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: |
Hey Spike! Please take a look at recent changes to Agatha Christie. Someone added several unpublished works. I couldn't find documentation for some of them, but I'll bet you can (if it exists). Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 08:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that, in the actual text, most of the tomes below discuss Christie’s unpublished works. However, unless they are indicated in the indices, tables of contents, and/or appendices, short of reading every word on every page, one would not be able to ferret these out. If only one had digital copies of these works, one could use a find function to locate occurences of the word, unpublished. Nonetheless, what follows below is what little could be found. |
Curran, John. Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: Fifty Years of Mysteries in the Making. Harper Collins, 2009. ISBN 978-0-00-731056-2 (UK 2009 version) (see also ISBN 978-0-06-198836-3 (US 2010 version)).
Hack, Richard. Duchess of Death: The Unauthorized Biography of Agatha Chrisitie. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, Inc. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59777-620-2
Morgan, Janet. Agatha Christie: A Biography. Harper Collins, 1997. ISBN 978-0-00-729663-7 (First published, William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd., 1984.)
Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie: An English Mystery. Headline Review, 2008 (paperback) ISBN 978-0-7553-1488-1. (First published, Headline Review, 2007.)
Hope this helps River. Sorry I couldn’t come up with more. — Spike Toronto 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, i have no idea why you left me a warning for a page i never edited. Please do not send me warnings to pages i've not changed. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.180.144 ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you only want to see messages that relate soley to you, then you need to register and create your own, unique account. Doing so hides your IP address from all but certain administrative members of Wikipedia, thus providing you greater security. Also, you do not need to provide any personal information to have such an account, and you can log into it from anywhere in the world.
I trust that this explains the situation. — Spike Toronto 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting an editor review to anyone, but especially to some editors/admins I came across through my WikiLife. While I understand you might not remember coming across me or any of my edits, I would appreciate if you would pass by and tell me what you think! The editor review request can be found here. Of course you can choose to ignore this! Thanks - «CharlieEchoTango» 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Removing someone from Huggle's whitelist is a Quixotic task, as the very next edit readded a user that you removed from it. I don't know of any way to keep someone off the whitelist for long, without discussing the merits of actually removing this user. (I.e. do other users really need to see his edits to his user talk page?) Courcelles 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
So, since the editor in question is no longer a Huggle user — he is no longer in the Huggle users list — the program should not have put him back in. So, it appears to me to be a glitch. But, there is no real harm here since this particular editor is certainly not likely to vandalize. But, it is a conundrum. Thanks for the note! — Spike Toronto 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)This is a list of Huggle users whose contributions may be ignored while searching for vandalism.
Undeleting article
|
---|
Ok, so apparently some one found the need to delete my new INKAS article. I decided since I was going to put everything in one article, I was going to delete the INKAS Armored Vehicle article. But since now that the article is gone, is there a way to go back into the history and get back the old article? (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Done With
this edit, the wonderful Administrator,
Eagles247,
userfied the article for you. You can find it at
User:Dillonraphael/INKAS. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Article Review & Rewrite
|
---|
Hey Dillon. I’ve begun proofreading and copyediting
your article. You can see the series of edits I made in
the article’s history. I suggest you read the
edit summaries in the history as they explain the edits made and direct you to various Wikipedia editing guidelines.
So far, I have only worked on the lede section and will look at the rest, bit by bit, off and on, when I have the time. I hope you’re not in a hurry. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Its all good. I was worried you forgot. I didn't want to be a nuisance. But so far, the article is looking MUCH BETTER. (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
Its looking more proper now. Yay the article is on the right track :) (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)) |
The easiest way to satisfy WP:CORP is to increase the number of third-party, independent, verifiable references/ citations. Our problem is that, since this is a privately held corporation, there is less written about it. When a company’s stock is publicly traded on the stock exchange, there is more written about it as analysts discuss whether or not the company’s shares are a good buy, etc. So, before we roll this article out to mainspace, we will need to come up with more published sources and fit them and their material into the article. As it is, we’re relying too much on the company’s own website. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Typically, articles at The Globe are only available at their website free-of-charge for a brief period. (Until access is denied, you can find this article at The Globe here.) However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders ( bwob.ca), a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.) The tagline for the article is: The market for armoured cars, some with James Bond extras, has never been better. But cheaper overseas competition is heating up. What until you see how young the fellow who heads up the armoured division is!Gray, Jeff. “ The booming business of stopping bullets,” The Globe & Mail. Report on Business section, February 3, 2011, p. B15.
Anyway, we should find some very useful information in that article. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Please review. Write any comments relating to the
Infobox here in this section. Thanks! —
Spike
Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: I have fleshed out each of the references per Wikipedia:Citing sources (shortcut → WP:CITE) and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcut → WP:REFBEGIN). However, I have not assessed them per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (shortcut → WP:RS) to see if they are likely to be challenged (e.g., www.eMercedesBenz.com). I will assess their reliability as I come to them while copy editing the text.
But, I would rather you tell me about an article I’ve already seen than let one pass by. So, thanks for searching! Keep up the good work! — Spike Toronto 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders ( bwob.ca), a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.)
Partly done: Right now, the name of the article is simply INKAS. However, the name of the company is INKAS Group of Companies. I have already changed the name in the infobox and in the lede. I also need to change the name of the article to match. Let me know if you agree and then I will do it. Thanks!
#REDIRECT [[INKAS Group of Companies]]
. Thoughts? —
Spike
Toronto 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Done Please review. Write any comments relating to the lede here in this section. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Write any comments relating to the History section here in this section. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
How are things going? Do you think its ready to be published, the article? ( Dillonraphael ( talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Original Query:
Hi 75.62.158.218. I see in Amazina/ GWAR woman that you are trying to add material including verifiable references/ citations. However, you keep having your attempt rejected either by bots or by recent changes patrollers. All verifiable references/ citations must be entered as per WP:CITE. They cannot be entered solely as Internet addresses (URLs) either directly in the body of the article, or in a footnote. A full citation must be provided — as a footnote — just as one would in an essay one would submit in school. In Wikipedia, this is done using
<ref></ref>
tags. If the only thing provided is a URL, and that URL should ever go dead or become otherwise broken, then the entire reference would have to be deleted, and replaced by the {{ Citation needed}} template: The statement in the text would then be unsubstantiated. If, however, a full citation is provided, it can stand alone without the the URL, should the URL ever go dead or become otherwise broken, and not have to be deleted. It would thus be no different than citing an out-of-print hardcopy book, a perfectly acceptable practice. If you are unsure how to do this, please read WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE. Remember: Citations entered incorrectly run the risk of being reverted by other editors to this article or by recent changes patrollers.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me at my talk page. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Read the above notices carefully as they explain a lot of the difficulty, especially the ones from the XLinkBot. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. Also, have a look at the welcome message given to newly registered accounts. You will find it very informative. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Hi Spike.. ?? I do not know how to edit this with out violations. i do not want to violate anything, just giving verifiable information on this artist.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.158.218 ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
help me}}
on your talk page along with your question, and someone will come along and put the answer on your talkpage. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Since the conversation has already started , please go to my IP address talk page and not my username talk page (just so we don't get confused).
A post is already there for you.
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 21:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not say this easily, or casually, but I think you will see based on his posts and also his talk page.
Any ideas on what I can do?
Please see his posts to my IP address Talk Page: User talk:98.245.148.9
Sincere thanks, Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Using detailed edit summaries every time is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. I know you were improving the article, and you know you were improving the article. But, without a detailed edit summary, and seeing only a single diff, a RCPer does not know this.
As for removing comments from his talkpage, that is his perogative. While I prefer to archive everything, warts and all, other users prefer to delete things they do not want on their talkpages or in their archives. Take a look at the the guideline at the WP:OWNTALK section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (shortcut → WP:TALK) and you will see why this is permissable. By the way, in this specific example, he did not remove the comments; he merely moved them to his archive here.
Hope this helps! — Spike Toronto 05:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy holidays! | ||
Consider this your
nudge. Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
For some reason the Christmas template is failing on your talk page, So I am wishing you Merry Christmas!!! -- Diannaa ( Talk) 18:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
</font>
at the end.Thanks so much for the holiday wishes! I hope you have a Merry Christmas as well! — Spike Toronto 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi DGJ. I reverted this edit,† because “al fresco” is gilding the lilly (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (shortcut → WP:WORDS)) and is clearly understood by the use of the word roadster. Also, “less costly” requires a verifiable reference/ citation. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You should review an article’s edit history when editing to read the edit summaries to see why edits are reverted/changed/etc. This prevents endless reverts and edit wars Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. To learn how to add verifiable references/ citations to articles, have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcut → WP:REFBEGIN). Have fun! — Spike Toronto 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
it is meant not in reference to 'roadster', but rather to contrast and bring the point forward that with the 'closed' version (circa 1954-55-56), there had not been any open version. Actually, as I view it, I would have edited out "roadster" in this application.
Dgjesquire ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone beat me to the punch and made Kei Inoo a redirect again. Unless someone adds reliable sources and/or makes a convincing argument on the talk page before recreating the article feel free to redirect it again based on the original discussion. Happy New Year, J04n( talk page) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. testing —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.223.238.224 (
talk) 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Hi 203.223.238.224. I saw
your reversion on my talk page. Thank you for correcting that. I did want to take this opportunity, though, to point out a few things regarding warning templates:
I hope this helps. Otherwise, happy editing! — Spike Toronto 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You wrote to me that I need a secondary source that analyzes Charest's comments to have it included. I've done just that. Brian Segal's comment does not have a secondary source analyzing it. It's the same logic you used. Please be fair. I am not being disruptive. You are obviously trying hard to protect the Maclean's page without considering the rules. What is the reason for allowing the Segal comment to stay? Would you like to explain that? There was no secondary source that mentioned Segal's statement. Please stop bullying me. Kidman Wheeler ( talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In any event, if you had read that policy, or any of the others to which you have been directed, you would not have needed to make enquiries of this nature on my talk page as all of your questions have already been answered.The reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources. You can find it at WP:PRIMARY, as I have pointed out to you in edit summaries. [Emphasis added to missing part.]
Nor have you chosen to participate in the discussion begun on your behalf at the article’s talk page. You have instead chosen to post a diatribe about conspiracies and how you are caught up in one with persons on the payroll of Maclean’s. I must say that that’s rather galling as there is no love lost between me and that conservative rag. The only pleasure I ever got from it was not renewing my subscription in 2010!
Conversely, what I do care about are the Five Pillars of Wikipedia including, but not limited to:
As I have said to you twice before — here and here — editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to have single-purpose accounts, nor use agenda accounts to prosecute a particular agenda. Keep this in mind when you are focussing your editing solely on Maclean’s. You need to start editing other articles in addition to Maclean’s in order to demonstrate that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just pursue an agenda on one particular article.Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. [Emphasis added.]
Finally, and as I have also said to you twice before — here and here — when other editors point out Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, they are not trying to silence or censor you. They are trying to help you improve your editing by bringing it in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to help you be a constructive, collegial editor, and not a disruptive editor. Thus, when we point you towards these policies and guidelines, you should take a break from editing, and instead read the things to which we are directing you. — Spike Toronto 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The other thing I want to comment on is that I will edit other articles. I need more time. I have much to contribute. The Maclean's edits were difficult for me, to say the least. I still think people were not being fair about it but I accept your suggestions. Thank you. Kidman Wheeler ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a temporary template that can be inserted when an article or a section is undergoing a major intensive editing spree that alerts us. It is the {{
In use}} template. To apply it to an entire article, place and save it at the very top of the article. To have it only apply to a section of the article, place and save it as {{
In use|section}}
in the particular section in which you are working. I often alternate between {{
In use}} and {{
Under construction}} when I am actively working on an article.
Thank you for your responses and I look forward to working with you gentlemen on other wikiarticles. Happy editing! — Spike Toronto 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Still, if you ever have any questions, my door is always open. — Spike Toronto 04:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you issued this user a final warning when I went to leave warning. I don't know what's the proper way to do this but they have made further vandalism edits, as per your warning if you are able to I think this should trigger a block. thanks-- Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
However, 24 hours later, he started back up again. At which time, no further warnings were necessary and a report could have been filed. (Had he waited 48 hours, the warnings would have been reset back to Level 1.) This is exactly what happened when User:Glane23 filed a report seeking Administrator action with this edit. This resulted in the vandal’s block a few hours later. Luckily, the blocking administrator made it a six-month-long schoolblock, which means that kids who want to edit from that school for the next six months (i.e., until school lets out) will have to register and create an account.
The general procedure is this:
{{
helpme}}
template on your talk page, followed by your query, and someone will come along and answer your question there. Also, you can search at the
Wikipedia:Help desk for guidance. Finally, you can also try at the
village pump (
Wikipedia:Village pump (shortcut →
WP:VP)). —
Spike
Toronto 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)For the sake of completeness, it would be interesting to be able to link to all songs that mention a certain subject, so I'm not entirely against it. Viriditas ( talk) 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary did not give a reason for the revert, suggesting that you were reverting as vandalism. I assumed it was because of the fact that the IP’s edit had messed up the H2 heading, In popular culture. Had I known you were reverting per
WP:TRIVIA — with which I was not too familiar until I saw
your later edit, and its accompanying edit summary, inserting the {{
trivia}}
template — then I most likely would have passed the edits by and proceeded to the next set of
Huggle
diffs. Once I followed {{
trivia}}
to
WP:TRIVIA, then I kind of figured what you were up to.
Please feel free to remove my corrections of the IP’s edits. However, I’d like to suggest a brief note to the IP suggesting that they take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) (shortcut → WP:TRIVIA) to understand why their edit was reverted.
By the way, these trivia lists are everywhere in Wikipedia! The WP:TRIVIA guideline seems to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. I’m afraid that dealing with the enormous quantity of them might by a sisyphean task. Thanks for the feedback! — Spike Toronto 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This specificity might have made things easier vis-à-vis the XXxTheproxXx incident. — Spike Toronto 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Agatha Christie}} ~~~~
As for not giving a vandal time to change, looking at my history, I've only done that a tiny % of the time, in cases of nasty vandalism. I've ceased that practice too.
I humbly welcome any and all advice you can offer regarding vandalism or other interractions. I'm always up for improvement. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As for a specific incident, I read over the stuff here and I think that, to a certain degree, it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot. What you did I used to do also … often. I would template a vandal at Level 1 for the vandalism that I reverted. Then, looking at their diffs, I would template them for other vandalizing edits within the previous 48 hours for which others had not templated them, escalating each warning. However, I always specified the page vandalized so both the vandal and a blocking admin reviewing the warnings knew to what the warnings were referring. Thus, I never had any of my manual reports to AIV rejected. It’s amazing what a difference adding the wikiarticle title can make!
However, I came to discover that giving a bunch of warnings all at once, when they’ve received no others, is not the way to do it. We need to give the miscreant an opportunity to mend his ways. When one refers to giving a vandal time to change, what is meant is that the vandal needs time to read the warning before further warnings are issued. This is why I no longer issue warnings unless and until he vandalizes again after receiving a warning. This is built-in to the logic of such vandal-fighting programs as Huggle and Twinkle. So, before you issue a vandal a subsequent warning, you should have a look at their contribs and see if the vandalism came after or before they were warned last. When templated, whether a vandal is editing from a registered account or as an IP, they still get a banner at the top of their page alerting them to a new message. There’s no excuse for not having read it. If he continues to vandalize after receiving a warning, then a further warning is appropriate and necessary. On occasion you can skip a level; but, I advise stating explicitly why in your edit summary.
One further thing, the guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages (shortcut → WP:OWNTALK) tells us that it is okay for vandals to remove warnings from their own talk pages, be they registered or IP-only. When they do so, it is evidence of them having read the warning. Twinkle, Huggle, and other such programs, are usually not fooled and will escalate the next warning appropriately. However, if you are working manually, you may have to consult their talk page’s revision history to see what Level to apply next.
Hope this helps. You might want to also have a look at this discussion here. Any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If the first occurrence of vandalism is a really dirty word to a BLP, can I start the level higher than 1?
Very nice to hear Huggle etc. is not fooled by removed templates. That's good info I've been wondering about.
I do occasionally patrol with Huggle, but when I patrol from here and here, and then put them on a watch notepad if they are naughty, I will keep your advice in mind. I really appreciate the time. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As for warning escalation, if giving a first warning, and it is clear that the editor was not editing in good faith, you can start at Level 2. As for escalating straight to Level 4, or starting off at Level 4im, it had better be a pretty egregious edit (e.g., racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, etc.). If you escalate to Level 4, or start right off the bat with Level 4im, state explicitly why in your edit summary. For example: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist and homophobic nature of vandalism. (I think one can also use racist to apply to anti-semitic and anti-muslim edits.) — Spike Toronto 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links.
I can't use Huggle monitor. I'm stuck with notepad because the great firewall of china crashes Huggle every 3 or 4 minutes.
Thank you again for the excellent advice. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
User|<username>}}
template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.Having said that, remember that until a new editor is whitelisted, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for recent changes patrollers to review. Most registered, vandalism-only accounts, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.
One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph, rather than hitting the Enter button twice, followed by a series of indenting colons (::::), instead insert a <p>
after the last sentence of the paragraph and then start typing the next one. So, for instance, the paragraphs above, unformatted, look like the following:
Also, you can take a look inside the editor at either this paragraph, or your paragraph above that I reformatted, to see more of what I mean.Anna, I kind of like Viriditas’s suggestion of having a list in your userspace that you could use in a semi-automated manner. Also, you are only looking at new users and they wouldn’t know how to troll through the depths of your userspace to find something that would offend them. However, I cannot figure out how to get Viriditas’s string to work. So, if I were doing it, I would create a page called [[User:Anna Frodesiak/Watchlist supplement]] and then add the {{tlx|User|<username>}} template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.<p>Having said that, remember that until a new editor is [[WP:HGW|whitelist]]ed, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for [[WP:recent changes patrol|]]lers to review. Most [[WP:register|]]ed, [[WP:vandalism-only account|]]s, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.<p>One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph …
Finally, what do you mean by The Great Firewall of China? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between colons and the p thing? Just curious? Are the colons wrong?
(The p thing is actually quite quick -- "rightpinkieholdctrl-rightindex-leftmiddle-rightindex")
Yep. I like the p thing. Thanks.
Great firewall of China? You don't know? You must look it up! If I look it up, software will kill my connection for a few minutes. No kidding.
Did I tell you? I lived in the Annex for a decade. Lots of strange times in that city. Then I had the good sense to move to Van. :) Ha! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
<p>
thing works. You just weren’t using it right. First, it’s a lowercase p. Second, one doesn’t place it in the same manner as the indenting colons; one imbeds them in the text. Open the editor, and take a look at where the <p>
thingies are in your paragraph above that begins with I am digesting the vandal advice …; I reformatted it with the <p>
thingies so you can see how to use them. That’s how they are used. The reason why it’s preferable to the indenting colons (::::::) is that the colons mess up the editing area and allow some not-so-bright wikieditors to insert comments in between your paragraphs, which used to happen to me before I switched to the <p>
thingies.As for The Great Firewall of China, I understood that to be the firewall that the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had placed around the Chinese internet to control what the PRC’s citizens could and could not see. But, since I understood you to be here in Canada, I didn’t understand how it was crashing your Huggle. (Interestingly, when my spousal unit was a teenager, his older brother and father owned and operated a Chinese takeout called, The Great Wall of China. But, I digress …)
Anyway, give the <p>
thing another shot. The trick is not to use the Enter button on your keyboard during your typing. Let the <p>
thing replace your use of the Enter button on your keyboard. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am Canadian, but live in Haikou. So, the GFWC kills the connection a lot. Images worry them. Text can be scanned. But text can be in jpg form. Maybe Huggle will be better next year. At the beginning of 2010, it took 30 secs to access a wikipage. Now, 3 secs. Last provider, images. Now, no images in articles. I need a proxy to see them, and have to go to commons on proxy to see what images are in an article. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, instead of Huggle, you might want to try other anti-vandalims tools such as Twinkle, IGLOO, STiki, etc. You can find a complete list at Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools (shortcut → CAT:CVT). Perhaps one of them might work better given your restrictions. Good luck! — Spike Toronto 06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am very grateful for your efforts, but I've already tried everything to solve the proxy problem. In a nutshell: I am always searching for proxies. I usually have one or two that works. They have a lifespan because they get discovered and blocked. Proxies like TOR etc. that are covered in Wiki's pages are weak and already blocked. The ones I use now are good, but I cannot edit with them because they give an anonymous IP. IP exemption wouldn't help because proxy IPs change all the time.
Somehow, no matter what proxy I am using, or even if I am using a proxy, the connection gets cut every few minutes when accessing Wikipedia and some other sites. I don't know why, but this happens to everyone here. We don't question the powers that be in China. We don't ask such questions as: "Why does one ISP allow me to see images in Wiki articles and not another? What the hell is the point of that?" "Why can I upload images to commons only if they are less than 1/2 MB?" You can ask these questions, but the answer will be a frustrating blend of circular illogic, double-talk, deflection, and obfustication. I appreciate your help, though, but this is a rabbit hole that goes nowhere. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal (
talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Can I have a gin instead? No, seriously, thanks. Cheers to you and Wikipedia on its tenth birthday! — Spike Toronto 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I borrowed some ideas from your userspace for my user page. You’re credited in the coding. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
No, it is not vandalism. I have even explained the edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.241.124 ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, geez, there isn't even almost a single source on the page, and you threaten me with blocking for a single edit?Wikipedia is very unfriendly to newbies, isn't it? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.241.124 ( talk) 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
Citation needed}}
would have been okay, I would have done that rather than revert. Also, it is not relevant that there are no other citations in that wikiarticle. Their lack is not a licence for other wikieditors to add unsupported material.Therefore, I have struck out the warnings related to the Stabilisation and Association Process article, and reduced the warning for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe article (see here.) I have also asked the other recent changes patroller to consider reducing his Level 4 warning to a Level 2 warning (see here). Finally, I will ask the administrator who applied the 31-hour block if he would reconsider.
Be patient, and I apologize for this. — Spike Toronto 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry about the blank content, i was trying to create a page for the Album The Onslaught of Lazarus. I'm wonder if can I? Hope not disturb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net34a ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike. Sorry about the outburst. There is nothing personal meant, but the discussion had got completely off track by people joining in without reading from the start, assuming I'm some kind of noob, and going off and unilaterally making changes that everyone else is still trying to reach consensus on. Regards, — Kudpung ( talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have another NPP question for you: Are only new pages in the article namespace (i.e., main namespace) reviewed by NPPers? The reason that I ask is that I create a lot of new pages that might generate a lot of unnecessary work for NPPers (see here). However, I almost never create a new page in the article namespace. My work there is either gnome-ish, or to expand an existing stub to a full-fledged article. None of my new pages is ever marked as patrolled. (I assume one cannot mark a page of one’s own creation patrolled?) So, I was wondering if I should seek autopatrolled privileges, or is that not necessary since only new pages in article namespace are an issue for NPPers. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike, as I have mentioned at WT:UTM previously, I have been working on a draft in my userspace to try and amalgamate the various disparate WP:UTM pages. It was also suggested in discussions that this would be an opportunity to write a behavioral guideline concerning the design of user warning templates (and user talk namespace templates in general). As this work represents a large structural change to the project, I would like to invite you and other project members and trusted contributors to have some input. The work I have done so far can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace, I would very much like to get other peoples ideas for expansion and improvement. Rather than engage in long, unwieldy discussions about what changes I should make, it would be easier if you were to make any changes you see fitting, directly into my sandbox. Please direct any related discussion to my main user talk page. You can take this message as my permission for you to edit the page User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace and any sub-pages thereof. If you are to busy or would rather not, don't worry. I won't be offended :) Pol430 talk to me 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
He has made 33 edits, all of which would be attributed to you if usurpation were permitted. But, perhaps your request might constitute a “rare exception”.The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances).
On another topic, what happened to your drafts?! Are they to be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike, please see this comment I have left on Aerosprite's talk page and add anything you think appropriate. Pol430 talk to me 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SpikeToronto, I just wanted to let you know that when people create descriptions for files on commons, you can just tag them for speedy deletion under criteria F2! (For example, see File:Padlock-dash.svg, where you removed the text.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit - respecting WP:NOTFORUM and all that so I'm not commenting there, but when I was at school, a number of our books used "to-day" instead of "today", which even as early as 1972 I found jarring. These books were written in the 1950s or, at best, early 1960s, such were school budgets then (so what's new...?). The education authorities only replaced them when they realised that they were written using measures which the Government had recently deemed obsolete - pounds/shillings/pence; stones/pounds/ounces; miles/yards/feet/inches; gallons/pints/fl. oz., etc. Perhaps a general change in the way that school books are written can trigger a change in spelling? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Spike:
greetings again. i've been contributing to a page/subject; i read that IF i'm posting to a talk-page then...i ought sign that post. But, when making a contribution to a proper wiki subject, not to. i guess i've just realized this. can/should you mend the error by cleaning up the contrib. string, or do i just mend my ways in future? On reflection, it seems to add clutter in the article, and exposes me to...well, i do not really know what that would be. Feel free to tidy it up as you see fit regards the minor edits and corrections. i'm trying to figure it all out. thx-dgjesquire :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjesquire ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Charles Johnson is sending a confederate to canvas you with his requirements for the text of the littlegreenfootballs article.
"It's that same obsessed weirdo again, putting back the badly-sourced edits that he was told he could not make, several times before. If you would leave a note for the admins, I'd appreciate it. I can't do it myself."( link)
"sure, the last admin and i were on the level about it all. ill write him after im done with this paper." ( link)
"Thanks. That guy should be blocked from making edits -- he's demonstrated many times over that he's not on the level, and now he's sneaking back in to make edits he was told he could not make."( link)
Notanipokay ( talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)I'd just like to correct some of the false claims made by "Natanipokay."
First, it's not correct that I "sent" anyone to do anything. A reader of my blog informed me that Notanipokay was back, replacing the edits that he had already been told were not appropriate because of bad sourcing. Since I don't believe it's appropriate to edit the page for my own site, I asked that user to notify the admin about what was happening. Nobody was "sent." If there's a better way for me to deal with false information being posted on the LGF page, let me know and I'll be glad to use that method.
Second, the negative information this person is continuing to insert is defamatory and false. I absolutely dispute his characterizations, and they are based on statements made by a blogger who has a very definite agenda to smear me and my website. This is not the kind of information that should be in Wikipedia, as has already been explained to Notanipokay.
Yes, I did write the quotes above, and I do believe that Notanipokay is flaunting the rules because he's got an agenda of his own. He waited several months until the heat died down, then came back and made the very same badly-sourced edit.
CharlesJohnsonLGF ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! What a long tutorial. I spend three hours reading the first part of getting started! Well, why I have not heard of you for 2 days already. I may not be as active in wikia anymore cause I'll be editing in wikipedia maybe. Can you test me like what you do to HBH? -- Zompenguin ( talk) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (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: |
Hey Spike! Please take a look at recent changes to Agatha Christie. Someone added several unpublished works. I couldn't find documentation for some of them, but I'll bet you can (if it exists). Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 08:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that, in the actual text, most of the tomes below discuss Christie’s unpublished works. However, unless they are indicated in the indices, tables of contents, and/or appendices, short of reading every word on every page, one would not be able to ferret these out. If only one had digital copies of these works, one could use a find function to locate occurences of the word, unpublished. Nonetheless, what follows below is what little could be found. |
Curran, John. Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: Fifty Years of Mysteries in the Making. Harper Collins, 2009. ISBN 978-0-00-731056-2 (UK 2009 version) (see also ISBN 978-0-06-198836-3 (US 2010 version)).
Hack, Richard. Duchess of Death: The Unauthorized Biography of Agatha Chrisitie. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, Inc. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59777-620-2
Morgan, Janet. Agatha Christie: A Biography. Harper Collins, 1997. ISBN 978-0-00-729663-7 (First published, William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd., 1984.)
Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie: An English Mystery. Headline Review, 2008 (paperback) ISBN 978-0-7553-1488-1. (First published, Headline Review, 2007.)
Hope this helps River. Sorry I couldn’t come up with more. — Spike Toronto 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, i have no idea why you left me a warning for a page i never edited. Please do not send me warnings to pages i've not changed. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.180.144 ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you only want to see messages that relate soley to you, then you need to register and create your own, unique account. Doing so hides your IP address from all but certain administrative members of Wikipedia, thus providing you greater security. Also, you do not need to provide any personal information to have such an account, and you can log into it from anywhere in the world.
I trust that this explains the situation. — Spike Toronto 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting an editor review to anyone, but especially to some editors/admins I came across through my WikiLife. While I understand you might not remember coming across me or any of my edits, I would appreciate if you would pass by and tell me what you think! The editor review request can be found here. Of course you can choose to ignore this! Thanks - «CharlieEchoTango» 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Removing someone from Huggle's whitelist is a Quixotic task, as the very next edit readded a user that you removed from it. I don't know of any way to keep someone off the whitelist for long, without discussing the merits of actually removing this user. (I.e. do other users really need to see his edits to his user talk page?) Courcelles 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
So, since the editor in question is no longer a Huggle user — he is no longer in the Huggle users list — the program should not have put him back in. So, it appears to me to be a glitch. But, there is no real harm here since this particular editor is certainly not likely to vandalize. But, it is a conundrum. Thanks for the note! — Spike Toronto 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)This is a list of Huggle users whose contributions may be ignored while searching for vandalism.
Undeleting article
|
---|
Ok, so apparently some one found the need to delete my new INKAS article. I decided since I was going to put everything in one article, I was going to delete the INKAS Armored Vehicle article. But since now that the article is gone, is there a way to go back into the history and get back the old article? (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Done With
this edit, the wonderful Administrator,
Eagles247,
userfied the article for you. You can find it at
User:Dillonraphael/INKAS. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Article Review & Rewrite
|
---|
Hey Dillon. I’ve begun proofreading and copyediting
your article. You can see the series of edits I made in
the article’s history. I suggest you read the
edit summaries in the history as they explain the edits made and direct you to various Wikipedia editing guidelines.
So far, I have only worked on the lede section and will look at the rest, bit by bit, off and on, when I have the time. I hope you’re not in a hurry. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Its all good. I was worried you forgot. I didn't want to be a nuisance. But so far, the article is looking MUCH BETTER. (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
Its looking more proper now. Yay the article is on the right track :) (
Dillonraphael (
talk) 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)) |
The easiest way to satisfy WP:CORP is to increase the number of third-party, independent, verifiable references/ citations. Our problem is that, since this is a privately held corporation, there is less written about it. When a company’s stock is publicly traded on the stock exchange, there is more written about it as analysts discuss whether or not the company’s shares are a good buy, etc. So, before we roll this article out to mainspace, we will need to come up with more published sources and fit them and their material into the article. As it is, we’re relying too much on the company’s own website. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Typically, articles at The Globe are only available at their website free-of-charge for a brief period. (Until access is denied, you can find this article at The Globe here.) However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders ( bwob.ca), a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.) The tagline for the article is: The market for armoured cars, some with James Bond extras, has never been better. But cheaper overseas competition is heating up. What until you see how young the fellow who heads up the armoured division is!Gray, Jeff. “ The booming business of stopping bullets,” The Globe & Mail. Report on Business section, February 3, 2011, p. B15.
Anyway, we should find some very useful information in that article. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Please review. Write any comments relating to the
Infobox here in this section. Thanks! —
Spike
Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: I have fleshed out each of the references per Wikipedia:Citing sources (shortcut → WP:CITE) and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcut → WP:REFBEGIN). However, I have not assessed them per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (shortcut → WP:RS) to see if they are likely to be challenged (e.g., www.eMercedesBenz.com). I will assess their reliability as I come to them while copy editing the text.
But, I would rather you tell me about an article I’ve already seen than let one pass by. So, thanks for searching! Keep up the good work! — Spike Toronto 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders ( bwob.ca), a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.)
Partly done: Right now, the name of the article is simply INKAS. However, the name of the company is INKAS Group of Companies. I have already changed the name in the infobox and in the lede. I also need to change the name of the article to match. Let me know if you agree and then I will do it. Thanks!
#REDIRECT [[INKAS Group of Companies]]
. Thoughts? —
Spike
Toronto 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Done Please review. Write any comments relating to the lede here in this section. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Write any comments relating to the History section here in this section. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
How are things going? Do you think its ready to be published, the article? ( Dillonraphael ( talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Original Query:
Hi 75.62.158.218. I see in Amazina/ GWAR woman that you are trying to add material including verifiable references/ citations. However, you keep having your attempt rejected either by bots or by recent changes patrollers. All verifiable references/ citations must be entered as per WP:CITE. They cannot be entered solely as Internet addresses (URLs) either directly in the body of the article, or in a footnote. A full citation must be provided — as a footnote — just as one would in an essay one would submit in school. In Wikipedia, this is done using
<ref></ref>
tags. If the only thing provided is a URL, and that URL should ever go dead or become otherwise broken, then the entire reference would have to be deleted, and replaced by the {{ Citation needed}} template: The statement in the text would then be unsubstantiated. If, however, a full citation is provided, it can stand alone without the the URL, should the URL ever go dead or become otherwise broken, and not have to be deleted. It would thus be no different than citing an out-of-print hardcopy book, a perfectly acceptable practice. If you are unsure how to do this, please read WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE. Remember: Citations entered incorrectly run the risk of being reverted by other editors to this article or by recent changes patrollers.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me at my talk page. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Read the above notices carefully as they explain a lot of the difficulty, especially the ones from the XLinkBot. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. Also, have a look at the welcome message given to newly registered accounts. You will find it very informative. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Hi Spike.. ?? I do not know how to edit this with out violations. i do not want to violate anything, just giving verifiable information on this artist.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.158.218 ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
help me}}
on your talk page along with your question, and someone will come along and put the answer on your talkpage. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Since the conversation has already started , please go to my IP address talk page and not my username talk page (just so we don't get confused).
A post is already there for you.
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 21:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not say this easily, or casually, but I think you will see based on his posts and also his talk page.
Any ideas on what I can do?
Please see his posts to my IP address Talk Page: User talk:98.245.148.9
Sincere thanks, Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Using detailed edit summaries every time is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. I know you were improving the article, and you know you were improving the article. But, without a detailed edit summary, and seeing only a single diff, a RCPer does not know this.
As for removing comments from his talkpage, that is his perogative. While I prefer to archive everything, warts and all, other users prefer to delete things they do not want on their talkpages or in their archives. Take a look at the the guideline at the WP:OWNTALK section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (shortcut → WP:TALK) and you will see why this is permissable. By the way, in this specific example, he did not remove the comments; he merely moved them to his archive here.
Hope this helps! — Spike Toronto 05:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy holidays! | ||
Consider this your
nudge. Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
For some reason the Christmas template is failing on your talk page, So I am wishing you Merry Christmas!!! -- Diannaa ( Talk) 18:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
</font>
at the end.Thanks so much for the holiday wishes! I hope you have a Merry Christmas as well! — Spike Toronto 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Original Query:
Hi DGJ. I reverted this edit,† because “al fresco” is gilding the lilly (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (shortcut → WP:WORDS)) and is clearly understood by the use of the word roadster. Also, “less costly” requires a verifiable reference/ citation. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You should review an article’s edit history when editing to read the edit summaries to see why edits are reverted/changed/etc. This prevents endless reverts and edit wars Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. To learn how to add verifiable references/ citations to articles, have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcut → WP:REFBEGIN). Have fun! — Spike Toronto 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
it is meant not in reference to 'roadster', but rather to contrast and bring the point forward that with the 'closed' version (circa 1954-55-56), there had not been any open version. Actually, as I view it, I would have edited out "roadster" in this application.
Dgjesquire ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone beat me to the punch and made Kei Inoo a redirect again. Unless someone adds reliable sources and/or makes a convincing argument on the talk page before recreating the article feel free to redirect it again based on the original discussion. Happy New Year, J04n( talk page) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. testing —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.223.238.224 (
talk) 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Response:
Hi 203.223.238.224. I saw
your reversion on my talk page. Thank you for correcting that. I did want to take this opportunity, though, to point out a few things regarding warning templates:
I hope this helps. Otherwise, happy editing! — Spike Toronto 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You wrote to me that I need a secondary source that analyzes Charest's comments to have it included. I've done just that. Brian Segal's comment does not have a secondary source analyzing it. It's the same logic you used. Please be fair. I am not being disruptive. You are obviously trying hard to protect the Maclean's page without considering the rules. What is the reason for allowing the Segal comment to stay? Would you like to explain that? There was no secondary source that mentioned Segal's statement. Please stop bullying me. Kidman Wheeler ( talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In any event, if you had read that policy, or any of the others to which you have been directed, you would not have needed to make enquiries of this nature on my talk page as all of your questions have already been answered.The reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources. You can find it at WP:PRIMARY, as I have pointed out to you in edit summaries. [Emphasis added to missing part.]
Nor have you chosen to participate in the discussion begun on your behalf at the article’s talk page. You have instead chosen to post a diatribe about conspiracies and how you are caught up in one with persons on the payroll of Maclean’s. I must say that that’s rather galling as there is no love lost between me and that conservative rag. The only pleasure I ever got from it was not renewing my subscription in 2010!
Conversely, what I do care about are the Five Pillars of Wikipedia including, but not limited to:
As I have said to you twice before — here and here — editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to have single-purpose accounts, nor use agenda accounts to prosecute a particular agenda. Keep this in mind when you are focussing your editing solely on Maclean’s. You need to start editing other articles in addition to Maclean’s in order to demonstrate that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just pursue an agenda on one particular article.Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. [Emphasis added.]
Finally, and as I have also said to you twice before — here and here — when other editors point out Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, they are not trying to silence or censor you. They are trying to help you improve your editing by bringing it in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to help you be a constructive, collegial editor, and not a disruptive editor. Thus, when we point you towards these policies and guidelines, you should take a break from editing, and instead read the things to which we are directing you. — Spike Toronto 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The other thing I want to comment on is that I will edit other articles. I need more time. I have much to contribute. The Maclean's edits were difficult for me, to say the least. I still think people were not being fair about it but I accept your suggestions. Thank you. Kidman Wheeler ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a temporary template that can be inserted when an article or a section is undergoing a major intensive editing spree that alerts us. It is the {{
In use}} template. To apply it to an entire article, place and save it at the very top of the article. To have it only apply to a section of the article, place and save it as {{
In use|section}}
in the particular section in which you are working. I often alternate between {{
In use}} and {{
Under construction}} when I am actively working on an article.
Thank you for your responses and I look forward to working with you gentlemen on other wikiarticles. Happy editing! — Spike Toronto 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Still, if you ever have any questions, my door is always open. — Spike Toronto 04:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you issued this user a final warning when I went to leave warning. I don't know what's the proper way to do this but they have made further vandalism edits, as per your warning if you are able to I think this should trigger a block. thanks-- Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
However, 24 hours later, he started back up again. At which time, no further warnings were necessary and a report could have been filed. (Had he waited 48 hours, the warnings would have been reset back to Level 1.) This is exactly what happened when User:Glane23 filed a report seeking Administrator action with this edit. This resulted in the vandal’s block a few hours later. Luckily, the blocking administrator made it a six-month-long schoolblock, which means that kids who want to edit from that school for the next six months (i.e., until school lets out) will have to register and create an account.
The general procedure is this:
{{
helpme}}
template on your talk page, followed by your query, and someone will come along and answer your question there. Also, you can search at the
Wikipedia:Help desk for guidance. Finally, you can also try at the
village pump (
Wikipedia:Village pump (shortcut →
WP:VP)). —
Spike
Toronto 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)For the sake of completeness, it would be interesting to be able to link to all songs that mention a certain subject, so I'm not entirely against it. Viriditas ( talk) 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary did not give a reason for the revert, suggesting that you were reverting as vandalism. I assumed it was because of the fact that the IP’s edit had messed up the H2 heading, In popular culture. Had I known you were reverting per
WP:TRIVIA — with which I was not too familiar until I saw
your later edit, and its accompanying edit summary, inserting the {{
trivia}}
template — then I most likely would have passed the edits by and proceeded to the next set of
Huggle
diffs. Once I followed {{
trivia}}
to
WP:TRIVIA, then I kind of figured what you were up to.
Please feel free to remove my corrections of the IP’s edits. However, I’d like to suggest a brief note to the IP suggesting that they take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) (shortcut → WP:TRIVIA) to understand why their edit was reverted.
By the way, these trivia lists are everywhere in Wikipedia! The WP:TRIVIA guideline seems to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. I’m afraid that dealing with the enormous quantity of them might by a sisyphean task. Thanks for the feedback! — Spike Toronto 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This specificity might have made things easier vis-à-vis the XXxTheproxXx incident. — Spike Toronto 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Agatha Christie}} ~~~~
As for not giving a vandal time to change, looking at my history, I've only done that a tiny % of the time, in cases of nasty vandalism. I've ceased that practice too.
I humbly welcome any and all advice you can offer regarding vandalism or other interractions. I'm always up for improvement. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As for a specific incident, I read over the stuff here and I think that, to a certain degree, it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot. What you did I used to do also … often. I would template a vandal at Level 1 for the vandalism that I reverted. Then, looking at their diffs, I would template them for other vandalizing edits within the previous 48 hours for which others had not templated them, escalating each warning. However, I always specified the page vandalized so both the vandal and a blocking admin reviewing the warnings knew to what the warnings were referring. Thus, I never had any of my manual reports to AIV rejected. It’s amazing what a difference adding the wikiarticle title can make!
However, I came to discover that giving a bunch of warnings all at once, when they’ve received no others, is not the way to do it. We need to give the miscreant an opportunity to mend his ways. When one refers to giving a vandal time to change, what is meant is that the vandal needs time to read the warning before further warnings are issued. This is why I no longer issue warnings unless and until he vandalizes again after receiving a warning. This is built-in to the logic of such vandal-fighting programs as Huggle and Twinkle. So, before you issue a vandal a subsequent warning, you should have a look at their contribs and see if the vandalism came after or before they were warned last. When templated, whether a vandal is editing from a registered account or as an IP, they still get a banner at the top of their page alerting them to a new message. There’s no excuse for not having read it. If he continues to vandalize after receiving a warning, then a further warning is appropriate and necessary. On occasion you can skip a level; but, I advise stating explicitly why in your edit summary.
One further thing, the guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages (shortcut → WP:OWNTALK) tells us that it is okay for vandals to remove warnings from their own talk pages, be they registered or IP-only. When they do so, it is evidence of them having read the warning. Twinkle, Huggle, and other such programs, are usually not fooled and will escalate the next warning appropriately. However, if you are working manually, you may have to consult their talk page’s revision history to see what Level to apply next.
Hope this helps. You might want to also have a look at this discussion here. Any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If the first occurrence of vandalism is a really dirty word to a BLP, can I start the level higher than 1?
Very nice to hear Huggle etc. is not fooled by removed templates. That's good info I've been wondering about.
I do occasionally patrol with Huggle, but when I patrol from here and here, and then put them on a watch notepad if they are naughty, I will keep your advice in mind. I really appreciate the time. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As for warning escalation, if giving a first warning, and it is clear that the editor was not editing in good faith, you can start at Level 2. As for escalating straight to Level 4, or starting off at Level 4im, it had better be a pretty egregious edit (e.g., racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, etc.). If you escalate to Level 4, or start right off the bat with Level 4im, state explicitly why in your edit summary. For example: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist and homophobic nature of vandalism. (I think one can also use racist to apply to anti-semitic and anti-muslim edits.) — Spike Toronto 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links.
I can't use Huggle monitor. I'm stuck with notepad because the great firewall of china crashes Huggle every 3 or 4 minutes.
Thank you again for the excellent advice. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
User|<username>}}
template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.Having said that, remember that until a new editor is whitelisted, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for recent changes patrollers to review. Most registered, vandalism-only accounts, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.
One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph, rather than hitting the Enter button twice, followed by a series of indenting colons (::::), instead insert a <p>
after the last sentence of the paragraph and then start typing the next one. So, for instance, the paragraphs above, unformatted, look like the following:
Also, you can take a look inside the editor at either this paragraph, or your paragraph above that I reformatted, to see more of what I mean.Anna, I kind of like Viriditas’s suggestion of having a list in your userspace that you could use in a semi-automated manner. Also, you are only looking at new users and they wouldn’t know how to troll through the depths of your userspace to find something that would offend them. However, I cannot figure out how to get Viriditas’s string to work. So, if I were doing it, I would create a page called [[User:Anna Frodesiak/Watchlist supplement]] and then add the {{tlx|User|<username>}} template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.<p>Having said that, remember that until a new editor is [[WP:HGW|whitelist]]ed, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for [[WP:recent changes patrol|]]lers to review. Most [[WP:register|]]ed, [[WP:vandalism-only account|]]s, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.<p>One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph …
Finally, what do you mean by The Great Firewall of China? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between colons and the p thing? Just curious? Are the colons wrong?
(The p thing is actually quite quick -- "rightpinkieholdctrl-rightindex-leftmiddle-rightindex")
Yep. I like the p thing. Thanks.
Great firewall of China? You don't know? You must look it up! If I look it up, software will kill my connection for a few minutes. No kidding.
Did I tell you? I lived in the Annex for a decade. Lots of strange times in that city. Then I had the good sense to move to Van. :) Ha! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
<p>
thing works. You just weren’t using it right. First, it’s a lowercase p. Second, one doesn’t place it in the same manner as the indenting colons; one imbeds them in the text. Open the editor, and take a look at where the <p>
thingies are in your paragraph above that begins with I am digesting the vandal advice …; I reformatted it with the <p>
thingies so you can see how to use them. That’s how they are used. The reason why it’s preferable to the indenting colons (::::::) is that the colons mess up the editing area and allow some not-so-bright wikieditors to insert comments in between your paragraphs, which used to happen to me before I switched to the <p>
thingies.As for The Great Firewall of China, I understood that to be the firewall that the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had placed around the Chinese internet to control what the PRC’s citizens could and could not see. But, since I understood you to be here in Canada, I didn’t understand how it was crashing your Huggle. (Interestingly, when my spousal unit was a teenager, his older brother and father owned and operated a Chinese takeout called, The Great Wall of China. But, I digress …)
Anyway, give the <p>
thing another shot. The trick is not to use the Enter button on your keyboard during your typing. Let the <p>
thing replace your use of the Enter button on your keyboard. Good luck! —
Spike
Toronto 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am Canadian, but live in Haikou. So, the GFWC kills the connection a lot. Images worry them. Text can be scanned. But text can be in jpg form. Maybe Huggle will be better next year. At the beginning of 2010, it took 30 secs to access a wikipage. Now, 3 secs. Last provider, images. Now, no images in articles. I need a proxy to see them, and have to go to commons on proxy to see what images are in an article. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, instead of Huggle, you might want to try other anti-vandalims tools such as Twinkle, IGLOO, STiki, etc. You can find a complete list at Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools (shortcut → CAT:CVT). Perhaps one of them might work better given your restrictions. Good luck! — Spike Toronto 06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am very grateful for your efforts, but I've already tried everything to solve the proxy problem. In a nutshell: I am always searching for proxies. I usually have one or two that works. They have a lifespan because they get discovered and blocked. Proxies like TOR etc. that are covered in Wiki's pages are weak and already blocked. The ones I use now are good, but I cannot edit with them because they give an anonymous IP. IP exemption wouldn't help because proxy IPs change all the time.
Somehow, no matter what proxy I am using, or even if I am using a proxy, the connection gets cut every few minutes when accessing Wikipedia and some other sites. I don't know why, but this happens to everyone here. We don't question the powers that be in China. We don't ask such questions as: "Why does one ISP allow me to see images in Wiki articles and not another? What the hell is the point of that?" "Why can I upload images to commons only if they are less than 1/2 MB?" You can ask these questions, but the answer will be a frustrating blend of circular illogic, double-talk, deflection, and obfustication. I appreciate your help, though, but this is a rabbit hole that goes nowhere. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal (
talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Can I have a gin instead? No, seriously, thanks. Cheers to you and Wikipedia on its tenth birthday! — Spike Toronto 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I borrowed some ideas from your userspace for my user page. You’re credited in the coding. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
No, it is not vandalism. I have even explained the edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.241.124 ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, geez, there isn't even almost a single source on the page, and you threaten me with blocking for a single edit?Wikipedia is very unfriendly to newbies, isn't it? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.241.124 ( talk) 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
Citation needed}}
would have been okay, I would have done that rather than revert. Also, it is not relevant that there are no other citations in that wikiarticle. Their lack is not a licence for other wikieditors to add unsupported material.Therefore, I have struck out the warnings related to the Stabilisation and Association Process article, and reduced the warning for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe article (see here.) I have also asked the other recent changes patroller to consider reducing his Level 4 warning to a Level 2 warning (see here). Finally, I will ask the administrator who applied the 31-hour block if he would reconsider.
Be patient, and I apologize for this. — Spike Toronto 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry about the blank content, i was trying to create a page for the Album The Onslaught of Lazarus. I'm wonder if can I? Hope not disturb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net34a ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike. Sorry about the outburst. There is nothing personal meant, but the discussion had got completely off track by people joining in without reading from the start, assuming I'm some kind of noob, and going off and unilaterally making changes that everyone else is still trying to reach consensus on. Regards, — Kudpung ( talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have another NPP question for you: Are only new pages in the article namespace (i.e., main namespace) reviewed by NPPers? The reason that I ask is that I create a lot of new pages that might generate a lot of unnecessary work for NPPers (see here). However, I almost never create a new page in the article namespace. My work there is either gnome-ish, or to expand an existing stub to a full-fledged article. None of my new pages is ever marked as patrolled. (I assume one cannot mark a page of one’s own creation patrolled?) So, I was wondering if I should seek autopatrolled privileges, or is that not necessary since only new pages in article namespace are an issue for NPPers. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike, as I have mentioned at WT:UTM previously, I have been working on a draft in my userspace to try and amalgamate the various disparate WP:UTM pages. It was also suggested in discussions that this would be an opportunity to write a behavioral guideline concerning the design of user warning templates (and user talk namespace templates in general). As this work represents a large structural change to the project, I would like to invite you and other project members and trusted contributors to have some input. The work I have done so far can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace, I would very much like to get other peoples ideas for expansion and improvement. Rather than engage in long, unwieldy discussions about what changes I should make, it would be easier if you were to make any changes you see fitting, directly into my sandbox. Please direct any related discussion to my main user talk page. You can take this message as my permission for you to edit the page User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace and any sub-pages thereof. If you are to busy or would rather not, don't worry. I won't be offended :) Pol430 talk to me 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
He has made 33 edits, all of which would be attributed to you if usurpation were permitted. But, perhaps your request might constitute a “rare exception”.The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances).
On another topic, what happened to your drafts?! Are they to be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike, please see this comment I have left on Aerosprite's talk page and add anything you think appropriate. Pol430 talk to me 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SpikeToronto, I just wanted to let you know that when people create descriptions for files on commons, you can just tag them for speedy deletion under criteria F2! (For example, see File:Padlock-dash.svg, where you removed the text.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit - respecting WP:NOTFORUM and all that so I'm not commenting there, but when I was at school, a number of our books used "to-day" instead of "today", which even as early as 1972 I found jarring. These books were written in the 1950s or, at best, early 1960s, such were school budgets then (so what's new...?). The education authorities only replaced them when they realised that they were written using measures which the Government had recently deemed obsolete - pounds/shillings/pence; stones/pounds/ounces; miles/yards/feet/inches; gallons/pints/fl. oz., etc. Perhaps a general change in the way that school books are written can trigger a change in spelling? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Spike:
greetings again. i've been contributing to a page/subject; i read that IF i'm posting to a talk-page then...i ought sign that post. But, when making a contribution to a proper wiki subject, not to. i guess i've just realized this. can/should you mend the error by cleaning up the contrib. string, or do i just mend my ways in future? On reflection, it seems to add clutter in the article, and exposes me to...well, i do not really know what that would be. Feel free to tidy it up as you see fit regards the minor edits and corrections. i'm trying to figure it all out. thx-dgjesquire :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjesquire ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Charles Johnson is sending a confederate to canvas you with his requirements for the text of the littlegreenfootballs article.
"It's that same obsessed weirdo again, putting back the badly-sourced edits that he was told he could not make, several times before. If you would leave a note for the admins, I'd appreciate it. I can't do it myself."( link)
"sure, the last admin and i were on the level about it all. ill write him after im done with this paper." ( link)
"Thanks. That guy should be blocked from making edits -- he's demonstrated many times over that he's not on the level, and now he's sneaking back in to make edits he was told he could not make."( link)
Notanipokay ( talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)I'd just like to correct some of the false claims made by "Natanipokay."
First, it's not correct that I "sent" anyone to do anything. A reader of my blog informed me that Notanipokay was back, replacing the edits that he had already been told were not appropriate because of bad sourcing. Since I don't believe it's appropriate to edit the page for my own site, I asked that user to notify the admin about what was happening. Nobody was "sent." If there's a better way for me to deal with false information being posted on the LGF page, let me know and I'll be glad to use that method.
Second, the negative information this person is continuing to insert is defamatory and false. I absolutely dispute his characterizations, and they are based on statements made by a blogger who has a very definite agenda to smear me and my website. This is not the kind of information that should be in Wikipedia, as has already been explained to Notanipokay.
Yes, I did write the quotes above, and I do believe that Notanipokay is flaunting the rules because he's got an agenda of his own. He waited several months until the heat died down, then came back and made the very same badly-sourced edit.
CharlesJohnsonLGF ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! What a long tutorial. I spend three hours reading the first part of getting started! Well, why I have not heard of you for 2 days already. I may not be as active in wikia anymore cause I'll be editing in wikipedia maybe. Can you test me like what you do to HBH? -- Zompenguin ( talk) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (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. |