User talk:SpikeToronto

@This user can be reached by email.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives

The previous discussions are archived as per Wikipedia’s talk archiving policies. Wikipedians may want to survey the archives before starting a new discussion to determine if any issue of interest is dealt with therein. This current Talk page is for starting new discussions not covered in the archive, or for re-visiting older issues. The archives themselves are not to be edited. Thanks! — SpikeToronto

Archived to December 31, 2009.

Hey

Hey

Original Query: Hey Phoenix of 9! Welcome back! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) — from Welcome Back at User talk:Phoenix_of9 Response: I know this is kinda late but thanks. Still not that active anymore though. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I’m glad you’re back, even if in a limited capacity. You’re a good content editor who has a positive contribution to make to the encyclopedia. I’m sorry you became disillusioned with the content discussion last Summer regarding the lede to Homosexuality. It was a fairly mild debate and, for the most part, quite collegial. One just has to be patient and compromising. These things can take time to work through. For the most part, the other editors seemed genuinely inclined to incorporate your suggestions once consensus could be reached. As it is, I do not know how the article eventually turned out since I no longer have it watchlisted. Again, I’m glad to see you back and look forward to your work. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 06:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Btw, if you are interested: Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hi Po9! Sorry for the delay. By the time I got to it, the thread to which you were referring had been moved to Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_17#Rewrite_agenda (i.e., archived). No one has added to the discussion since the third week of October. Do you know what the status of the re-write project is? By the way, and on the topic of archives, would you like me help archive your talk page? It can be set up to occur automatically. Also by the way, whatever happened to your old user page? Knowing you were an inveterate Leafs supporter provided such a window to your soul. :) — SpikeToronto 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Hey. Its current status is that it needs more people :P And my talk page is quiet now, it really doesnt need archiving but thx! And my new page is more concise so this gets more attention: "This user took off and nuked the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." I love that one lol. By the way I know my new sig is too similar to yours but mine is red :P Phoenix of9 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I am not much interested in editing any of the LGBT topics. They, or sections thereof, are too often held captive by those whose politics and/or religion pits them against the so-called “gay agenda.” So, they find little procedural ways to prevent the articles from being improved. (A good example was the wikiarticle on gay marriage this past Summer while you were away. Take a look at its talk page. (You’ll probably have to root around in its archives.) There was even very shrewd, unfortunately legal, sockpuppetting going on.) I like to see things progress with forward momentum, not be held back, stuck in consensus committee hell, so to speak. This is not to say that I have any problem with Wikipedia’s collaborative process in general. I just want no part of it on articles that the religious right feel compelled to muzzle. Since, by defintion, muzzling and consensus are antithetical to one another. Consequently, I don’t even have any of the LGBT pages watchlisted. So, without your heads up, I would not have even known that an overhaul was underway. It would be great if that article could achive feature article (FA) status since then it would be in main-page rotation. Main-page rotation would be poetic justice against those who think the article’s very existence is a recruiting tool for our (nonexistent) legions of gay predators … er … recruiters. The only reason that I got involved back when you were working on the lede was that I agreed with some of your points and wanted to lend a modicum of support to try to animate consensus. As for setting up automatic archiving of your talk page, let me know if you ever want it done. It takes about five minutes. As for your user page, I keep coming back to the Leafs when I think about it. Being aged 102, at least the Leafs won Lord Stanley’s Cup at various points in my lifetime. But, they haven’t achieved that feat in more than double your lifetime! No wonder you decided just to nuke the h*ll out of everything from high orbit. Finally, talk about copycat signatures! I mean, really! You couldn’t have varied it a bit more?! :) Seriously, though, I think we will rarely ever be signing the same talk pages, so no issue. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery … <grin> — SpikeToronto 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC) LOL, Hey phoenix is supposed to be red. Phoenix...fire...red. And of9 is black cause red and black is cool lol. But yea, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. As for homosexuality, I dont wanna jinx anything but it doesnt suffer from the problems you talked about. Phoenix of9 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Glad to hear it! There are four or five wikiarticles that deal with gay marriage and work on them was, perhaps still is, being held up by one sock-puppetting individual. You can read a bit about it here. In the end, because of the subtle way in which the puppet covered his a**, there was nothing that could be done. Sure, the Administrator could have tried moral suasion, but when the perpetrator is possessed of the conviction that he already has the moral high ground on the issue, such a suasion attempt would have been for naught. So, given that it’s now a dead issue here in Canada (I have the gold band to prove it!), and will not be resolved in all 50 States in my lifetime, being aged 102, I lost interest. To be honest, I was not all that interested in the first place and had only become (momentarily) involved because another wikieditor asked me to look at a debate on the talk page. Otherwise, I would never have edited the article. … hmm … reading that back it sounds a bit snotty … TTFN. — SpikeToronto 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Russ Adams & The New York Mets

Original Query:

Hi Doh286! You recently added to the wikiarticle on Russ Adams that he had signed a minor league agreement with the New York Mets.¹ While I am glad that he is with the National League, where I always thought he should have been instead of having had his career destroyed by Ricciardi and the Toronto Blue Jays, the addition of this information requires a verifiable reference/citation. Do you have the source for the info that you added? If so, please add it as a footnote to the article, or provide the data here and I will add it to the article for you. If you want to do it yourself, and are unsure of how to do it, take a look at WP:REFBEGIN. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

— from Russ Adams at User talk:Doh286

¹http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russ_Adams&curid=2647281&diff=336041542&oldid=333646441

Response:

Source for Russ Adams signing with Mets: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100105&content_id=7874978&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doh286 (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Thanks Doh286! With these edits, I added the footnote and updated the Professional career section of the article. You might want to have a look at WP:BLPCITE to read the policy that requires all material added to the biographies of living persons to be accompanied by verifiable references/citations. You might also want to have a look at WP:REFBEGIN for how to create verifiable references/citations/footnotes. Thanks again for the citation! — SpikeToronto 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My Userpage

Thanks, I couldn't figure that one out myself, definitely needed the help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Note:  Comment refers to this edit. — SpikeToronto 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot: You’re welcome! I use the {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} pair all the time so knew the fix immediately. — SpikeToronto 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tildes in Edit Summaries

Original Query:

Hi Muggins! Just a little reminder that you do not have to put four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) in the edit summaries. The system is unable to process them. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

— from Tildes in Edit Summaries at User talk:Mugginsx

Response:

Thanks, I really do know that, but sometimes I get typing fast and my mind is going 100 mph and I forget. I am glad you reminded me! Mugginsx (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I’m just not sure whether having them in an edit summary taxes the system or not, so I thought I’d just pass along the tip. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)