User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 03

October 2009

The Birthday Massacre/List of gothic rock bands

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. With this edit, you are right that the URL leads to a fan page, but there is otherwise no problem with the reference. The wikieditor provides a verifiable reference/citation that it is from Atlanta Magazine. It may be that one cannot get the full article directly from the magazine’s website either because it does not provide it, or it does so for a fee. In which case, and while not ideal, wikieditors are allowed to use URLs that lead to fansites, blogs, etc., so long as the article there is a legitimate one, and not written by the fansite/blog owner/maintainer. This is a legitimate, published, third-party article and thus satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. Also, his formatting and detailed citation satisfies WP:CITE. (Although, he should add, “as reprinted at …”) Remember: a citation that reads, Parker, Virginia. “Alton Brown Steaks His Claim,” Atlanta Magazine. June 29, 2008. is a legitimate citation that can stand on its own without a URL. The fact that a URL is added is merely icing on the cake, but not required. The citation is good: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE are all complied with. The reference is from a verifiable reliable source. Its use in the article is not for me to comment on since I am neither familiar with the article nor is subject. With this edit, not knowing the history between you two, I do not know whether he is being positively or negatively sarcastic. In any event, were I you, I would either let it pass without comment, or use it as an opporunity to let him know that you truly do not consider yourself perfect, in case you had given that impression, and that you value his contributions to the project and discussions related thereto. It’s called killing them with kindness, or that catching more flies with honey than vinegar stuff I mentioned to you previously. But, with this edit, I see you chose to take the bait. This is how that earlier fellow managed to give you enough rope to hang yourself with and then was able to file an ANI against you that won you no support. Don’t take the bait. (Easier said than done, I know.) I do not know, with this edit, what the issue is because AussieLegend does not provide the diff to which he is referring, and so I cannot comment. This edit shows that you’ve got to learn to keep your mouth shut. It comes close to violating WP:NPA. To some Administrators, it may even cross the line. Also, his argument with AussieLegend is his, not yours. It’s not an opportunity for you to pile on. Remember how I pointed out in your ANI that editors have the right to blank anything they want from their talk pages? I did so because someone was attacking you for it and suggesting that an inference of guilt could be drawn from such action. Well, you need to extend the same courtesy to others and neither comment on, nor draw conclusions from, their blanking their own talk page. I do not understand the need to ask where he is from. But, once it was on his page, you cannot delete it. Deleting anything from another person’s talk page can get you in trouble, even if it’s your own comments. The most you are allowed to do is use strikethrough (<s></s>), with which I know you are familiar. Don’t delete stuff from someone else’s talk page, and for G-d’s sake don’t blank someone else’s talk page (which was the net result of this edit). Your single act of blanking his talk page would be sufficient for him to get you in deep sh*t. 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) Meh, I took the bait and corrected myself; also I didn't mean to blank his page before... but seeing how he has a history of doing it, I don't think he'd really care (and honestly didn't care enough to change it back; also the notion that he'd go to ANI on me is a bit laughable; seeing how he was blocked once "indefinitely"). Also, if you look at his attitude, his consistent attitude, it's nothing but rudeness... like... all the time. And I mentioned the location because he was talking like he was in a gang or something... and I wanted to make it sound like.. honey, please, you're not in LA or NYC; it's buffalo. Also, I mentioned him blanking his page because he has done it numerous, numerous times; not compared to Arzel's one time attack on me; not even comparable. The tl template... I don't quite understand yet. And Roswell Park is in the city, not OP ;). I understand where all of your concerns are, but if I just don't care enough to bother being nice with someone who chronically has his head up his ass. I just wanted to show you how ridic he is. tommytalk2me 02:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You seem to guage your behavior by how the other person behaves. We’re supposed to conduct ourselves a certain way regardless of how the other fellow acts. We’re supposed to rise above it. Also, just because he acts a certain way does not justify acting in kind: Two wrongs do not make a right. 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) P.S. I never said Roswell Park was in Orchard Park. I said I had the two “Parks” confused. To us, it’s all Buffalo, whether it’s Tonawanda, Cheektowaga, Roswell Park (a hospital, not even a place; shows you I confusing it is for us here), Orchard Park, Buffalo proper, or whatever. All we know is it’s on fire every night and Irv Weinstein on Eyewitness News never retires (although I’m sure he has by now!). So it’s all the same from where we’re sitting. (Actually, now that we all fast forward commercials on TV, I guess nobody here notices the Buffalo news anymore …) — SpikeToronto 1. don't fight fire with fire. 2. Did you even read what he was saying?? He was ready to starting going all Jerry Springer on me, but I calmly reiterated my question. I don't understand why you're coming off so strong; compared to a month ago, that's an improvement. so, relax. tommytalk2me 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC) This edit still seems to say that bad behavior is justified by bad behavior: he did it first, sort of thing. And, you still haven’t addressed the key issue that started it all: his citation. I still don’t know if you understand it. Even a whispered little mea culpa would be a start. And something that tells me you understand that a URL is not a reference. A reference is full author, article, publication, date, etc. The URL is merely a gift, a useful tool for verification. If you had not made the mistake regarding the citation, the rest of the conversation with him, and this entire conversation with me, would never have occurred. Progress on behavior should not be measured in baby steps, but in a complete turnaround. I’m not “coming off strong.” I’m just being consistent, staying on point, and losing my patience. When you one day are in an RfA, someone is going to dig up those diffs. Don’t think they won’t. And you had better have a better explanation than, “I understand where all of your concerns are, but if I just don't care enough to bother being nice with someone who chronically has his head up his ass.” It sounds like an eight-year-old saying, “He started it!” The greatest lesson one can learn in life is to be able to see when one is wrong, and admit it without hesitation, and without qualification. Finally, I do not have any more patience for this. Let’s drop it and move on. — SpikeToronto 17:35, 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)

— from Removing Stale WP:AIV report at User talk:Fastily

^†[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)

Holocaust Denial?

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)

— from Reverting Vandalism at User talk:Vishnu2011

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)

William III of England & Photo Alt Text

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)

— from William III of England Photo Alt Text at User talk:Coemgenus

^† [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)

William III of England Vandalism

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)

— from William III of England Vandalism at User talk:152.16.59.102

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

Vandalism Revert: Thank you

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

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) To be honest, it showed up on my Huggle screen; I wasn’t paying any special attention to the article otherwise. However, I deduced that someone who died two decades before the first cosmonaut ever blasted off, could never himself have been a cosmonaut. I’m curious, though: Why was this anon blocked after only one edit? Was it because he provided a false edit summary? If that’s that policy, then should I report such miscreants — i.e., those who provide innocuous edit summaries while actually committing vandalism — to WP:AIV even before they hit Level 4im? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, no time to check on policy here. So, from the gut: Somebody who adds silliness to an article while lying about it in an edit summary, and making the lie one that will be as inconspicuous as possible, is clearly somebody who knows his way around Wikipedia. We can then dispense with the series of warnings. Now, to say that we can dispense with it does not mean that we should dispense with it, but here we have an IP number that has never been used for any other edit, and the chances that the same IP number will be used by some other, innocent party look low. Other reasonable objections could be raised to my immediate block but I'm reluctant to divulge them (WP:BEANS). You're very welcome to ask another admin to take a look and to comment; I wouldn't take your request as any kind of criticism of my judgement (though for that matter you are of course very welcome to criticize my judgement). ¶ Feel free to reply but I shan't be able to respond for some hours. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I wasn’t criticizing. I only wanted to know if this was an instance where I should not wait for the warnings to reach Level 4/4im before filing a report with WP:AIV. There are some admins that no matter how egregious the edit (e.g., racism), they will not block until Level 4/4im. Yet, there are others who will immediately block in such instances. Consequently, such inconsistency has discouraged me from filing AIV reports before hitting Level 4/4im. Again, I wasn’t criticizing, merely seeking clarification. (In all honesty, I hadn’t even noticed the edit summary! I just noticed the factually impossible edit and reverted. Silly, blind me!) — SpikeToronto 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, I knew you weren't criticizing. (I'd even thought of adding, "I know you don't mean it as a criticism, and" blah blah, at the start, but stopped myself because it sounded too absurd an escalation of politeness.) ¶ It's certainly unusual to block on the first offense (no matter how egregious the offense). And the idea of levels is good, and their employment can be good. However, I'm tired of the timewasting when, as here, it's pretty much cut and dried. Plus I'm showing the blockee how to appeal. ¶ Me, I've never used Huggle or anything similar. Not knocking them (far from it); I'm just unfamiliar with them. -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I have to admit that from time to time, I too get tired of having to escalate from Level 1 to Level 4/4im when any objective observer could plainly see that the never-before-used IP-only editor is only going to vandalize and should be taught quickly that that is not acceptable. But, escalation is the wikirule for us plebes (read, “non-admins”), so I live with it. 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) You raise some interesting points. I have to admit that it's been a long time since I last looked at WP:AIV. But without even looking at it, I see something very wrong in your description of it above. The purpose isn't punishment, it's prevention. If somebody uses words like "nigger" (your example) or, say, "kike" (other of course than in such contexts as a levelheaded discussion of the word itself, or a necessary quotation), then he -- I always think of these people as male -- typically gets blocked quickly, to prevent him from repeating such behavior during the period while he can be expected to sober up or turn his interest to some other website. That's the principle. Sometimes people wonder whether prevention is a euphemism for punishment, and of course they're welcome to express these doubts, and, if they're persuasive, they can get the punitive measures (as they're now recognized) overturned. So let's turn to WP:AIV. It says: Important! Your report must follow these three points: [...] 2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. [...] Warnings and notices says nothing about a need to progress stage by stage from one to four, while it does have "Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; very strong cease and desist, first and only warning" (my emphasis). As it happens, you didn't notice the care with which your perp attempted to deceive -- no criticism of you here; often I too fail to notice aspects of vandalism -- but if I'd seen all then in your place I might have dumped a "4im" warning on his page. (Though actually when I do warn I rarely use templates for the purpose.) On the other hand I realize that (1) the offending edit didn't make any allegations about anyone's sexual proclivities or activities, wouldn't offend any demographic, introduced a factoid that wouldn't mislead anyone with half a brain and half an education, etc; and also (2) various "WP:" pages develop their own subcultures, making it possible that this one errs on the side of indulgence to complete ignoramuses, to drunks, to 13-year-olds wanting to impress their friends, and to all the other people who cumulatively waste so much of our time. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarifications. Also, thinks for pointing out that Warnings and notices does not specifically require escalation, especially with regard to Level 4im. But why, then does the occasional blocking admin at AIV tell us when we file a report, where the editor did not receive four or five warnings within a small time frame, that the warnings were escalated too quickly (i.e., with stages skipped) and that, consequently, the report was filed prematurely? I’m not pulling this stuff out of thin air. It is only because of having experienced these responses at AIV that I escalate warnings one by one despite Huggle’s providing overrides so that one can escalate more rapidly, where the egregiousness of the edit might warrant it. There are even some admins at AIV who are reluctant to block patently obvious vandalism-only accounts. There’s a part of me that thinks that if an admin is squeamish about blocking, then s/he should work in areas other than AIV. But, that’s just my humble opinion. <smile> Of course, I have seen some blocking admins that are the equivalent of hanging judges. I remember reporting one editor who I was pretty sure was just very unfamiliar with editing and was not consulting his talk page where I and other editors were trying to coach him and offer help with the editing goals that he was trying to achieve. When Huggle auto-reported him to AIV, I added a note suggesting that maybe a short block would cause him to finally read his talk page. The admin that blocked him instead made it indefinite! Now, being a mere plebe, that seemed to me like an execution! <grin> So, it’s just the uncertainty that inconsistency engenders that makes me take the approach of just escalating step by step and leaving it at that. Finally, most likely I did not express my self well enough earlier. What I meant to say was that I see AIV as the locale in which Wikipedia’s penal policy regarding vandalism is effected. Whether that policy includes punishment, prevention, deterrence, etc., matters less to me, than that it be consistent. That’s the key for making sure that us mere mortals know where we stand vis-à-vis various activities. Thanks again and especially for making me re-read Warnings and notices. I will try a Level 4im the next time I see a racially-oriented, vandalizing edit directed at any group, Black, Jew, Martian, etc. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) But why, then does the occasional blocking admin at AIV tell us when we file a report, where the editor did not receive four or five warnings within a small time frame, that the warnings were escalated too quickly (i.e., with stages skipped) and that, consequently, the report was filed prematurely? ¶ In brief, I don't know. I do see this. If something similar happens again, alert me to it while it's fresh and I'll see what happens and perhaps dive in. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 1 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.

Mike O'Connell

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) Hi 70.44.12.197. Thank you for following up with me regarding your edits that were reverted. The issue had nothing to do with the correctness of your edits. The issue was a simple one: You did not provide an explanation for the content deletions. Please bear with me while I explain. The first edit deleted information without explanation. The rules/guidelines at Wikipedia require that you explain why you are removing information, especially if that information is supported by a verifiable reference/citation. Contentious/controversial deletions of text should first be discussed on the article’s Talk page to achieve consensus with the other editors of the article. (The second edit just repeated the first one, more or less.) Please note that editing rules are all the more important, and all the more enforced, with biographies of living persons as the Wikipedia community is concerned with avoiding libelous edits. (I’m not suggesting that your edits were in any way libelous.) Almost immediately after issuing the warnings to your talk page, and because I am sure that you know more about the topic than I do, and to help you make such well-informed edits correctly, I added to your anonymous talk page a welcome message that provides you with guidance regarding editing articles and Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I also added to your anonymous talk page a note regarding the use of edit summaries to which I added the following statement: Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. You may feel free to repeat your edit, but please fill in the edit summary explaining why you are making the changes to the article. Recent changes patrollers will rarely revert an edit that is accompanied by an explanation. Such edits — unless they are blatantly vandalizing — are left for the regular editors of the article to deal with. From your comments here on my talk page, it is obvious that you are very familiar with the hockey issues as they relate to the article. An editor as well-informed as yourself is always a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Thus, familiarizing yourself with the things I placed on your anonymous talk page here and here will save you the aggravation of having your well-intentioned, and well-informed, edits reverted. Thanks again for giving me this opporunity to clarify these matters for you. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Be sure when you add information to a biography of a living person to include a verifiable reference/citation. If you do not have one at that moment, and are going to add one later, then at least place the {{Fact}} tag at the end of the sentence as a placeholder until you can come back soon after with an appropriate, on-point, verifiable reference/citation. Otherwise, your BLP edit is liable to be reverted by a recent changes patroller with a corresponding BLP warning ({{Uw-biog1}} up to {{Uw-biog4im}}) placed on your talk page. Sorry it all seems so bureaucratic with all the red-tape, but biographies of living persons are very seriously dealt with around here. Happy Editing! — SpikeToronto 22:05, 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£ΙИӺΘЯСΣĐᴙᶕᵻᴎᵮᴓᴚᴐᶒᵯɘᴎᴛᶊ^Talk 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) Hi King of the North East! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain. I was on recent changes patrol with my trusty sidekick, Huggle, when I noticed that, with this edit, you removed a category from Hernán Crespo without explanation. But, because I was able to determine that you’re an established editor who works on loads of soccer articles, I figured that you knew what you were doing and I should skip it and not revert it. However, the briefest of edit summaries would have saved me or any other recent changes patroller from having had to wade through your user page, your talk page, and your edit history to have arrived at that decision. In any event, when I look at your edit history again, I see that you do use edit summaries most all of the time. (97%. Mine’s 100%.) Unfortunately, with the specific edit under discussion, the system generated summary failed to provide the why of the revert. Nonetheless, I apologize for any distress that such a notice might have caused you and for not having noticed that your use of edit summaries is certainly, infinitely, better than a lot of wikieditors (especially the anons). Thanks again for bringing this to my attention and for providing me an opportunity to clarify. You should just delete the notice from your page with some sort of edit summary that you have corrected the imbecile (that would be me …) who gave it to you. Happy editing and keep up the great work! I now know that every time I look up a Latin American soccer player, chances are you created and/or improved the article! — SpikeToronto 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, I certainly didn't intend to imply that you are any kind of imbecile, I just couldn’t work out which edit of mine had prompted you to send me the message. As for Category:Argentines of Italian descent I have nothing against it, but it is not appropriate to add these categories to every Argentine with an Italian/Spanish/German/Armenian sounding name as some users love to do despite having been told many times of the existence of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality specifically "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references". I do tend to write "removed unsupported category" or some such text, must have forgotten that time. Anyhow, keep up the good work. Regards, King of the North East 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC) If you want to try and convert someone to using edit summaries perhaps you could try my mate user:Sgreen1277, He generally does good work on South American football but I can't get him to use them at all [3]. King of the North East 20:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) How about using “Violates WP:CATEGRS”? I know that here in Toronto many of the Italian Canadians that I’ve met came to Canada from Italy via Brazil or Argentina. So, I deduced from that that a lot of Argentinians have Italian ancestry. I agree, however, that adding such a category needs to be supported by a verifiable reference/citation. Thanks for the explanation! (Btw, I was calling myself an imbecile in an “aw-shucks” self-deprecating kind of way … I didn’t think you were calling me so … but feel free to think it!) — SpikeToronto 20:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) One percent?! What the f*uck??!! When I place the {{Summary}} reminder template on someone’s talk page, I always add to it the following statement: Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks! And that, my friend, really is the bottom line: If he does not want his good faith edits reverted, he ought to use an edit summary. Man, he must be a lazy b*ast*rd! — SpikeToronto 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) You know I was just thinking, while your number of edits without edit summaries is only 3%, that’s actually very high, in absolute terms. Your total number of edits is — get ready for this … wait for it … wait for it … drumroll … fanfare … it’s the biggest number if edits I’ve ever seen … almost 47,000! Therefore, you have made over 1,400 edits without explanation. Hmm … makes one pause … As for your buddy, I think he’d be too tough a nut to crack. I’d be too afraid to even give it a try! — SpikeToronto 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I didn't really bother with edit summaries for my first few months in 2006, I've tried to use them since then. I think 1,400 without explanation is excusable since I have used the edit summary "New Article" more than 1,300 times since then. I miss the days when I used to create tons of articles, I don't have as much free time for Wikipedia and most of my time here is spent gnoming about fixing things these days. Without recent change patrolers like you I'm sure I'd have even less time to create articles. Keep it up mate. Regards King of the North East 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) (←) You make a valid point: Because it was only at the beginning that you weren’t using edit summaries, and you use them consistently now, that three percent is not terribly relevant. Also, in the interests of full disclosure, often when I create a new page, I rely on the automatically generated edit summary rather than inputting one of my own. 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) Ugh no, Manchester is North-West. The North-East is dominated by Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough although everyone should know about Hartlepool. The main feature of the NE is huge scale post-industrial degeneration, thanks to Thatcher and the neo-liberal free marketeers that wrecked the UK and eventually the rest of the world economy. (And that is the most political thing I've ever written on Wikipedia!). Regards King of the North East 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Smack! ← That’s me smacking myself on the head for such stupidity. For some reason where England is concerned, I always reverse my east and west. This is all the more weird because I really do have a good sense of direction! Don’t get me started on almost three decades of conservatism. Have you been watching how Canadian political conservatism is almost single-handedly scuttling the Cophenhagen meeting? And don’t just blame your “neo-liberal free marketeers that wrecked the UK and eventually the rest of the world economy.” Ours had a hand in it too, well at least the American ones did. When our (i.e., here in Canada) neo-liberal free marketeers were in charge at least they drew the line at all that banking de-regulation that the Americans and Brits did so freely. I often say that President Clinton, given the stranglehold that conservatives (even in his own party) had on Congress, was like a minority prime minister, made to accept certain pieces of legislation in order to get passed the ones that he wanted. Or, at least that’s me giving him the benefit of the doubt for having signed away the banking and financial regulations that would have prevented us landing in the Great Recession. But, I have to admit, I would prefer the conservatism of Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney over the creeping, incremental, religion-based conservatism of (majority) Bush and (longest-serving Canadian minority) Harper. <grrr> At least back in the eighties my enemy had a clearly stated theoretical paradigm in which s/he operated and was up-front about all of his/her political intentions. Of course, a spineless Loyal Opposition is all it takes for a minority government to be able to incrementally destroy the social, political, and cultural fabric of a nation as well as yield its once important diplomatic position on the world stage. (I’m still talking about here, in the Great White North.) I’m done ranting now. Thanks, Your Majesty, I needed that! — SpikeToronto 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. I am sorry to hear about the monkey. Does the average Hartlepudlian know what a Frenchman looks like now?! :) — SpikeToronto 19:10, 16 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.

New Moon (2009 film) & Eclipse (2010 film)

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)

D. C. Stephenson

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)

Cheese Puffs revert

Thank you for your message. I just happened to notice the vandalism over at the Cheese Puffs page and thought it looked bad so removed it. I didn't think about it anymore than that but everything you say makes sense. Next time I'll definatly revert the changes and make sure I register.

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.

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 know your comments are well-intentioned and well-meaning, but they are nonetheless inappropriate. Let’s look at the facts: From the history at Mark Ingram, Jr., you see that there were four (4) edits all made at 21:00EST, the second of which was mine. Thus, 173.68.87.133 and I most likely reverted at the same time. Result: An edit conflict that the system did not reconcile, and for which it did not issue a warning. Also from the history at Mark Ingram, Jr., you see that my revert was done with Huggle (HG), while 173.68.87.133 manually deleted. (It does not appear that he used the UNDO function.) Thus, the probability of an edit conflict occuring, from two differing input systems to the wiki, at a time when edits were occuring at the rate of one every 15 seconds, would be quite high. If you are familiar with Huggle, you know that at the same time as it reverts, it places a warning on the reverted editor’s talk page. Since it was your concern for that editor that motivated your comments here, one would have expected that you would have visited his talk page in the seven minutes before posting here. On his talk page you would have discovered no warnings. On his talk page history, you would have discovered that within one minute of my reverting his revert, I had removed the automatically generated warning with the following statement: “Reverting warning. I reverted at same time as someone else and thus reverted a revert. Warning does not apply.” This informs even the most casual observer that I was fully aware that I had reverted a good revert, and that I knew how it had happened, and was correcting it. Your comments and tone suggest that you think that (a) I am new to this, and (b) lack an understanding of the contribution that IP-only editors can make. Let me deal with these in reverse order, I apply more {{Welcome-anon}} messages to more IP talk pages welcoming IP editors than just about any other recent changes patroller. Why? I do it precisely because seeing a red talk next to an IP makes so many other recent changes patrollers automatically revert, something I want to prevent. So, I’m hardly the guy who’s going to act a manner such as your comments suggest. If you had looked at my contribs, you would have seen the volume of welcome messages I give IP editors. You also would have been able, with a little more research, to discover that I’ve been an editor for over two years, and, like you, have thousands of edits, far fewer of which have been deleted. I know what I am doing. I know that I inadvertently reverted a perfectly good revert. I know that that occurred as a result of an edit conflict between two different editing input systems that the MediaWiki API did not reconcile. I immediately revoked the warning to the other editor’s talk page. I did nothing to my actual revert because another editor reverted it at the same time. (All three of those reverts occurred at 21:00EST!) As an aside, the edits to that wikiarticle were occuring at such a feverish pace that after five attempts at adding a {{Fact}} tag to a line — only to be met with edit conflict notices — I gave up and went to less busy corners of the Wikipedia neighborhood. All that having been said, I do appreciate your concern for editors not welcoming the positive edits of IP editors. However, that was not the case here. You should not have assumed that was the case. It would have been nice to have been given the benefit of the doubt. — SpikeToronto 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. Now that I’ve finished typing this, I am going to go and give 173.68.87.133 my standard welcome! — SpikeToronto 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC) My apologies. I've found that using automated tools on high-traffic articles (such as when the subject won the Heisman Trophy moments prior) generally doesn't produce the right result. That's why I generally avoid doing so. In regards to the IP, I should have investigated a bit more throughly. I doubted that you had assumed bad intent in many anonymous editors, but I thought it might be possible, as I have made the mistake. This obviously wasn't the case. Mm40 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) At, first, I couldn’t figure out what was going on. While, I might watch a football game from time to time, I don’t keep track of sports awards, so I had less than zero idea that he had just won the Heisman and that, consequently, his wikiarticle would become the busiest one at Wikipedia! As for automated anti-vandalism tools, I tend to use Huggle in an odd way. While I use its screen to take me to suspected “bad” edits, I more often than not then open a browser window and deal with all or some part of the task manually. Even when I use Huggle to do the revert and the warning, I often then go to the editor’s talk page and manually add whatever is appropriate (e.g., {{Welcome-anon}}, {{Welcomeg}}, {{Summary}}, etc.). Also, if the editor is a clear vandal, then I’ll open his contribs and see what else he’s been up to and that may have to be reverted. Finally, I don’t entirely trust Huggle, so I almost always open a browser and check each edit that it’s made on my behalf both to article pages and to the respective editors’ pages. — SpikeToronto 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Interesting indeed; I'll have to try it sometimes. It's no wonder I find new page patrol so much easier! Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) New page patrol kind of scares me. I don’t want to risk scaring off an eager newcomer looking to contribute. Plus, when I do come across such pages, I end up trying to fix them for the newbie, so I wouldn’t get much done as far as the number of new pages patrolled! (See here and here for the latest example of where I let myself get caught up fixing a newbie’s first foray into new page creation.) — SpikeToronto 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I always have the same worry. That's why for all good-faith articles (i. e. not attack or vanity pages) I try to see thinking of the new editors. One difference is that Twinkle (which I use in NPP) adds welcome templates with the speedy deletion notice, linking to helpful guidelines (such as your first article). Perhaps there should be a setting in Huggle that automatically adds a welcome template along with a warning notice. Mm40 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) That’s a wonderful suggestion! That’s why I manually add welcome templates after Huggle adds a warning. I frequently notice the warning templates from Twinkle when I visit pages and I prefer them, for the most part, to Huggle’s. I especially do not like Huggle’s Level 4 (final warning) template: It’s the same no matter what the Huggler chooses. In other words, I choose to give a warning for WP:BLP issues (i.e., akin to {{Uw-biog4}}) and it just gives a vandalism warning (i.e., akin to {{Uw-vandalism4}}). This sometimes results in the Huggler having to explain why he labelled as vandalism an edit that was more specifically some other offence. So, far I’ve not been buttonholed over such an instance, but I have seen some WP:ANI discussions to this effect. Again, your suggested improvement to Huggle is a good one! (By the way, I don’t use Twinkle because it does not work in Internet Explorer.) — SpikeToronto 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I'm going to add the suggestion to the Huggle development page. I suppose something positive has come from this conversation! Also, do you know a way to change to default browser for Huggle. I find it annoying having to use Internet Explorer when a page opens (I use Firefox). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I went through all the documentation and all the menu options for Huggle and cannot find anything for specifying which browser it opens. Funny, I would have thought that it would open whichever browser you have set as your system default. Also, I saw your suggestion to the Huggle developers. Let’s hope they follow up. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 14 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 Random Dose of Joy!

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)

— from Jeremy Stamper Articles at User talk:PMDrive1061

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) Other than one interaction, I am unfamiliar with Ragib’s work. I do know, however, that each administrator usually works on specific tasks within the Wikipedia project. Perhaps the area in which Ragib focuses his administrative attentions is in new page patrol. Wikieditors who focus on new page patrol will necessarily post far more deletion templates to articles than other wikieditors. If, however, you feel that there is more to this matter, you should consider taking the issue to WP:ANI, where you can receive more expert guidance. Thank you for your comments and best wishes in this regard. — SpikeToronto 06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Ah, yet another sock/vanity autobiographer angry at me for nominating their article for AFD. :) These days, I seem to draw a lot of these ... sigh ... the price you pay to nominate NN vanity biographies. :) Anyway, I'm not surprised, given that the same set of trolls recently vandalized my user page, launched personal attacks on several AFDs, and are now stalking me off wiki. Not the first time this has happened, unfortunately. --Ragib (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Added: I'm mistaken about this ... this is not the troll who vandalized my user page, this is one from last month (whose bio got deleted as well). This seems to be a sock of this banned puppeteer. Very sad indeed. :( --Ragib (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I have to say that I notice that a lot of the edits made to South Asian articles — either biographical or geographical — seem to be self-serving and self-promoting. I sometimes wonder if, perhaps, the South Asian businessman thinks that being able to direct a would-be client to an article about himself or his family name on the great and grand international encyclopedia, Wikipedia, somehow inflates the businessman’s importance in the eyes of the would-be client. It’s just a theory … no offence to the editors is intended. I still assume good faith. — SpikeToronto 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Well, technically, the vanity pages come from all over the world. Unfortunately, for South Asian topics, hoaxes are hard to figure out, especially by western editors who are not familiar with the topic. So, even if a knowledgeable editor nominate such hoaxes or vanity pages for deletion, people often claim (a) lack of coverage of south asian notable people on the Internet (which is obviously not quite true in 2009; (2) NN/non-RS sources as reliable (for lack of knowledge about the local culture). As for people exploiting their wikipedia vanity bio ... this has been done a lot to gain leverage ... to feign importance among non-tech savvy people etc. And this has been done by people all around the world ... I've nominated tons of articles on western businessmen as well. Anyway, as you might have seen from the latest edit on your talk page that I reverted, the trolls are back at the article, and inventing multiple socks to harass/disrupt. :( Part of their "revenge" of deleting their autobiographies :) --Ragib (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your response! You know, what probably made me think that I was seeing more of this from South Asia is that I had tended to do recent changes patrol super late at night, at lease here in the Eastern Time Zone. So, I was seeing these article either going live at that time, or being edited at that time. Heavy traffic made me draw the wrong conclusion. Of course you are right that there are just as many self-promoting, conflict-of-interest, vanity bios from Westerners. Since I shifted to doing some recent changes patrol in the afternoon in the Eastern Time Zone, I am noticing the Western ones to which you refer as well. Thank you Ragib for your comments and for balancing the discussion. — SpikeToronto 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) A new editor of wikipedia, Smileupper AFDed an article about a businessman named Tapan Chowdhury and you will see how Ragib becomes active with his *living socks* to run his nasty gang-bang politics for the artcile! Wikipedia is a way of earning living for some Administrators for sure. ;-) -Jimmydarocker (talk) 12:09, 18 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)

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)

Daniel Gray (Entertainer)

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)

— from Daniel Gray (Entertainer) at User talk:YouCalledMeBeautiful

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)

Derick Neikirk

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)