Nayadeth! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My gut reaction is to say, “Politics? What politics?” That is, I am not sure that there are politics at Wikipedia so much as there are a lot of content disputes and associated drama. The key for a new wikieditor like you is to take it easy for a while: Just dip your toe in and get used to things here before diving straight into the deep end. You’re only 10-days-old, as at this writing, and so are still a newborn, if you’ll excuse the metaphor.
When I first started here, it took me months to figure out how the Wikipedia system worked, with its myriad wikirules and wikiguidelines. The best place for you to start is with the welcome message that User:A8UDI left on your talk page the day after you signed up. In it you will find wikilinks to the following:
- WP:INTRODUCTION An introduction, with tutorial, to Wikipedia.
- WP:FIVE The five pillars (Wikipedia’s fundamental principles) with which every wikieditor is expected to be thoroughly familiar.
- WP:HOW A detailed, how-to guide for editing on Wikipedia, including practice and process.
- WP:HELP Wikipedia’s help centre.
- WP:DEV How to develop an article.
- I would like to add:
- WP:RS Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding reliable sources.
- WP:CITE Wikipedia’s guidelines to citing those reliables sources.
- WP:REFBEGIN Beginners’ guide to referencing (i.e., setting up footnotes, references, and/or citations).
- Until you become familiar with these things, you may want to spend time performing gnomish duties to the articles you read. That is, perform minor copy edits where needed.
Finally, when you find yourself in a content dispute with another wikieditor, remember to do the following:
- Assume good faith. Everyone wants to make Wikipedia the best that it can be.
- Remain calm. Keep your cool.
- Always be civil.
- Do not violate the three-revert rule (i.e., WP:3RR).
- Discuss contentious content issues on article talk pages. Build consensus. Remain cool, calm, and civil.
- I am not sure that you need to be adopted. However, anytime that you have a specific question with which I might be able to help you, feel free to start a new section here on my talk page and ask away. If you are in a rush, or I am taking too long to get back to you, try WP:QUESTIONS. Good luck and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 06:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Reliability of the IP tracing tool
Sometimes the IP tracing tool makes mistakes, and if you're unsure about a particular trace, it can be good to try traceroute, which is often more accurate. In this case, a traceroute locates the IP to near Buffalo, NY. Note also that the person behind that IP seems to edit articles about upstate New York. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Soap! I used Geolocate to trace the IP. I like(d) it because it gives a simple end result. Little did I know that it can give incorrect results! I see, though, when I use Traceroute, as you suggested, that I get a different result.
When Geolocate told me Worcester, Mass., and I saw edits to articles on Western New York, I just figured it was a Western New York ex-pat who was editing articles about his (former) home turf. Of course, now that I follow Traceroute, I see that the editor was in New York the whole time.
Thanks Soap. I’ll go and change my comments on that talk page to reflect the new information you’ve shown me. It would be dishonest of me not to, now that I know. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help with the article. I didn't know where to find information about his baseball career, so I added what I could find. I really appreciate you filling out the article with well-sourced information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank G-d! I spent hours on it — I’m not very good at filling in Infoboxes — and was so afraid that someone would just come along and revert it all. I notice that some editors of pro wrestling articles can be very touchy about how they are edited and I am not a regular editor of the articles within the WikiProject Professional wrestling. The reason I added the material was that I was curious about his pre-wrestling baseball career and was surprised to find that there was so little info in his wikiarticle. So, I thought I’d see what I could find since I have a lot of baseball-related bookmarks. Then, I added whatever I came across. I wonder what he was doing for the three years between the Visalia Oaks and the Adirondack Lumberjacks? We know he didn’t start wrestling until after the Lumberjacks. Also, I wonder what got him into wrestling? Did you find anything in any interviews or articles?
As for the new baseball info, perhaps you could add a comment to the discussion I started on the talk page. You weighing in might dissuade someone else from deleting the new material.
Thanks again for your positive feedback! It was much appreciated. — SpikeToronto 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SpikeToronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |