User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 04
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archives: |
January 2010
Hey
Hey
|
|---|
|
Original Query:
Response: I know this is kinda late but thanks. Still not that active anymore though. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not much interested in editing any of the LGBT topics. They, or sections thereof, are too often held captive by those whose politics and/or religion pits them against the so-called “gay agenda.” So, they find little procedural ways to prevent the articles from being improved. (A good example was the wikiarticle on gay marriage this past Summer while you were away. Take a look at its talk page. (You’ll probably have to root around in its archives.) There was even very shrewd, unfortunately legal, sockpuppetting going on.) I like to see things progress with forward momentum, not be held back, stuck in consensus committee hell, so to speak. This is not to say that I have any problem with Wikipedia’s collaborative process in general. I just want no part of it on articles that the religious right feel compelled to muzzle. Since, by defintion, muzzling and consensus are antithetical to one another. Consequently, I don’t even have any of the LGBT pages watchlisted. So, without your heads up, I would not have even known that an overhaul was underway. It would be great if that article could achive feature article (FA) status since then it would be in main-page rotation. Main-page rotation would be poetic justice against those who think the article’s very existence is a recruiting tool for our (nonexistent) legions of gay predators … er … recruiters. The only reason that I got involved back when you were working on the lede was that I agreed with some of your points and wanted to lend a modicum of support to try to animate consensus. As for setting up automatic archiving of your talk page, let me know if you ever want it done. It takes about five minutes. As for your user page, I keep coming back to the Leafs when I think about it. Being aged 102, at least the Leafs won Lord Stanley’s Cup at various points in my lifetime. But, they haven’t achieved that feat in more than double your lifetime! No wonder you decided just to nuke the h*ll out of everything from high orbit. Finally, talk about copycat signatures! I mean, really! You couldn’t have varied it a bit more?! :) Seriously, though, I think we will rarely ever be signing the same talk pages, so no issue. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery … <grin> — SpikeToronto 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Russ Adams & The New York Mets
Original Query:
Hi Doh286! You recently added to the wikiarticle on Russ Adams that he had signed a minor league agreement with the New York Mets.† While I am glad that he is with the National League, where I always thought he should have been instead of having had his career destroyed by Ricciardi and the Toronto Blue Jays, the addition of this information requires a verifiable reference/citation. Do you have the source for the info that you added? If so, please add it as a footnote to the article, or provide the data here and I will add it to the article for you. If you want to do it yourself, and are unsure of how to do it, take a look at WP:REFBEGIN. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Source for Russ Adams signing with Mets: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100105&content_id=7874978&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doh286 (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks Doh286! With these edits, I added the footnote and updated the Professional career section of the article. You might want to have a look at WP:BLPCITE to read the policy that requires all material added to the biographies of living persons to be accompanied by verifiable references/citations. You might also want to have a look at WP:REFBEGIN for how to create verifiable references/citations/footnotes. Thanks again for the citation! — SpikeToronto 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't figure that one out myself, definitely needed the help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: Comment refers to this edit. — SpikeToronto 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! I forgot: You’re welcome! I use the {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} pair all the time so knew the fix immediately. — SpikeToronto 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi Muggins! Just a little reminder that you do not have to put four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) in the edit summaries. The system is unable to process them. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks, I really do know that, but sometimes I get typing fast and my mind is going 100 mph and I forget. I am glad you reminded me! Mugginsx (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! I’m just not sure whether having them in an edit summary taxes the system or not, so I thought I’d just pass along the tip. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I’ve gone back and taken another look Matt and will leave my vote as originally cast. Thank you, however, for bringing the above to my attention and asking that I review the matter. — SpikeToronto 04:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's quite alright. We will never be able to call consensus while there are serious loose ends. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Automatic Signing of User Talk Pages, redux
Original Query:
Hi TTTSNB! Further to our earlier conversation regarding SineBot, would you be willing to leave an unsigned test string on my talk page to see if SineBot has figured out I exist yet? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
See also: test edit #1, test edit#2, SineBot intervention, and test edit removal.
Response:
It worked. It only does it when someone is logged out (or are a new user, I guess) apparently, but it works. [1] The Thing Vandalize me 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! You really went above and beyond the call of duty!! I notice, though, that when SineBot came along, it only signed your IP edit: It failed to sign your logged-in edit. Do you have the template {{NoAutosign}} on either your user page or talk page? Otherwise, SineBot should have signed both of them, should it not? If you do not have the template {{NoAutosign}} on either of your user or talk page, and SineBot should have signed both entries, do you think we should file a report with SineBot’s human master?
I will not file a comment with him/her until I have your opinion. Thanks again for all your effort! — SpikeToronto 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I think Sinebot just doesn't sign comments by older contributors, probably because we should know to sign them in the first place. The Thing Vandalize me 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine that that would be part of its algorithm. It wouldn’t seem to make much sense since even an experienced user can make a mistake. One would expect that it signs or doesn’t sign, period. But then, you may be right. I think I’ll leave a query on Slakr’s talk page. But, he seems to have been offline for the past two weeks … — SpikeToronto 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi 71.142.239.92! In the article, Joseph Heller, you keep removing the category, Category:Jewish atheists, from the category listing at the bottom of the page. When doing so, you should clearly explain in your edit summary why you consider it to have been incorrectly added to the article and why you are removing it. This will keep recent changes patrollers like me from reverting your edit. Also, if you think that removing it might generate controversy with other editors, you might want to start a discussion on the article’s talk page. You needn’t worry about me, though, as I shan’t revert your deletion again and will leave that determination to the regular editors of the article. Thanks and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
There's no mention of him being an atheist in the article there's no mention of him being an atheist on the NNDB (which I'm pretty sure is run by atheists) and I suspect this was just another attempts by not nice atheists (yes there are nice atheists) to wroly claims someone as one of them. You've been nice so I thought I should explain myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.239.92 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I’m sure you’re correct. But, as I said above, I am not an editor of the Joseph Heller wikiarticle. My only concern, as a recent changes patroller, is that when you delete material from a wikiaritcle, you provide a clear statement explaining the deletion in the edit summary — which you have now done — or direct wikieditors to a discussion on the article’s talk page. — SpikeToronto 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi again 71.142.239.92. Further to your edit summary,† yes, 10 minus 3 does equal 7. But, not when one is talking percentages. In that case, this is your calculation:
(10 – 3) ÷ 10 × 100 = 70%
Got it? So I am going to put it back to 70%. Okay? Thanks and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
So I used a program http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%25-3%25 I know it got the answer right but I'm not sure about the question. --71.142.239.92 (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! That’s cute: answer versus question. You know what I suggest: Use a calculator or paper and pencil! I love online programmes for specialized things like bond spreads, etc., but for something simple like this you can’t beat an old-fashioned calculator or … eek! … something from the dark ages like paper and pencil.
By the way, I would not mind helping you with stuff on Wikipedia from time to time, if you want, but it would be easier if you created an account. The reason is that tomorrow when you point your browser to Wikipedia, your Internet Service Provider is liable to have assigned you a totally different IP address. Therefore, I will not know that I am interacting with the same person. When you register, you can still have anonymity since you do not have to use your real name and you do not have to provide any indentifying information. And, whereas a regular wikieditor can trace your IP address to, say, Folsom, California, they can not trace it when you use a logged-in account. (Only checkusers can do that and then only under certain circumstances like sock puppetting.) Therefore, creating a logged-in account gives you more anonymity and more privacy than editing by not logging in.
Thanks and I hope I have been some help to you! — SpikeToronto 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again 71.142.239.92. I see that with this edit, you put it back to 3%. I cannot say this strongly enough: Give up the online program and just do it on paper or on a hand-held calculator. The result that that program is giving you is incorrect. Look again at this calculation
and you will see that it is correct. Try it on paper or with a hand-held calculator!(10 – 3) ÷ 10 × 100 = 70%
Also, another editor has subequently changed the calculation to show that the decrease is 70% percent and not 7%. S/he has put it rather well by showing, in a combination of figures and words, that the decrease from 10% to 3% represents a drop of over two-thirds. Thanks 71.142.239.92! I hope this is cleared up now. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 07:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again 71.142.239.92. I see that with this edit, you put it back to 3%. I cannot say this strongly enough: Give up the online program and just do it on paper or on a hand-held calculator. The result that that program is giving you is incorrect. Look again at this calculation
Original Query:
You and I both seem to have run across the odd edits of User:201.9.217.31 and his less than useful edit summaries. I reverted his edits† at Friedrich Olbricht with the following description: “Significant content change w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.” I didn’t think it was exactly vandalism since the edit was so subtle and not blatant. Nonetheless I templated him with {{uw-unsourced2}} since he failed to provide a source supporting the changes. I also placed a {{Welcome-anon}} message on his anonymous talk page hoping he might read what it offers and become a useful contributor. Then I reviewed all of his edits over the past two days and noticed several other less bone fide edits and templated him accordingly for some of them. I left him at a Level 3 warning.
Since you seem to edit virtually all of the articles that he was “editing”, you will most likely see if he returns to this pattern of editing before I would. If he persists, perhaps you might report him to WP:AIV to get him blocked, perhaps even a block requiring that he create an account. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Hi, I don't edit the same pages as User:201.9.217.31. I came across his edit on one page and then checked his other contributions, because I wasn't sure whether to accept the edit or revert. I hoped that he might have explained the reason for the change on another page. The fact that it was in Portugese was odd, but could easily be corrected. Obviously all his edits are essentially the same - he changes the birth and death dates of Nazis. It may be that his edits are correct, perhaps derived from some Portugese reference book on Nazi officials. I can well believe that we may have got some birth or death dates of the less famous figures wrong. But it seemed a bit too odd that all these dates should wrong, so reverting and then asking for his source seemed the best solution. I came a across another editor a while back who used the same type of edit summary - apparently stray single or double letters (User:129.89.134.xx). I don't know if it can be the same person. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- First off, I must admit I drew the wrong inference from seeing your reverts. I thought that you were correcting his edits to pages that you had watchlisted. Secondly, I can see why you didn’t report him to AIV because his edits have a veneer of being genuine, good faith edits. There’s a part of me that thinks, had I run across them at the time myself, I might have tried my luck at AIV. But, then there’s my ego: I’ve never had a block request rejected by AIV and don’t want to start now! <grin> (I don’t have such good luck at WP:RFPP where I’ve never had a request granted!) Also, his IP traces to Brazil, hence the Portuguese. You will notice that on his anonymous talk page I left a note about being required to edit in English on the English Wikipedia. (Your other editor, User:129.89.134.xx, would, I think, be in Wisconsin (USA).) Let’s hope that our Brazilian friend, if he comes back with the same IP address, reads the stuff on his talk page and turns himself into a productive editor. Otherwise, we can trying templating him with something like {{Uw-longterm}} and then going to AIV. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi Muggins! I hope all’s well. I noticed that with this edit,† you edited your comments to Talk:Richard I of England. As a general rule, it is not considered good form to edit your comments. (See WP:REDACT.) This is especially the case if other wikieditors have responded to you since it may make their comments no longer correlate to yours, or if they have quoted you elsewhere in any diffs.
I understand the urge to want to go back and change something. It takes me forever to write even the briefest of memoranda because I am always editing, never satisfied with my work. But, here at Wikipedia, we have to resist that urge once we have saved our talk page comments.
The preferred method, if you want to redact out some part of an earlier comment, is to use superstrike, which is done by using <s></s>. Done thusly, your passage should have looked like this after redaction:
I also think it can be a subtle form of bullying,
and even not unlike what a vandal does when he invades the space of well-meaning editors and demands attention.This tells all wikireaders that while you once said those things, you have since changed your mind. I hope you find this helpful. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Thank you again for the information. You're right, of course, I regretted those particular few words and, upon reflection, they were too strong and perhaps it was an unfair thing to say. I guess I hoped he would never see those particular few words i deleted. At any rate he has never responded. Hope you are having a great weekendMugginsx (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In this particular case, I think that no harm was done. And, now you know that the same effect can be had with strikeout. Also, that particular editor began that thread almost 2½ years ago and has not edited that wikiarticle in almost a year. So, chances are he never read your comment.
Redacting can, however, give rise to serious concerns when one edits one’s comments in a heated debate on a talk page, especially if those comments have been quoted as diffs elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g., ANI). Thanks again and sorry to be such a scold. :) — SpikeToronto 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. I consider myself duly admonished. Mugginsx (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It was never my intention to admonish you! I was just trying to be helpful. — SpikeToronto 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I tend sometimes to be impulsive, it does not serve me well. You pointed out a very important procedure to me. I respect that and harbor no hard feelings. Mugginsx (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
January/February 2010
Pic of the day
|
|---|
|
Incidentally, I love the picture of the NGC 5866, known as the Spindle Galaxy on your user page. Do you subscribe to the Space.com online newsletter? I do and I think it's a great way to keep up with the latest news. Mugginsx (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
How absolutely wonderful of you! I would love it! Thank you so much SpikeToronto! Mugginsx (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done With this edit. — SpikeToronto 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if there is ever a contest for best users' page, please let me know so I will be sure to vote for yours! Also, on a different subject, you probably already know this, but in case you do not, the Internet Archives site offers many out-of-copyright materials on Richard I and many other subjects. There are even medieval chronicles, some translated, some not. [2]. Mugginsx (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Tyw7 - RfA
|
|---|
|
Twy7 has five times nominated himself to be an admin. That's what Coldplay Expert is referring to. Nothing to do with commenting on other users RfAs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hakuna Matata :) (can't think of the Latin for 'no worries'). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Talkbacks
Lots:
- Template talk:Citation needed#Merge from Template:Reference necessary
- Template talk:Reference necessary#Overhaul
- User talk:SMcCandlish#Template:Reference necessary
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Username User:Woodsy dong peep
Original Query:
Woodsy dong peep (talk · contribs)
Hi Daniel. Before taking this up with the user, I wanted to get your opinion on whether this is even a username of concern. As you can see, User:Woodsy dong peep has the word dong as part of his username. In recent years, dong has come to be used primarily as a synonym for the word penis. See the entry at Merriam-Webster’s here.†
Before taking up the matter with the user, as required by WP:BADNAME, I wanted to first see if there was even an issue. If there is no username concern, perhaps because WP:NOTCENSORED <smile>, then I can avoid taking it up with him, especially given that his responses to other wikieditors on other matters can be a bit odd, to say the least. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
†http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dong
Response:
At this point he's edited for long enough now, and the name could have other meanings, that I think it would best to tell him about this and ask if he wants a username RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, I think your answer to my question is that it’s not really an issue … ? That’s why I came to you first for an opinion rather than raise the (non)issue with the editor. I didn’t want to get his hackles up if it wasn’t necessary. Thanks Daniel! — SpikeToronto 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
February 2010
Yongle the Great
I really appreciate your offer of help. If I'm not around, user:EyeSerene will help with blocks, he did the original indefinite block. Can I let you know when I might need your help? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Doug! Just leave a note here directing me to the sock puppet username and I’ll go through the contribs. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but what I'll do is leave you some of the articles he hits to put on your watch list. I've protected quite a few but have left some so I can spot him! Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess my IP address changed, but let's continue this.
Beach House Restaurant
Original Query:
I reverted the edit† that added information regarding the Beach House Restaurant in West Vancouver. While this would be an interesting addition, Wikipedia policies require a verifiable, reliable source. A private source, to which only the wikieditor adding the information is privy, does not satisfy WP:V. Moreover, because this is a biography of a living person, statements must — in addition to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE — also satisfy WP:BLPCITE and WP:BLP. The statement about the restaurant, unaccompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, does not satisfy these policies. Finally, ownership of businesses and properties are matters of public records. Thus, private records do not have to be relied on in the first place, especially as they would not satisfy the policies mentioned earlier. — SpikeToronto 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Duly noted. I did find a much easier and more public way of displaying the property he owns and since it's not a private residence I will release it[3]. The restaurant is only 5 km from their main home, so it makes sense it's his property if listed as such.70.245.127.74 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IP. Thank you for responding. However, since this is a matter of general interest to the other editors of the Alexander Ludwig wikiarticle, the discussion should only be on that article’s talk page, which is where I originally posted it.
I notice that your comment here is essentially a cut-and-paste of your comment there. I understand that you wanted to be sure that I saw it, but since it is more appropriate that the entire discussion thread be there on the talk page, you did not need to do that. Instead, you could have placed the {{Talkback}} template here on my user talk page to let me know that you had responded there. In this instance, that template would be placed here, at the bottom of my talk page, and formatted like this:
Formatting thusly would produce a talkback notice that looks like this:{{Talkback|Talk:Alexander Ludwig|Beach House Restaurant|~~~~~}}
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- In any event, I will follow up with you on this matter there, at the article’s talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Alexander Ludwig’s Parents
Original Query:
I reverted some edits† that added some information about Alexander Ludwig’s parents. They were great additions. Unfortunately, they fail several Wikipedia policies. Because the wikiarticle Alexander Ludwig is a biography of a living person, it must satisfy all of the following policies and guidelines: WP:BLPCITE, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS.
There was no citation provided that indicated the mother’s maiden name, an addition which would certainly add depth to the wikiarticle. Unfortunately, without a verifiable and reliable citation, it cannot be added.
The citation regarding Harald Ludwig does not indicate that he is the same Harald Ludwig that is the father of the wikiarticle’s subject, Alexander Ludwig. Thus the statement and the accompanying citation fail each of WP:BLPCITE, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Also, in a small Google search, I could find no source that connected the Harald Ludwig that is a principal of Macluan and Lions Gate Entertainment and our wikiarticle’s suject, Alexander Ludwig. This is unfortunate because having a father who sits on the board of directors and is co-chairman of a large enterprise within the entertainment industry would certainly be an important piece of info on an article about an actor. — SpikeToronto 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Response:
If you were to research long enough, you would see that on IMDB it lists the actress Sharlene Martin as his mother. The private school he attends in West Vancouver, Collingwood, has his parents' names on the lists of Gold $100,000-$250,000 donors. There is also photographic proof of him with a younger sibling on page 23. I obviously do not provide links to their addresses in respect to their Ludwig family's privacy and Wikipedia guidelines. There are articles about Harald Ludwig being his father that can easily be researched. Considering that he lives in West Vancouver like Harald Ludwig, it should be a bit understandable that is his father. Sharlene S. Martin is listed as his mother as well, because that is her maiden and she fits the profile on both ends. Being from Vancouver, married to Harald H. Ludwig since 1991, owner of the same home in W. Vancouver, and most importantly, a former actress. Sharlene Martin & Sharlene Ludwig own the same property at an address in Whistler, BC as businessman Harald H. Ludwig. That is enough proof as interviews mention Alexander vacationing in Whistler often and his mother being a former actress. Her maiden name in legal listings is Martin. Here is photographic proof of Macluan chairman Harald H. Ludwig with actor Alexander[4]. Here is the Macluan chairman by himself under an elaborate business profile[5]. I hope that helps. I found it tricky to connect the relationship of the 3 people. All three are spoken about in many isolated articles, but a lot of journalists do not connect their relationship as a family or make mention of it. I felt it would be important to connect the actor to his established parents.70.245.127.74 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IP. Thank you for responding. However, since this is a matter of general interest to the other editors of the Alexander Ludwig wikiarticle, the discussion should only be on that article’s talk page, which is where I originally posted it.
I notice that your comment here is essentially a cut-and-paste of your comment there. I understand that you wanted to be sure that I saw it, but since it is more appropriate that the entire discussion thread be there on the talk page, you did not need to do that. Instead, you could have placed the {{Talkback}} template here on my user talk page to let me know that you had responded there. In this instance, that template would be placed here, at the bottom of my talk page, and formatted like this:
Formatting thusly would produce a talkback notice that looks like this:{{Talkback|Talk:Alexander Ludwig|Alexander Ludwig's Parents|~~~~~}}
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- In any event, I will follow up with you on this matter there, at the article’s talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me on my other page. Unfortunately I used IE8 to edit last time and now that I'm using Firefox, I wonder why my IP address went from 75. to 70.70.245.127.74 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IP. If you want someone to be able to recognise you, a good bet is to register an account. You don't have to hand over any personal details (although it might be useful to add an email address in case you forget your password), it makes it easier to track your contributions, and as an added bonus it hides your IP. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IP. Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) dynamically assigns IP addresses using a protocol called dynamic host configuration. This means that possibly every time you boot your modem, you could have a different IP address. This is why Elen of the Roads recommended above that you create an account here at Wikipedia and become a logged-in editor. With you so frequently having a different IP address, other wikieditors like myself cannot be sure that they are even talking to the same person from day to day. Moreover, we cannot leave you any messages because, unless you have a static IP address, you have no user talk page that you can call your own: the IP address you had yesterday, and the talk page that went with it, now belong to someone else. Thus, I will not know that I am interacting with the same person.
When you register, you can still have anonymity since you do not have to use your real name and you do not have to provide any indentifying information. (Although, as Elen mentioned, it is wise to provide an e-mail address so that your password can be reset if you should forget it. Don’t worry: That e-mail address would not be visible to other wikieditors.) And, whereas any regular wikieditor can trace your IP address to, say, El Paso, Texas, they can not trace it when you use a logged-in account. (Only checkusers can do that and then only under certain circumstances like sock puppetting.) Therefore, creating a logged-in account gives you more anonymity and more privacy than editing by not logging in.
To reiterate, users who edit with highly dynamic IP addresses will find it very difficult to communicate with other wikieditors without a logged-in account. You should create one. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IP. Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) dynamically assigns IP addresses using a protocol called dynamic host configuration. This means that possibly every time you boot your modem, you could have a different IP address. This is why Elen of the Roads recommended above that you create an account here at Wikipedia and become a logged-in editor. With you so frequently having a different IP address, other wikieditors like myself cannot be sure that they are even talking to the same person from day to day. Moreover, we cannot leave you any messages because, unless you have a static IP address, you have no user talk page that you can call your own: the IP address you had yesterday, and the talk page that went with it, now belong to someone else. Thus, I will not know that I am interacting with the same person.
- P.S. When you create an account you can use practically any name you want. You can call yourself JohnDoe5678 if you want. — SpikeToronto 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- P.P.S. When you create an account you can use watchlists to know when articles that you work on, or that just interest you, are changed. — SpikeToronto 08:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that's scary. I'm only visiting El Paso and didn't realize my location would show. Thanks! I'll sign up then.70.245.127.74 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let me know what your new username is once you’ve created your account. I have a Google News search on Ludwig that would go better if you and I divided the task between us. If you’re interested. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
User deletes addition to his talk page
Hi Spike, i thought i ask you for help with this.The user Tony_Sidaway or also known as Tasty_monster deletes user page entrys. Beside i already advised him not todo it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&action=history What should i do now? The addition is importend as he reverted notes about a revert there. Can not tell about other entrys. Thanks for any help. --DuKu (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Duku. You're probably new to Wikipedia so it needs to be explained to you. I have read you comment and I deleted it. I don't intend to reply to it. Users are permitted to manage their own talk pages like this. --Tasty monster 11:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- ... --DuKu (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi DuKu. I will answer you in two parts:
- Short Answer: User:Tony Sidaway/User:Tasty monster can do whatever he wants with comments placed on his own talk page.
- Long Answer: Believe it or not, Wikipedia rules permit editors to delete comments — including warnings — from their own talk pages. See WP:TALK where it says,
Thus, as you can see from this quote, User:Tony Sidaway/User:Tasty monster is free to remove any comments he chooses from his talk page(s). Note that this even applies to anonymous, IP-only editors: They too are permitted to remove anything they want from their talk pages.Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users. [Italics in original.]
The only exception are block notices. These cannot be removed from talk pages until the block has either expired or been removed as part of an unblock process.
As regards personal attacks on talk pages, WP:RPA reads as follows
There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.
Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.
How to deal with material on a user’s talk page is up to each individual user. I personally only remove vandalism (and then, not always; sometimes I respond to it), malicious edits, and incorrectly applied warnings. I prefer to keep a full record of all my interactions, warts and all, and archive them. But then, my talk page is not as busy as some. — SpikeToronto 20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Just a little tip for you DuKu, as regards the deleted comments, a good rule of thumb is to assume that an editor who has been on Wikipedia for over five years, and who has amassed just under 72,000 edits, probably knows the rules and has most likely not broken them. I always find that when you want to leave a warning note on such an editor’s page, it is best to proceed with equal amounts of tact, caution, and humility. And, make sure you are 100% correct about that of which you are about to “accuse” them.
Finally, since you are so new to Wikipedia, why not spend more time more time being a Gnome before progressing to heavier involvement with the project. Just a tip … 
. — SpikeToronto 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
February/March 2010
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi SpikeToronto,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
Detailed explanation of VOTE 2 confusion …
|
|---|
|
1) Background of VOTE 2: In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results. This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2? Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here. 3) How to help: Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience, |
Matt Lewis (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Matt, before dealing with this I need to ask: Am I too late to the party? That is, since this was posted almost three weeks ago, and I am only now here, able to deal with it, am I too late? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid so. In the end I decided CDA cannot work, for reasons I've given in a few places (my talk, the draft page, and my oppose vote at the Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/RfC). I think we need to focus at the centre of the problems: fixed admin terms, and Admin Review processes. 80% was kept as the threshold figure (rather than the more sensible 85% mean average), as I didn't get round to arguing the case from the compiled data I had. Ambiguity in VOTE2 and the results could always be argued alas, though it was never a fair criticism. Have you voted at the RfC yet? I welcome all positive votes (whatever column they are in), as I think they together represent a step towards inevitable change. There has been a lot of good discussion on alternatives to CDA, and the key is to keep the momentum up. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Matt. Thanks for the update! Personally, I am a strong supporter of CDA.
I also support the idea of removing the sysop bit from admins who no longer perform admin functions. I say this because when one considers the number of people who aquired an admin bit years ago, yet no longer perform such functions, the total number of admins on the English Wikipedia is, effectively, overstated. Thus, the total number of active admins is significantly lower than would appear merely by looking at the grand total of accounts that have a sysop bit. Consequently, I think we need more admins here, but it has become so difficult for candidates to pass an RfA. Perhaps if the “true” ratio of active admins to active accounts could be ascertained, the need for more admins would become more readily apparent.
Finally, thanks for the heads-up regarding the RfC. I have voted. — SpikeToronto 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Matt. Thanks for the update! Personally, I am a strong supporter of CDA.
Ethnicity of Kris Jenner
Hi SpikeToronto, you added a reference to Scottish and Dutch ancestry on the entry for Kris Jenner [6]. Can you provide a reference to confirm that fact? Thanks. — Padraic 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Padraic. Sorry for the delay. Lately my life has been living up to the notice at the top of my talk page … In any event, as regards Kris Jenner, when one looks at the August 4, 2009, edit provided, I was not adding the statement about Mrs. Jenner’s ethnicity: I was merely cutting and pasting (i.e., relocating) it from another part of the article, and therefore would not have had a verifiable reference/citation at hand. At the time, since I was adding the {{Unreferenced}} tag to the top of the article, I did not think that additionally flagging that particular statement with a {{Fact}} tag was necessary. Some editors consider doing so redundant. But I do agree with you that it requires a verfiable reference/citation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry about that! I will find the editor who added it originally and follow up. Thanks. — Padraic 19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- If correct, it is an interesting fact about Mrs. Jenner. But, you are 100% right that it requires a verifiable reference/citation. It is awfully dedicated of you to be willing to go back through all the diffs to find the wikieditor who originally added the information. Don’t be surprised, though, if it turns out to have been an IP-only editor with DHCP (i.e., his IP address changes regularly), who will never, therefore, see your enquiry. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for WP:BLPRFC
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Done Thank you, Ikip/Okip for the notification. I have voted on both proposals. Notwithstanding that we appear to be on opposite sides on the issue (unless I’ve misinterpreted your position), your taking the time and effort to give me a heads-up on the closure debates is very much appreciated! Sorry it took me so long to get back to Wikipedia. — SpikeToronto 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Spike, Re: {{Pic of the day}}
Just wanted to tell you that my day is so much brighter as each morning that I open up Wiki and find a beautiful picture with interesting and educational information with it. You cannot know what a pleasure it is for me! Hope you are well my friend! Mugginsx (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I’m glad I could help and hope you too are well. :) — SpikeToronto 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Richard I Sexuality: Article
ResolvedSpike, thank you for your comment on my addition to the article on Richard I of England. The material I added is taken from the book that I cite by Jean Flori. He has many references to primary sources, but I thought that in Wikipedia we should restrict ourselves to secondary sources. So I'm not sure what additional references you would like to see.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Gautier! The Flori book is already cited elsewhere in the article. If you can provide me with page numbers for each of the statements in your paragraph, I will redo the footnotes akin to the following
<ref name="Flori 34-35">{{harvnb|Flori|1999|pp=34–35.}}where, in this example, the page numbers were 34 and 35. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for having missed that Flori was already referenced. In the meantime, I looked at Flori's footnotes, and found that he cites several secondary sources. So I will add those, and I will also do the footnotes by page number as you suggest above. Thanks and best--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Let me know if you need any help! — SpikeToronto 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I just had a look and you do not need any help. What a fabulous job you did! Thanks!! — SpikeToronto 16:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Spike, thank you for the compliment and the tip regarding how to cite the additional secondary sources. I will take care of that.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Richard I Sexuality: Discussion
ResolvedSpike, I've started a discussion on the above (how much should there should be on Richard's sexuality etc) and your input would be welcome. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Nev1! I’ll take a look. — SpikeToronto 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedHey Spike, what kind of statements DON'T need to be cited? LaRouxEMP (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Really, the quickest way to answer your question is to read the Holy WikiTrinity: WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. I am hard-pressed to think of anything that one might want to include in an article that would not require substantiation by a verifiable reference/citation. (As for how to format citations, look at WP:REFBEGIN.) Note the following “nutshells”:
- WP:V: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This applies to all articles, lists, and sections of articles, without exception.
- WP:CITE: This guideline discusses how to format and present citations. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
- WP:RS: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
- So, the pithy, short answer is: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This applies to all articles, lists, and sections of articles, without exception.
Verifiability is the Holy Grail at Wikipedia and the most important policy. Just read the stuff in your welcome message and follow the links and you will learn all of this. — SpikeToronto 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I don’t mind helping you anytime you want. And, I promise to not always be so long-winded! — SpikeToronto 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: your assessments
Re: DIFFS Analysis
|
|---|
|
Resolved Spike, I am no longer certain why you are taking so much time to analyze my lack of editing skills. I realize they are still very poor. You have pointed out just how poor they are in excruciating detail. I have your comments off my talk page which, I am told, is acceptable, and put them on a personal word document to re-read and try to do better. In my defense, I am still recuperating from rotator cuff surgery and in a lot of pain. I am also on a lot of pain medication, though less each week, and enduring painful physical therapy. I also have use of only one hand to type and edit. Admittedly, this is only a small part of the reason; the larger being that I have never taken a course in computer editing of any kind and have also not paid enough attention to the wiki pages available that would improve my editing skills. I will try to do better. I hope this is enough of a mea culpa because, at the moment, it is all I am able to give. Mugginsx (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You are over-reacting. My comments on March 14, related specifically to how difficult it was to review diffs to article talk pages you were editing — article talk pages on which I also participate, otherwise I would not care — because you were using the Edit this Page tab at the top of each page instead of the Edit button provided for each individual section. Regular editors of Wikipedia almost always use the diffs to review the edit history of pages that they keep on their watchlists. Such review is not specific to the edits of User:Mugginsx. This was not edit review specific to you: It was standard diff review of the history to a page that most of us all perform. Also, you indicated in your response that, theretofore, you had been unaware that the Edit button provided for each section could be used to edit the text of individual sections, understandably thinking that it was only for changing the heading. (Aside: WP:HEADING recommends against changing heading text once established. So, it would not be the intention of wikiprogammers to provide a button the sole purpose of which is to make changing headings easier.) Thus, the inference any objective person would have drawn from the dialogue at that time was that you found the information regarding the two edit buttons valuable. Hence why it had been provided. I do not spend one iota of time reviewing the edit history of User:Mugginsx since, in and of themselves, your edits do not interest me. I review the edit history of pages I have on my watchlist, some of which you happen to edit. But, when the edits of User:Mugginsx — on specific pages I have watchlisted — make it difficult for standard, quotidian diffs review, and I can provide some assistance to you that benefits the rest of us, I think it appropriate to do so. It would not have mattered whether the edits had been made by User:Mugginsx or User:Anyuser: I would have left the same message on User:Anyuser’s talk page. Why? Because, edits made using the Edit this Page tab make it more difficult for one to routinely read through the diffs. It was that simple. No ulterior motive, no lurking, no stalking, no trolling. My comments on March 19, were in direct response to yours. I thought it rude to have left your post unanswered for so many days. In your comments, to which I was responding, you stated that you thought you were using edit summaries to a certain degree. My response was intended to show you that you do not have to think about it: There is a tool that can inform you precisely, that can do the thinking for you. I provided you a link to that tool. As further assistance, I outlined the information that that tool provided since I knew that this would be the first time that you would ever have used the tool or seen a presentation of its results. In future, should we ever be editing the same page and your attention needs to be drawn to any Wikipedia policy, guideline, and/or custom, I will track down an Administrator to pass along the information to you. Thank you for reminding me of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. I often forget the wise aphorisms by which we should all order our lives. — SpikeToronto 17:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved
Original Query:
The original query to which this discussion refers was made with these edits. — SpikeToronto
Response:
Thanks for friendly advice. I will add edit summaries but it takes time to change habits. In William III of England, I added the link from non-trinitarians to non-trinitarians as it it is better link. I was watching PBS show on British history last night. Thanks again. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alpha. I was able to figure out what the edit was by comparing the diffs. But, there is no surer way to communicate what an editor’s intentions are than by using edit summaries. If you want to check out how you’re doing, there is a tool that can calculate this for you. That tool is called the Edit Summary calculator and is located here. Your report, indicates that you are using edit summaries only 34% of the time. In your case, most of those are edit summaries automatically generated by the system such as when you used the undo function or created a new page. The 100% for minor edits is an oddity that the system generates in some of its reports from time to time. This occurs where an editor’s edit history has little or no minor edits.
In any event, good luck with training yourself to use edit summaries! It is an invaluable tool for communicating with other editors. It can save a lot of reverts and save a lot discussion on talk pages. Most importantly, it removes a source of great frustration with other editors. Remember, 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.
If I can help you with this or any other Wikipedia matter, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
AfD nomination of Da Da Da (Lil Wayne song)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Da Da (Lil Wayne song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Spike
Hey Spike. Where are you? Hope everything is fine. Mugginsx (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |