![]() | 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: |
Is in "do not include"/"previously discused list" and still the reverts continue. Suggest banning user.
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 ;) tommy talk2me 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Well, let’s use this as an opportunity to learn.
I know this is not the response you expected. But, man, you have got to cool it on talk pages. Plus, with citations, the focus is on the publication, not the URL. In the case of this fellow’s cite, why not go to the Atlanta Magazine website yourself and see if you can find a link to the full text of the article and, if successful, use it to replace his fansite URL. Work with each other, not against each other. Were I him, since it is the URL that is engendering the objections, I would simply remove the URL from the cite, but leave the rest of the cite intact. Then, all you could do is flag it with {{ Verify source}}. And you should know, it’s because I’m your friend that I’m giving you this kick in the a**. — Spike Toronto 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The bigger issue here is about the citation: You challenged him on the citation based on the URL. The URL is not key to the citation. If you had gone to the magazine’s website, you would have discovered that the 2008 issues are not available online. Therefore, the only way to provide an online link to the article was for him to point our browsers to a reprint of it, or simply leave out the URL altogether. URLs are the gravy; it’s the full citation that is the meat and potatoes. The URL is optional, but what cannot be left out is the full citation. The link is provided for easy verification purposes only. You were wrong about the verifiable source, challenged him about it in an undiplomatic, uncollegial way, we’re surprised when he responded in kind — not that you would ever do that — and then took the bait when he tried to lure you into an altercation. You need to slow down, cool down stop getting in jams, and start admitting when you’ve made a mistake or you’ll never learn from them. I warned you that a lot of editors here are anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive, thin-skinned individuals, who will give you enough rope to hang yourself with and then gladly pull the lever that opens the trap door. Don’t get yourself in situations where that can happen. Control the situation, don’t let it control you. If you cannot, then extricate yourself from the matter and let someone else lead the charge for a while. Don’t become your own worst enemy here. — Spike Toronto 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
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! — Spike Toronto 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. — Spike Toronto 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks for the Warm Welcome. Should I apply these warning templates to IP addresses as well? -- Vishnu2011 ( talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi Coemgenus! Thanks for your edit summary.† After I read it, I did a quick search and found this at WP:ALT:
- Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image.
- It summarizes the image's appearance, not its meaning, and typically has little in common with the image's caption.
- Every image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative and does nothing when you click on it.
I never would have thought that since on most websites the alt text so often just repeats the caption. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy editing! — Spike Toronto 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
This whole alt-text thing is new to me, too, but it seems to be becoming standard. Glad I could help -- happy editing, -- Coemgenus 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Posting:
Thank you for reverting the vandalism at William III of England today. It’s a shame when any wikiarticle gets targeted by a vandal, but it is all the sadder when it is a featured article. Thanks again! — Spike Toronto 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
You're welcome. I'm glad to help whenever I can. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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! — Spike Toronto 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page, I really appreciate it. -- Fbifriday ( talk) 23:10, 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! — Spike Toronto 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
For reverting it, Crafty sez "Ta, fanx." :) Crafty ( talk) 07:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
El Lissitzky
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thank you for noticing this and reverting it. One youngster won't be able to use that Comcast Cable Communications IP number for a few hours, but do please continue to keep an eye on the article. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am more troubled by the inconsistency with the blocking admins that “staff” (if you will) the AIV desk. Given my legal background, I see AIV for what it is: a well-intentioned, good-faith process for meting out punishment to vandalizing miscreants. But, nonetheless, punishment it is. Therefore, should we not model it after penal policy in the larger society in which we live (assuming that, like I, you live in one of the world’s many English common-law based societies)? That is, should we not aim for consistency in the “sentences” meted out? Here in Canada, where no punishment-dispensing judge is ever elected (cf the United States), consistency of sentence is a given. By way of wikiexample, I observed one night where a blocking admin (sounds like a gridiron football player, eh?) immediately blocked an editor for using the n-word in a blatantly vandalizing edit, notwithstanding that that editor had yet to have his edits escalated to Level 4/4im. Contrastingly, that same blocking admin, when asked to block another editor for virtually identical, blatantly vandalizing edits wherein Jews were the object of scorn instead of Blacks, responded that that matter should instead be reported to WP:ECCN. Frankly, I fail to see why an issue of Jew versus non-Jew is ethnic conflict while an issue of Black versus non-black is not. I fail to see why both matters were not dealt with in the same manner. That is, either both editors should have been summarily blocked, or both issues should have been referred to ECCN. The primary reason why a system of punishment seeks to be consistent is that it allows the populace to order their respective lives accordingly. For instance, because one knows that burglary is a punishable offence, one does not commit it, especially when one sees burglars receiving consistent punishments for their crimes. Similarly, the Wikipedia populace should be able to order their respective wikilives according to the punishments one sees handed out for wikicrimes. Yet, within the world of Wikipedia, the inconsistent manner in which fairly similar and congruent fact scenarios are handled at AIV makes such ordering of one’s wikilife difficult. Thanks for letting me go on this way. I am merely taking advantage of having the ear of an action-oriented admin to bounce these ideas off of. Thanks again! — Spike Toronto 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Mike O'Connell
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. How does removing false information constitute vandalism? The statement, as it stands today: "In trading Thornton, however, Boston freed up the necessary cap space to sign or re-sign free agents such as Zdeno Chára, Andrew Ference, Chuck Kobasew and Marco Sturm. He was replaced in his position as general manager by Peter Chiarelli. Many important players on the Bruins roster are products of O'Connell's drafting, including Patrice Bergeron, Mark Stuart, P. J. Axelsson, David Krejci . O'Connell is currently Director of Pro Player development with the Los Angeles Kings." 1. Marco Sturm was not a free agent, nor was he in the final year of his contract. He was signed through the 2006-2007 season and signed a new contract in February of 2007. 2. Zdeno Chara's salary and cap hit alone exceed Thornton's cap hit. 3. Andrew Ference and Chuck Kobasew were not free agents, either. Both came over in a trade for Wayne Primeau (part of the Thornton trade) and neither have been signed by Boston. Kobasew was traded for Paille, Ference is on the same contract as he was when he came over for Primeau. 4. P.J. Axelsson was drafted in 1995, when Mike O'Connell was the Assistant GM to Harry Sinden. O'Connell didn't become GM for another 5 years. If the focus is on free agents, the point should be that Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara signed in Boston, which wouldn't have happened if Thornton's salary was still on the books (though Thornton's salary is still about 6M less than their aggregate salaries). I cleaned up what was just bad information. Anyone who follows hockey would see this and know it's untrue and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.12.197 ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
( 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!!!!
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)
Re: Edit Summaries
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm not sure what prompted you to leave this message on my talkpage, we do not seem to have any recently convergent edit history and I generally use edit summaries Mathbot data confirms 97% for my last 150 edits. King of the North East 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is the north east like Manchester? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 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! — Spike Toronto 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl." Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
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! — Spike Toronto 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.125.191 ( talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mark Ingram Jr.
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I saw you reverted an edit at Mark Ingram Jr. here. Please take more care when reverting; I realize it's hard to recognize that IPs removing content can actually be good, but here, the IP you reverted was removing irrelevant POV (their opinion of who should have won). Don't worry, I've made the same mistake a couple of times, but (as an IP once said to me): "Believe it or not, not everyone editing anonymously is out there to destroy Wikipedia with every edit. :) But plenty are, so please stay vigilant, but also exercise caution". Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
( ←) I just read the Huggle developer’s response to your suggestion. I don’t think he gets it. <sigh> — Spike Toronto 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.
|
SURPRISE!
Hajatvrc has targeted you for a
|
You and I seem to be the manning the
recent changes patrol tonight. I keep coming across the same miscreants as you and finding our warnings “comingling” on the same talk pages! As for me, it’s way past my bedtime … so I’m about to pack it in. Keep up the good work and thanks for the RDJ. —
Spike
Toronto
06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
At first, I thought these were legit...but some of the references at the bottom of the "Jeremy Stamper" version had nothing whatsoever to do with this individual and a Google search of the name turned up very few possible matches. Since it is easier to beg forgiveness tham to ask permission, I deleted them both as possible hoaxes. If another admin feels that there should be an article on the guy and he's a legit subject, it wouldn't bother me. What steams my fleckmans are plausible-sounding hoax articles and given the subject matter, it may have been just that. Thanks for alerting me; gotta split. :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Don't make Ragib angry
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ragib is the most powerful Administrator of wikipedia and he can easily kick your butt out from the wikipeidia if you make him angry! He has lots of *living socks* who can make prod-attack to your articles or harass you in other ways if you go against him. For example, currently a well-established editor Phil Bridger is suffering with lots of prod-attack to the articles he created because he contested a prod-attack by Ragib to the article Hridoy Khan. So, don't touch any article that Ragib wants to delete and stay away from his anger.-- Jimmydarocker ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand your comment regarding Ragib. If you look closely at
the AfD for Tapan Chowdhury, Ragib clearly
!voted: “Strong Keep: per
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians (first level national office holder).” [Italics added.] (See
here.) If Ragib had wanted such an article deleted, as you suggest, he would not haved !voted for it to be kept. Rather than coming to my talk page casting aspersions, when you see an article that is nominated for deletion that you feel ought to be retained, participate in the deletion discussion. I notice that you have yet to do so with the deletion discussion for Tapan Chowdhury. What’s stopping you? Finally, if you truly believe the claims you are making are justified and provable, then file a report at either WP:ANI or WP:SPI. But, be prepared to back up your claims with sufficient evidence. Otherwise, continued personal attacks on another editor could cause a report to be filed against you at WP:ANI. So far, you have made two personal attacks against User:Ragib, on my talk page alone. You need to desist from such action and instead either: (1) participate in the various deletion discussions (i.e., AfDs) of which your speak, or (2) make the appropriate reports in the appropriate Wikipedia venues, namely ANI or SPI. Thank you Jimmydarocker for your consideration of the foregoing. — Spike Toronto 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.
|
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) |
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! — Spike Toronto 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you in the middle of finals? When do you break for Christmas? — Spike Toronto 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Dear Spike, I moved the page to the title about blank because it seems that the article is offensive to others and therefore I deleted it's contents and didn't want to take up the space on wikipedia, because it seems that's all the the article is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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. —
Spike
Toronto
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. — Spike Toronto
P.P.S. I see you put everything back. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
Finally, when you find yourself in a content dispute with another wikieditor, remember to do the following:
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)
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! — Spike Toronto 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help with the article. I didn't know where to find information about his baseball career, so I added what I could find. I really appreciate you filling out the article with well-sourced information. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 08:16, 28 December 2009 (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. |
![]() | 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: |
Is in "do not include"/"previously discused list" and still the reverts continue. Suggest banning user.
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 ;) tommy talk2me 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Well, let’s use this as an opportunity to learn.
I know this is not the response you expected. But, man, you have got to cool it on talk pages. Plus, with citations, the focus is on the publication, not the URL. In the case of this fellow’s cite, why not go to the Atlanta Magazine website yourself and see if you can find a link to the full text of the article and, if successful, use it to replace his fansite URL. Work with each other, not against each other. Were I him, since it is the URL that is engendering the objections, I would simply remove the URL from the cite, but leave the rest of the cite intact. Then, all you could do is flag it with {{ Verify source}}. And you should know, it’s because I’m your friend that I’m giving you this kick in the a**. — Spike Toronto 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The bigger issue here is about the citation: You challenged him on the citation based on the URL. The URL is not key to the citation. If you had gone to the magazine’s website, you would have discovered that the 2008 issues are not available online. Therefore, the only way to provide an online link to the article was for him to point our browsers to a reprint of it, or simply leave out the URL altogether. URLs are the gravy; it’s the full citation that is the meat and potatoes. The URL is optional, but what cannot be left out is the full citation. The link is provided for easy verification purposes only. You were wrong about the verifiable source, challenged him about it in an undiplomatic, uncollegial way, we’re surprised when he responded in kind — not that you would ever do that — and then took the bait when he tried to lure you into an altercation. You need to slow down, cool down stop getting in jams, and start admitting when you’ve made a mistake or you’ll never learn from them. I warned you that a lot of editors here are anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive, thin-skinned individuals, who will give you enough rope to hang yourself with and then gladly pull the lever that opens the trap door. Don’t get yourself in situations where that can happen. Control the situation, don’t let it control you. If you cannot, then extricate yourself from the matter and let someone else lead the charge for a while. Don’t become your own worst enemy here. — Spike Toronto 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
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! — Spike Toronto 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. — Spike Toronto 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks for the Warm Welcome. Should I apply these warning templates to IP addresses as well? -- Vishnu2011 ( talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi Coemgenus! Thanks for your edit summary.† After I read it, I did a quick search and found this at WP:ALT:
- Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image.
- It summarizes the image's appearance, not its meaning, and typically has little in common with the image's caption.
- Every image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative and does nothing when you click on it.
I never would have thought that since on most websites the alt text so often just repeats the caption. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy editing! — Spike Toronto 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
This whole alt-text thing is new to me, too, but it seems to be becoming standard. Glad I could help -- happy editing, -- Coemgenus 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Posting:
Thank you for reverting the vandalism at William III of England today. It’s a shame when any wikiarticle gets targeted by a vandal, but it is all the sadder when it is a featured article. Thanks again! — Spike Toronto 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
You're welcome. I'm glad to help whenever I can. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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! — Spike Toronto 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page, I really appreciate it. -- Fbifriday ( talk) 23:10, 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! — Spike Toronto 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
For reverting it, Crafty sez "Ta, fanx." :) Crafty ( talk) 07:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
El Lissitzky
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thank you for noticing this and reverting it. One youngster won't be able to use that Comcast Cable Communications IP number for a few hours, but do please continue to keep an eye on the article. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am more troubled by the inconsistency with the blocking admins that “staff” (if you will) the AIV desk. Given my legal background, I see AIV for what it is: a well-intentioned, good-faith process for meting out punishment to vandalizing miscreants. But, nonetheless, punishment it is. Therefore, should we not model it after penal policy in the larger society in which we live (assuming that, like I, you live in one of the world’s many English common-law based societies)? That is, should we not aim for consistency in the “sentences” meted out? Here in Canada, where no punishment-dispensing judge is ever elected (cf the United States), consistency of sentence is a given. By way of wikiexample, I observed one night where a blocking admin (sounds like a gridiron football player, eh?) immediately blocked an editor for using the n-word in a blatantly vandalizing edit, notwithstanding that that editor had yet to have his edits escalated to Level 4/4im. Contrastingly, that same blocking admin, when asked to block another editor for virtually identical, blatantly vandalizing edits wherein Jews were the object of scorn instead of Blacks, responded that that matter should instead be reported to WP:ECCN. Frankly, I fail to see why an issue of Jew versus non-Jew is ethnic conflict while an issue of Black versus non-black is not. I fail to see why both matters were not dealt with in the same manner. That is, either both editors should have been summarily blocked, or both issues should have been referred to ECCN. The primary reason why a system of punishment seeks to be consistent is that it allows the populace to order their respective lives accordingly. For instance, because one knows that burglary is a punishable offence, one does not commit it, especially when one sees burglars receiving consistent punishments for their crimes. Similarly, the Wikipedia populace should be able to order their respective wikilives according to the punishments one sees handed out for wikicrimes. Yet, within the world of Wikipedia, the inconsistent manner in which fairly similar and congruent fact scenarios are handled at AIV makes such ordering of one’s wikilife difficult. Thanks for letting me go on this way. I am merely taking advantage of having the ear of an action-oriented admin to bounce these ideas off of. Thanks again! — Spike Toronto 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Mike O'Connell
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. How does removing false information constitute vandalism? The statement, as it stands today: "In trading Thornton, however, Boston freed up the necessary cap space to sign or re-sign free agents such as Zdeno Chára, Andrew Ference, Chuck Kobasew and Marco Sturm. He was replaced in his position as general manager by Peter Chiarelli. Many important players on the Bruins roster are products of O'Connell's drafting, including Patrice Bergeron, Mark Stuart, P. J. Axelsson, David Krejci . O'Connell is currently Director of Pro Player development with the Los Angeles Kings." 1. Marco Sturm was not a free agent, nor was he in the final year of his contract. He was signed through the 2006-2007 season and signed a new contract in February of 2007. 2. Zdeno Chara's salary and cap hit alone exceed Thornton's cap hit. 3. Andrew Ference and Chuck Kobasew were not free agents, either. Both came over in a trade for Wayne Primeau (part of the Thornton trade) and neither have been signed by Boston. Kobasew was traded for Paille, Ference is on the same contract as he was when he came over for Primeau. 4. P.J. Axelsson was drafted in 1995, when Mike O'Connell was the Assistant GM to Harry Sinden. O'Connell didn't become GM for another 5 years. If the focus is on free agents, the point should be that Marc Savard and Zdeno Chara signed in Boston, which wouldn't have happened if Thornton's salary was still on the books (though Thornton's salary is still about 6M less than their aggregate salaries). I cleaned up what was just bad information. Anyone who follows hockey would see this and know it's untrue and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.12.197 ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
( 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!!!!
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)
Re: Edit Summaries
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm not sure what prompted you to leave this message on my talkpage, we do not seem to have any recently convergent edit history and I generally use edit summaries Mathbot data confirms 97% for my last 150 edits. King of the North East 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is the north east like Manchester? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 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! — Spike Toronto 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl." Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
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! — Spike Toronto 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.125.191 ( talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Mark Ingram Jr.
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I saw you reverted an edit at Mark Ingram Jr. here. Please take more care when reverting; I realize it's hard to recognize that IPs removing content can actually be good, but here, the IP you reverted was removing irrelevant POV (their opinion of who should have won). Don't worry, I've made the same mistake a couple of times, but (as an IP once said to me): "Believe it or not, not everyone editing anonymously is out there to destroy Wikipedia with every edit. :) But plenty are, so please stay vigilant, but also exercise caution". Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
( ←) I just read the Huggle developer’s response to your suggestion. I don’t think he gets it. <sigh> — Spike Toronto 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.
|
SURPRISE!
Hajatvrc has targeted you for a
|
You and I seem to be the manning the
recent changes patrol tonight. I keep coming across the same miscreants as you and finding our warnings “comingling” on the same talk pages! As for me, it’s way past my bedtime … so I’m about to pack it in. Keep up the good work and thanks for the RDJ. —
Spike
Toronto
06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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! — Spike Toronto 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
At first, I thought these were legit...but some of the references at the bottom of the "Jeremy Stamper" version had nothing whatsoever to do with this individual and a Google search of the name turned up very few possible matches. Since it is easier to beg forgiveness tham to ask permission, I deleted them both as possible hoaxes. If another admin feels that there should be an article on the guy and he's a legit subject, it wouldn't bother me. What steams my fleckmans are plausible-sounding hoax articles and given the subject matter, it may have been just that. Thanks for alerting me; gotta split. :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Don't make Ragib angry
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ragib is the most powerful Administrator of wikipedia and he can easily kick your butt out from the wikipeidia if you make him angry! He has lots of *living socks* who can make prod-attack to your articles or harass you in other ways if you go against him. For example, currently a well-established editor Phil Bridger is suffering with lots of prod-attack to the articles he created because he contested a prod-attack by Ragib to the article Hridoy Khan. So, don't touch any article that Ragib wants to delete and stay away from his anger.-- Jimmydarocker ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand your comment regarding Ragib. If you look closely at
the AfD for Tapan Chowdhury, Ragib clearly
!voted: “Strong Keep: per
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians (first level national office holder).” [Italics added.] (See
here.) If Ragib had wanted such an article deleted, as you suggest, he would not haved !voted for it to be kept. Rather than coming to my talk page casting aspersions, when you see an article that is nominated for deletion that you feel ought to be retained, participate in the deletion discussion. I notice that you have yet to do so with the deletion discussion for Tapan Chowdhury. What’s stopping you? Finally, if you truly believe the claims you are making are justified and provable, then file a report at either WP:ANI or WP:SPI. But, be prepared to back up your claims with sufficient evidence. Otherwise, continued personal attacks on another editor could cause a report to be filed against you at WP:ANI. So far, you have made two personal attacks against User:Ragib, on my talk page alone. You need to desist from such action and instead either: (1) participate in the various deletion discussions (i.e., AfDs) of which your speak, or (2) make the appropriate reports in the appropriate Wikipedia venues, namely ANI or SPI. Thank you Jimmydarocker for your consideration of the foregoing. — Spike Toronto 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.
|
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) |
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! — Spike Toronto 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you in the middle of finals? When do you break for Christmas? — Spike Toronto 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Dear Spike, I moved the page to the title about blank because it seems that the article is offensive to others and therefore I deleted it's contents and didn't want to take up the space on wikipedia, because it seems that's all the the article is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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. —
Spike
Toronto
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. — Spike Toronto
P.P.S. I see you put everything back. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
Finally, when you find yourself in a content dispute with another wikieditor, remember to do the following:
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)
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! — Spike Toronto 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help with the article. I didn't know where to find information about his baseball career, so I added what I could find. I really appreciate you filling out the article with well-sourced information. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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. — Spike Toronto 08:16, 28 December 2009 (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. |