User talk:SpikeToronto

Skip to the bottom

Jump to the top

SpikeToronto is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|SpikeToronto}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

@

This user can be reached by email.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

Glad you're back

I agree with you. I also wanted you to know that I learned alot from you. I think you are an excellent editor and I wish there were more people as good as you. Do not get discouraged. (As you can see) I'm still learning. Glad you're back. Mugginsx (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muggins! Alas, I am now the proud owner — a little bragging here! — of the 2010 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, which means that, other than for things not containted therein, or when speed is important, I will not be looking to Wikipedia for info. So, I won’t be contributing all that much. — Spike Toronto 00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you Courcelles. I will make use of this to help the Wikipedia project when I have more free time. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Congratulations!Congratulations on your "Reviewer" status. I know you will make an excellent one! Mugginsx (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for the constant faith you show, but they’re handing them out like candy. I didn’t even ask/apply for it! The criteria are also quite minimal. However, that being said, I think it could be a useful tool for those of us who do vandalism patrol. It could be used in addition to the recent changes list. Although, those of us who Huggle would probably catch all the recent changes made to those pages covered by the reviewing process, made by those editors whose edits are covered by the reviewing process. Hope all’s well. TTFN. — SpikeToronto 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]CSS Class for Citation needed templateHello, SpikeToronto. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed. Message added 03:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the update, but I do not think that I will be participating in the debate. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Uploading Images to WikipediaHi Spike. I was wondering if you would insert the picture of this man - http://www.paulcdoherty.com/ into his Wiki article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C._Doherty ? I haven't the slightest idea of how to do it. I have his permission to use anything from his site and will produce whatever you require to satisfy you of it. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Images cannot be added to Wikipedia unless they meet Wikipedia’s copyright rules. Basically, this means that unless you took the shot yourself — and release the copyright to Wikipedia — or the photographer has made the photo public domain or in some other way licence compatible with Wikipedia, it cannot be used. See the following: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:File copyright tags The long and the short of it is, first we have to know that the image is in keeping with WP’s copyright and licencing policies before we can upload it. Hope that helps. — SpikeToronto 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I have an e-mail from the author allowing permission to copy the image of himself from his website to this Wiki website about him. Will that be sufficient? I can e-mail the message I received to you at your e-mail site. Mugginsx (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]If you have correspondence from the copyright holder giving you permission, there is a process you can follow. Althought, I cannot for the life of me remember it! (I think it may involve using the OTRS system. Look especially at OTRS Permissions) But first, I have the name of a Wikipedia copyright expert that you can ask: Moonriddengirl. She’s who I go to whenever I have copyright questions. Good luck and let me know how things turn out! — SpikeToronto 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks Spike. I have reviewed the information you suggested and I think I will let the author and/or his webmaster take over from here. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn’t be more help, but I’ve never uploaded images before. However, I knew that the copyright issues had to be settled and clear first. So, I thought that if we could not at least cross that threshhold at the outset, then you and I could save the time that would have been required to figure out the mechanics of uploading. — SpikeToronto 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway Spike. I passed the information on to the author and his people will take over from here. Mugginsx (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Dan LiethaHi thanks Spike, but have you ever read any of Dan Liethas comics. They are full of pseudoscientific ideas. Most of the time the comics seem to mock creationism on a lower level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.211.48 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]You are undoubtedly 100% correct. However, Wikipedia policies prevent either you or I from labelling them as such ourselves. To do so constitutes original research violating WP:NOR and also makes the edit appear biased violating WP:NPOV. The thing to do is to find a source that calls them pseudo-scientific and then anchor your use of the word with a verifiable reference/citation. — SpikeToronto 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]LGBTIs there some established consensus that LGBT is the terminology used? Or am I missing something? I understand that the wider gay community identifies themselves as such, but I'm not sure that it's the term that should be used everywhere. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Homosexual is the word used by those groups that would marginalize the gay and lesbian community and deny it its basic civil and human rights. Think of how each time a member of the religious right gets up on his/her soapbox against the GLBT community they hurl the word, homosexual, at gay men and women like thuderbolts from on high. It has all sorts of negative connotations for gay men and women: judgement by others, illegality, perversion, mental illness, etc. Unlike the Q-word — queer — the gay and lesbian community has not found a way to take back homosexual and make it its own. — SpikeToronto 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I completely understand that connotation, but I'm not sure that LGBT should be substituted in without discussion in general. It is the most widely understood, utilized term for LGBT individuals outside of the community itself in addition to being the scientific definition. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere before, but I couldn't find it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]The only time I see the word homosexual used these days — instead of gay and lesbian, LBGT, GLBT, etc. — is in scientific/medical literature including the CDC. However, even these sources are using the term less and less, including the CDC who has developed — for epidemiological purposes — more descriptive labels (e.g., MSM). — SpikeToronto 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]A quick search reveals it's still used in many article titles here on Wikipedia, see [1]. I'm not opposed to changing the terminology, but in this particular instance it could change the meaning of the sentence. Do transgendered people not have a different legal classification? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the article that we were looking at, it is a mistake to use either LGBT or GLBT. I think that you are correct that the term may be legally too inclusive as it is possible that in that country trans men and women have yet to achieve full civil and human rights recognition. In retrospect, I think that in that article it would have been more correct to have used gay and lesbian or gay men and women. — SpikeToronto 07:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fact templates on the Intelligence article.Hi, SpikeToronto, I see you added fact templates to two statements I edited last evening on the article Intelligence. That's an appropriate reminder to source those statements (which were made in slightly different form by other editors before I came along to that section). I have an office jam-full of sources about human intelligence and IQ testing, which I read and log in to the source list as they roll into my office from friendly libraries in my town. You are very welcome to suggest other sources any time you discover some that I haven't listed yet. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I have to be honest, I added the {{FACT}} tags more as an object lesson for another editor who had given the editor who added that statement a {{Uw-unsourced3}} warning template, when the addition of {{Citation needed}} tags and a friendly talk-page reminder to the other editor of Wikipedia’s prime directive, WP:V, and the requirement for statements to be anchored by verifiable references/citations, would have sufficed. Boy is that a run-on sentence! — SpikeToronto 17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]User:219.93.197.153I've given this IP a 31h break from editing. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I’ve been reverting each of his edits. If only he would put as much effort into building the project as he does in tearing it down (i.e., vandalizing it). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Well, from his contributions it seemed a waste of time going through the uw-van1, 2, 3, 4 process, so I got my trusty banhammer out of the toolbox and gave it a whack! Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Useless articleThere is no reason to have that article you say I have been "vandalising", I was merely trying to point out to everyone the uselessness of and the rudeness of it. Why should it be on wikipedia to cause some people to look down on others, and others are told they are stupider on wikipedia after being looked down on their whole lives. 59.101.134.153 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]The article to which you are referring is the wikiarticle, Height and intelligence. If you think that the article is useless, then you can propose that it be deleted. To understand how this process functions, and how to begin the process, you should read WP:DEL. Once you make this proposal other wikieditors will have the opportunity to weigh in on the deletion debate. However, you cannot unilaterally delete an article by blanking its content or replacing it with text unaccompanied by verifiable references/citations. I hope this helps you in this matter. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this issue. — SpikeToronto 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply](ec) You have been vandalizing[2]. I think you're reading a little too far into the article. It was a study done in real life, and has an entry included in the encyclopedia. If you have a problem with it, rather than trash the page, you should discuss it on the article's talk page. Just remember to maintain civility and you can feel free to put your case forward. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I’d like to point out that Ishdarian is directing these comments not at me but to IP 59.101.134.153. — SpikeToronto 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Whoops! My bad! Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] — SpikeToronto 07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]By the way, you beat me to the punch with the {{Uw-npa3}} warning template. I got an edit conflict and discovered that you had already dropped the hammer. You also beat me on reverting the NPA. — SpikeToronto 07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]He reverted it. Why not make libelous claims about him/her? It was only going to be on for a short time and none of the people he knows will know. Think about the years of defamation shorter people have had to live through. 59.101.134.153 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]You really are going about this the wrong way. You sound like you're suffering from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Like I stated before, bring it up on the Height and intelligence talk page to voice your concern about it. Attacking other editors can get you blocked fairly quickly. You might want to look at WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT before making your case. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]You know I think the idea that taller people are somehow smarter than shorter people is poppycock too. After all, it doesn’t jibe with my own anecdotal observances that shorter people are actually smarter than taller people!However, Wikipedia’s rules do not let me, or you, or anyone else vandalize an article just be because one doesn’t like it. And, my anecdotal observances are not scientific/statistical fact. If we think that the wikiarticle is too slanted in one direction, then we do something constructuve about it: we do some literature searchs (start with Google) and better balance the article by adding information to the contrary, albeit accompanied by verifiable references/citations. Rather than tearing down a wikiarticle, we should work to improve it. You were in the wrong here, ignoring and flouting the rules, policies, and guidelines. You will get much further if you work within the rules, policies, and guidelines and improve the article by adding to it. So, let’s see how well you can write! Let’s see you improve the article! — SpikeToronto 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Fainting gameIm sorry but i dont want to spend my life becoming a professional article editor on wiki like you but there is pretty much no other information about the fainting game on the internet so if you would like to figure out all the names people call it why and where it came from be my guest but for now just hop off my dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.104.69 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Well, whether or not I had the pleasure of riding on your dick, if you say that the fainting game also has other names, you need to provide verifiable references/citations. Wikipedia’s prime directive is that all articles and all statements contained within them must be verifiable.In the meantime, I am going to revert my reversion of your edit and instead flag the other names section with an {{Unreferenced section}} template to give you time to add some citations. I think maybe I should have done that in the first place. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll take you up on that dick ride some other time! P.S. Be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. — SpikeToronto 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]P.P.S. With these edits, I input, as per WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN, the reference that you came up with. I should warn you, though, that many wikieditors will not consider Urban Dictionary to be a reliable source. You may want to check out WP:RSN in this regard. In the meantime, as much as I may not want to, I’ll hop off now. — SpikeToronto 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]When an edit war is not an edit warYou currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --188.23.176.149 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]If you had looked carefully, on the two articles on which I reverted your edits, I was extremely mindful of not violating WP:3RR. There was no 3RR issue. You were attempting to circumvent Wikipedia's prime directive — verifiability — by labelling any reverts of your edits a 3RR edit war. The reality is that you were inserting statements into those two articles that were so extraordinary that they could not — as per WP:V — remain in those articles without a verifiable reference/citation. Your edits in each article were twice reverted with clear edit summaries explaining why they were reverted. Moreover, you were properly templated on your talk page explaining why you were reverted and the simple remedy for keeping your edits in the articles in question. Apparently, you chose either to not read your talk page or to ignore what was contained therein.Once you added the {{Citation needed}} templates to the extraordinary statements and accused me of edit warring, I was careful not to revert you again. Instead, I added a {{dubious}} tag to the statements and began a discussion on each article’s talk page, inviting you to participate there. I did nothing further. Nonetheless, you chose to continue edit warring with yet another recent changes patroller. I was never at any time edit warring with you. You were being asked to comply with Wikipedia’s verifiability policies, policies to whch each and every one of us are subject. You attempted to deflect the request to comply with Wikipedia’s rules by playing the 3RR card in a situation in which it did not apply. And again, as I stated on the article talk pages, when you add an egregiously extraordinary statement to an article, it is incumbent upon you to anchor it with a verifiable reference/citation. It does not lie in your mouth to tell those who would remind you of WP:V that it is up to them to come up with a source to support your extraordinary (original research?) claims. — SpikeToronto 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Get off your high horse.You get on me for "vandalizing" but, I see your in an editing war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.136.78 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Well, as you can see from the discussion above, I am not in an edit war, never have been, and never will be. As for you and my interaction with you, you blanked and/or replaced the content on the wikiarticle, Leonard A. Funk, Jr., once. For that you received a Level 1 warning template about not blanking wikiarticles. Three minutes later, you began vandalizing the same article by copying and pasting various paragraphs thus creating duplicate paragraphs in the article: an action that cannot be interpreted as anything but vandalism. Thus, you received a Level 2 warning about not vandalizing wikiarticles.As for your comments here, be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. Oh wait, you did! — SpikeToronto 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Accidental refactor?SpikeToronto, your edit at User talk:75.212.6.96 seems to have refactored my comment there. Was this accidental? Please be careful. --Bsherr (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]If you look at the history for that page, you will see that you, I, and yet another editor all hit that page with warning templates at exactly the same time: 02:25EST. She and I were using automated vandalism reverting tools. Thus, the replacing of your template was the result of our systems overriding the edit conflict rather than alerting either of us. Since edit conflict notices are not given to Hugglers — Huggle is supposed to correctly resolve these conflicts on its own — we neither of us would have known that your edit was being overwritten. Huggle is supposed to catch the application of your warning template, and raise each of ours one level. You’ll notice that instead it overwrote yours and issued mine at the same level. Too bad because then that particular miscreant would be one step closer to being blocked! This should be reported at the Huggle feedback page. By the way, how did you discover that this had happened? — SpikeToronto 06:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]That explains it. Hmm, that's annoying. I saw it by chance. I usually don't watch talk pages after I warn, but I must have forgotten to uncheck the box when I created the talk page. I saw your post there on my watchlist, and after seeing your edit, recalled that I had warned for the same article. I went to look, and my warning wasn't there, so I thought I might have warned the wrong anonymous user before I discovered what happened by looking though the history. Thanks for getting back to me. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Four warnings within 67 seconds—somewhat over the top, no? It's not very reasonable to warn without giving them a chance to read it and react. Chzz ► 07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]The person performed four acts of vandalism in eight minutes and was warned simultaneously by four different users. There was really no way to know that the other warnings has been sent --Diannaa ^(Talk) 08:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]SpikeToronto issued the level 1 and level 3 warning, within that 67 seconds. Chzz ► 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Chzz, Huggle has built in to it an algorithm for not warning a vandal too soon after his last warning so that s/he can digest the warning. However, the threshold is quite low. If you think that it should be set higher, you ought to go to the Huggle feedback page and propose it. It will be interesting to see what debate ensues.You also have to understand the process. When doing recent changes patrol, and an IP editor shows up on one’s screen, one has no way of knowing that that is the same IP editor that one warned only a scant minute ago. I don’t know about you, but those IP addresses do not stay in my memory especially when reviewing hundreds of edits in a session. It is different with registered users: those names pop up on one’s Huggle screen and one remembers having just seen it a few minutes before. In such cases, depending on the egregiousness of the edit, I might override Huggle’s automatic escalation of the warning and have it instead issue a new warning, but at the same level as the previous. One cannot be expected to be able to do this with IP editors since IP addresses are so impossible to remember/recall. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I know how huggle works, and the throttling, etc. I think this is a clearly unfortunate case - likely, a school-kid, and nothing particularly egregious, yet they did received four warnings with no chance for them to read them. We all take responsibility for our own edits, regardless of the tools we use. In fact, there is a pop-up box each time we run huggle, specifically to remind us that responsibility for edits rests with the owner of the account. If that specific tool needs modification to stay within guidelines, then with all due respect, it's you who should pursue that, not I.Perhaps the biggest actual problem in this case, is that Bsherr (talk · contribs) reinstated one of the warnings, some ten minutes later [3], which seems entirely inappropriate. The IP should've been made more welcome, gently shown that their edits were inappropriate, and that they could test elsewhere; this level of warning escalation is inappropriate, and can put off new editors. With all vandalism-fighting tools, there is a pay-off in 'collateral damage', but I believe it is always worthwhile us looking to minimise it, and that was my intent in pointing out this case. Best, Chzz ► 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]With nothing personal against anyone involved, I will reinstate any unwanted, impermissible refactoring of my talk page posts, every time. --Bsherr (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part about reinstating a Level 1 warning, is that it can affect warnings subsequent to it. There was nothing the IP editor did that merited having his warning level reset downward. I think that other than that, nothing else was incorrect or inappropriate about the application of the warnings. Chzz, you seem to be ignoring the fact that one cannot keep track of the IP address of an IP editor previously warned; they are not easliy remembered, and the vast majority of vandals are IP editors so their number does not lend itself to easy recall. Also, since you know how Huggle works, you know that it does not apply a warning template if the editor has not edited since their last warning, which means that this editor continued to vandalize after receiving warnings. Thus, s/he merited each warning given. S/he was not a new editor trying to make good faith edits that other editors didn’t like and to which they reacted too harshly, rather than trying to help her/him learn the ropes. This was a vandal. S/he was not being bitten. WP:BITE does not apply to vandals. WP:BITE is about intention: an editor who intends to make good edits but goes about it the wrong way should be encouraged, not bitten. A vandal has no intention of making good edits, a point their vandalism speaks to. You notice that s/he knew exactly when to stop: just short of a final warning. And don't forget that if s/he cools it for two days, then the Level automatically gets reset to Level 1 … and s/he can start vandalizing all over again.

If you want to change the process because you do not want to scare off vandals — as opposed to scaring off new, genuine, good-faith editors — then pick the forum and build a consensus. But, since neither of us using Huggle violated any existing rules or procedures in this instance, which you have clearly asserted that we did do, then we have nothing to change. You want vandals treated with kindness and kid gloves. I am more interested in welcoming genuine, good-faith IP editors to Wikipedia and giving them whatever help they need in learning the ropes. That is much more productive than worrying about coddling a persistent vandal. The logical conclusion of your approach, unless I have misunderstood it, a possibility since I can be rather dense, is that no recent changes patrol should be done with automated tools so that each vandal’s history for the evening can be thoroughly researched and care be taken not to scare them off by attempts to get them to cease and desist with their vandalizing. Man, I hope that I have misunderstood that, that that is not what you are suggesting. (Hey look! I used the word that three times in a row! I wonder if there’s a way to do it four times? Oh, now I’m off track … ) Why don’t you go to the Huggle feedback page and suggest that they increase the grace period, the throttling, from its current setting. There may be general consensus for such a change. I for one think it should be lowered: the sooner a vandal can be escalated to Level 4 and then reported to AIV, the better. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] SpikeToronto, I honestly believe we're on the same team here, and want the same goals; and I thank you for your considered response. You're clearly not as dense as you claim :-) It sounds like you have common sense, which is a rare thing indeed. I am dropping this WP:STICK. I humbly disagree they "merited each warning given", but frankly don't think it worth analysis. I am concerned at our over-dependence on tools, and the belief that four warnings are in some way necessary as a precursor to a block; they are not. I simply wished to point out that, for whatever reason, a brand-new user receiving four warnings in such a short space of time is not in the spirit of Wikipedia; possibly, I accept, it is unfortunate collateral damage. I am somewhat disappointed that this attempt to get a new user back on track was reverted, and indeed that I was warned for same [4]. However, it is not worth our good time; let us, instead, try to improve articles. And that, really, is all. Thank you. Chzz ► 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Chzz! You deleted the comments of other editors from a third party’s talkpage?! I have seen bloodstrewn, knockdown dragouts over at ANI for doing that. It fails WP:TALKO. Man, you had better be careful with that one.As for trying to get a new IP editor back on track, keep an eye on the IP’s contribs page, if he starts trying to make legitimate edits, help him out. That’s what I try to do. One thing I always do is whenever I see a good edit from an IP who has a redlinked TALK, I rush over to his page and hit him with a {{Welcome-anon}}. I find that there is a bias toward IPs with redlinked TALKs wherein some RCPers assume that the edit is vandalism until proven otherwise. So, if I put a welcome message on such an IP’s talk page when he has made good edits, I help reduce the probability that he’ll get flack from less experienced RCPers. It’s funny how so many people here think that vandalism patrol is a job for newbies. I think it is better done by experienced editors since it takes careful deliberation over each edit. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes, I'm well aware of the applicable guidelines; if anyone wishes to bring me to ANI regarding removing 3 of the 4 warnings issued within the 67-second timeframe and trying to make a new user welcome, that'll be fun. But I'm not going to argue the point; this edit summary says it all, really. I've personally welcomed and assisted thousands of new users - quite literally. So I do know what I was doing; I've seen much blood spilt too. I mostly agree about RCP, except that I think new users can be helpful there, as long as they have common sense; the default position must be that, if uncertain about something, either ask or leave it to others. That's what it comes down to, really; and the old adage that 'common sense is a rare thing indeed'. Chzz ► 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]You cannot delete the comments of others on talk pages unless the comments are on your own talk page, or elsewhere so long as the comments are themselves vandalism. It is that simple. You took a big risk. And as for ANI, I do not think it would be any fun arguing one’s case there: there seems to exist a presumption of guilty until proven innocent in that forum. And, the work involved with dealing with all those diffs is like taking on a job. Plus, if you think it’s fun over there, read this under Parting thoughts. Sheesh! — SpikeToronto 04:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hey Chazz. If you look at the history here and here, you will see an example that better fits your approach. This fellow made a legitimate edit that kept getting reverted as vandalism. Thing is, the only issue was that the reference was not in English. But, it clearly supported the statement that the IP was adding to the article. Nonetheless, as you can see from the IP’s talk page history, he was escalated to Level 4 rapidly. Rather then templating him at all, the RCPer should have added a {{Verify}} inline template, or some such. In any event, the IP got reported to AIV … of course. I added a comment here suggesting that he not be blocked. Now in fairness to the RCPer, it is a BLP and s/he was probably afraid of BLP issues. But, I am not convinced that blocking the IP was the way to deal with it. Also, the artist in the wikiarticle is not likely to be covered in the English language press, the periodical is a major respected Italian publication, and wikipolicies at both WP:CITE and WP:NOTENG permit sources in other language. Finally, this comment truly illustrates your point where the IP is not vandalizing. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]User:60.51.61.82Original Query:

I just noticed that you gave the above-captioned IP editor a Level 4 warning for a single edit. The custom is to start at either Level 1 or Level 2. In this case, either {{Uw-blank1}} or {{Uw-blank2}}. Also, when you applied {{Uw-vandalism4im}} you did not indicate for the little miscreant to which wikiarticle you were referring. You will find that the Admins at AIV may not block an editor who has not been given sufficient warnings. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC) — from User:60.51.61.82 at User talk:Everard ProudfootResponse:I know exactly what I was doing, so did the vandal. The level 1 warning wasn't appropriate when they were clearly not interested in civil communication. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] What “civil communication”? The IP’s contribs page clearly shows that he only made one edit, the one you reverted and for which you gave him a Level 4im warning. Thus, he did not communicate with you. Also, both your contribs page and his talk page history clearly show no attempts at communication from you, save for the one in which you hit him with a Level 4im. Whatever attempts at “civil communication” you are referring to, I cannot find them. — SpikeToronto 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I agree with SpikeToronto that, in this case, a 4im was not appropriate. There is nothing inherently wrong with going immediately to a 4im or a block without prior warnings - for example in the case of some gross defamation of a living person, or a death-threat to a user, and various other things. Personally, I like to see new users who make clear racist remarks blocked immediately. However, in this case, I can see absolutely no justification in jumping to 4im. The IP has made absolutely no other edits, and that includes deleted or oversighted - so I can think of no justification. Everard Proudfoot, if you suspect a sock or something, then you should be going to SPI, not warning. Otherwise, please be more considerate of new users. If we jump to such harsh messages so quickly, we risk putting off new contributors. Everyone makes mistakes, new and old editors alike. Many new editors have a troubled start. But new users are the life and soul of the project, so let's do our best to make them welcome. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]It wasn't blanking. Blanking is the deletion of content only. Here, inappropriate content was added. Judging by the conduct, it was fair of Everard to conclude that it was done in bad faith. That means at least level 3. (Level 1 is good faith, level 2 is no faith, level 3 is bad faith.) An administrator would assess the sufficiency of the warnings eventually, but I've seen many administrators block an anon on a single warning for clear bad faith vandalism. There are no guidelines for the use of 4im, so on what basis is anyone concluding it was used wrongly? --Bsherr (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I mostly agree with Chzz on this one. Bsherr: the basis on which both Chzz and I concluded that it was applied incorrectly, we have stated; read our comments again. As for blanking or not blanking, when the system summarizes with “Replaced content with …”, using the {{Uw-blank1}} series is appropriate. Also, {{Uw-blank1}} redirects to {{Uw-delete1}}, which discusses the removal of content. Do you not agree that the IP removed content?I do agree that WP:BITE does not apply to a vandal. However, by your logic, if this vandal had merely inserted his statement into the text, and not deleted any, you would have agreed to a lower level warning. But, again by your logic, because he deleted lots and lots of text, he warranted a Level 4im warning. That just doesn’t make sense: It suggests that the more text one deletes the higher one’s warning should be. There is no guideline to support this rationale. We cannot make up our own rules. I have many times seen blocking Admins refuse to block for insufficient warnings and warnings that were escalated too quickly. Generally, they only agree with Level 4im right off, or even a straight away block, for the sort of behavior indicated by Chazz. Finally, Everhard stated that he did this not because of some imagined egregiousness of the IP’s edit, but because of the IP’s unwillingness to engage in “civil communication.” Yet, there is no evidence of any attempt at such communication in the first place. Bsherr, it is one thing to discuss when a Level 4im is appropriate in general, but this particular application, supposedly for the reasons stated, was indefensible. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Take a look at WP:VANDTYPES. This wasn't blanking. The content was deleted and replaced with something, but that something didn't meet the definition of WP:Nonsense. The uw-v series was the correct series. I don't know what you mean about me saying a lower warning would be indicated in different circumstances; I never said that. And could you give me a link to where the conditions for giving a 4im warning are, by which you judge this to be inappropriate? As you said, we cannot make up our own rules, right? --Bsherr (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Stop Wikilawyering, and apply some common sense. A new user comes along, makes one edit, vandalising an article. Nothing horrific, just run-of-the-mill vandalism. Do they deserve a 4im? No, of course not. Chzz ► 04:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I still agree with Chzz on this one. Bsherr, you’re missing the broader issue here. It’s not about blanking or deleting or removing content. It’s not about which warning template series should have been used. That’s merely narrowly focused hairsplitting. The issuing editor issued a Level 4im when a lower one would have sufficed. He makes no claims to have done so as per the WP:UTM schema you presented above. (That schema, by the way, while accurately presented by you, is not so much how AIV blocking admins tend to do it. They want to see escalation. In the absence of escalation, where one goes straight to final warning, they want to see egregious edits of the sort Chazz described above.) The issuing editor says his reason for the 4im was because the IP editor would not engage in “civil communication,” despite the complete absence of any evidence here on WP of any attempts to have instigated any civil communication. This is why I said to you that it is one thing to discuss the general application of Levels 1 through 4im. But, it is an entirely different thing to defend this particular instance wherein the issuing editor claims to have attempted civil communication when one can unearth no evidence to substantiate the claim. Perhaps he thought he was templating an IP he had dealt with earlier. And, as I said in a different thread on this page, like me perhaps he is not good at remembering IP addresses and so mixed the two IPers up. I don’t know. But, what I do know is that if you escalate too quickly, you will find some of your reports to AIV — depending on which Admin is manning the AIV desk at that time — may be rejected. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I don't disagree with you on the broader issue. But I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with me on the narrower issues that: (1) uw-delete is incorrect in this circumstance, (2) uw-vandalism1 is contraindicated in this circumstance, and (3) there is no policy or guideline that explicitly supports your opinion that the use of uw-v4im was wrong here, and that one should use caution if corecting another user when that correction is not supported by guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that we come at this differently. All I know is that I follow up on every report I file — filed either manually or automatically — with AIV and have never had one rejected. All have resulted in blocks. So I must be doing something right. (There are two exceptions: on two occasions Huggle erroneously filed reports on two editors who had not had sufficient warnings; these I immediately flagged for the AIV Admins as erroneous.) However, I’ve seen a lot of others’ filed reports rejected by the AIV Admins for insufficient warnings; translation: escalated too quickly. Can we wrap this debate up now? I’d like to archive this string. — SpikeToronto 04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage patrolThanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated Jebus989^✰ 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]You’re welcome! — SpikeToronto 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hugo Chavez ancestryHello, SpikeToronto. I removed the section of Chavez's ancestry because he is widely believed to claim tri-racial heritage in order to appeal to all sectors of Venezuelan society. In reality, his ancestry, like that of most Latin Americans, is not clear, though he is most likely of at least predominantly American Indian ancestry. How can I go ahead with this edit? Sorry for the questions, I'm new to Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caloox (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Hugo Chavez message was from me, Caloox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caloox (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi Caloox! With this edit, you removed text that was anchored by a verifiable reference/citation, and you did so without an explanation. Removing content without saying why in the edit summary means that other editors have no idea why you’ve done so. When the text removed is also accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, it has the look of vandalism. The better approach, since the statement was accompanied by a reference, is go to it and see if it supports the statement that it is anchoring.In this case, that citation would take you here. The article discusses at length Chavez’ racial heritage and seems to suggest that he is indeed mestiso. Do you know of other verifiable, reliable sources that say otherwise? If so, the thing to do is not to remove the statement that is there. Rather you add the alternative position provided by other reliable sources. This is how wikiarticles develop balance and a neutral point of view. I do note, however, that you say “predominantly …” also suggesting that Chavez is mixed race, meaning that you would agree with the referenced statement. Finally, and generally, when you want to remove text from an article that is referenced and fits with the article, it is best to open up a conversation with the other editors of the article on that article’s talk page. As for being new and asking questions, that’s great! We were all new once. So you can ask me questions anytime you want. The only two things I would suggest to you now is to read the Welcome message that I put at the top of your talk page. It provides invaluable information for how to be a good wikieditor. Secondly, whenever you leave a message on an article talk page or on a user’s talk page, be sure to sign it by typing four tildes at the end of your message like this: ~~~~ Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Greeks in Argentina: nnnn = non notable, those removed names do not conform to Wikipedia definition of notable. lists of non notable people are not encouraged. 147.200.199.37 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I didn’t realize that nn=non notable! Sorry about that. However, “Non notable” would have prevented the revert. Putting that in your edit summary clearly makes the matter a content issue and not a vandalism issue.Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 07:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Lady Gaga AlejandroDon't you think it was a little harsh to issue a Level 4 warning for a first offense? --Confession0791 ^talk 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]WP:BITE does not apply to vandals. Also, it was not the first offence. S/he had been templated earlier and had removed it from her page. Also, s/he created account at 2:42EST. Began vandalizing at 2:46EST. By 2:59EST, s/he had made six (6) edits, each and every one a vandalizing edit including blanking the pages of another user. Account has all the hallmarks of a vandalism-only account.It might have been wise to have reviewed the editor in question’s contribs before commenting. Thanks for the feedback, though! — SpikeToronto 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]My bad, I should have checked. Sorry. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Don’t worry about it, Confession0791. Having to explain myself now and then helps keep me on my toes. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I found out what happened. The user removed the Level 1 warning from their talk page, so it looked like they weren't issued previous warnings. I'll be more careful in the future. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what was particularly odd was that Huggle (HG), the automated vandalism tool that I use, did not catch it either. I recalled vividly all of his/her edits and new that s/he had been previously warned, despite HG stating otherwise. Usually, when an editor blanks their page of warnings, the blanking does not affect HG: it knows where to pick up from. Hmmm … — SpikeToronto 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a good reason why users shouldn't be allowed to remove warning templates from their talk pages, what say you? --Confession0791 ^talk 07:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think that registered users should be allowed to. Doing so is considered to be an acknowledgement that they have read and understood the warnings. However, archiving is preferred. This rule also applies to the pages of IP editors. (See WP:OWNTALK). While I can accept it for registered users, I think that it should not apply to IP-only editors. Alas, this change will never occur. In some ways, IP editors get better treatment that registered users. — SpikeToronto 07:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks For reverting the vandalism to my page. By the way, your "jump to the bottom" link doesn't work for me (Windows Vista, Firefox 3.6.10.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]You’re welcome. The vandalizing editor will probably not get blocked, though, as s/he has not edited since final warning. But, it depends on who is doing the blocking. Since all his/her edits are vandalizing, s/he might still get blocked as a VOA.Aside: S/he got blocked as a VOA. — SpikeToronto 07:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]As for the skip to the bottom not working … grrr. Tell me: Does the skip to the bottom over at User talk:Diannaa work for you? (Btw, MS Internet Explorer here. Think that makes a difference?) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nope Neither works. Firefox and Internet Explorer have different JavaScript engines; that might have something to do with it. If you want, I might could jury-rig a solution... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Have at it! The worst that can happen is that you would have to revert your changes. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]User:Jejemon?Hey spike Toronto im a jejemon so please leave me alone!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.251.121 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Things that make you go hmm … let me see … when I go to your IP contribs, I find that your edit here on my talk page is the only edit you’ve made, so I didn’t revert an edit made by that IP … hmm … then, when I look up a jejemon in the dictionary, I find nothing … hmm … then I think about it a bit more and think that perhaps it’s a username … lo’ and behold I find User:Jejemon, a sockpuppet of User:Mikebarias. Naughty boy! Trying to avoid a block! — SpikeToronto 22:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Federal Reserve Systemis it not true that the Fed is privately owned and has higher authority than the President himself?and who the fuck are you to change my post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W3stside42 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yeah busy in real life but not to busy to go and edit peoples shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W3stside42 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]You are undoubtedly 100% correct. However, Wikipedia policies prevent either you or I from adding content without citing a verifiable reference/citation. To do so constitutes original research violating WP:NOR and also makes the edit appear biased violating WP:NPOV. The thing to do is to find a source that supports your two statements about private ownership of the Federal Reserve System and the other about being a higher authority than the President, and then anchor these statemens with those verifiable reference(s)/citation(s).It does not matter that we may know these things to be true, other readers may not. And, such other readers need to be able to verify the information you insert by checking out the verifiable references/citations you provide. Thanks for the feedback! — SpikeToronto 06:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]P.S. Be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. — SpikeToronto 06:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation

I have no idea what is going on. The normal talk page that was there the other day has gone away. The article I spent my valuable time creating which I would have preferred someone else to write from the beginning, is stating vandalism or vandalization. The only reason I came to wikipedia in the first place is to archive this subject matter as history. Not to read pages of items, I have no long term interest in. My first impressions was that you would be the one writing the article, not myself. I struggled through the first few days of writing it and finally got it to a point you thought it was suitable to be published. But, I didn't. After looking at it a day later it was a poorly written article at best. The first two sentences started with "the". I corrected that and the poor flow of content. Now, all that work has been wasted. I have no idea what any of these error messages mean or the items you are outlining is needing correction mean. Then there are all these pages and pages of instruction of what looks like greek to me. Where can I find direct access to someone to speak to about the days I spent on the internet researching the content for this article to have it destroyed with big box warning of what I have no idea? After you approved it, I was sent a message to continue to work on it which I did following your instructions and found more source links to add and then today I have gotten eight or nine error messages of different types that I have no idea what they mean or how to fix them? Is there a main administration person to whom I can speak to?

I have been leaving responses to the error messages, to the various people or place from which they come from, to attempt to resolve whatever the issue is, to no avail. Cwestllc (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hi Cwestllc. I am very sorry that you are having problems creating your new article. I’ve reviewed your talk page, and I believe that the person with whom you have been having this discussion is Chzz (talk). The only edits I have made to your talk page were to leave a welcome message; a note about edit summaries; a note about removing content from pages without an explanation; and a related note about WP:REDACT. Since I am unfamiliar with the article you are working on and to which you are referring, you should refer back to Chzz (talk) with whom you have been working on this article. Thanks and good luck! — SpikeToronto 05:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello,And thank you for responding. Whoever this is writing this has no talk back, capability when I follow this link. You shouldn't be writing about a topic with which you such an obvious personal association. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC) First of all I never wanted to write this article just to introduce the event to be archived in history. As a newcomer to this site I am very disappointed in the direction this has taken. Please remove my article 140TH Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation from your site. When I first came to wiki I thought you would be writing it. So when I was told to author it I attempted to include all facts. This was not a self promotional for me this event is over 6 years old and this time in history is gone. There is no money to be made from it or off it.Whoever this suspicious person is they have been downright rude and accusatory, unnecessarily. I do not want a positive event to end up on your sight with such a negative box and connotation added to it after the events success. Please remove the article immediately. I find it slanderous. I have barely been on wikipedia for three days and I know no one personally. Thank you, for your civility. Cwestllc (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi Cwestllc. Again, I am sorry that you are having such a hard time of it. The editor who has suggested that there may be a conflict of interest can be reached at his/her talk page, User talk:69.181.249.92.As regards not having wanted to write the article yourself, no one writes articles for you here at Wikipedia. If you have an article idea, which you did, you are expected to write it yourself. This you have done, and quite well, I might add. That having been said, the conflict of interest policy does not say that you cannot write an article about a subject to which you are connected. All it says is that such persons must be extra diligent in maintaining neutrality and following Wikipedia’s various guidelines (e.g., WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS), and not promote their own interests or the interests of a particular organization. But, you are still allowed to edit and create. The conflict of interest notice at the top of the article will only remain there until someone reviews it and feels that the article is free of bias, that it satisfies WP:NPOV. Then it will be removed. I will read the article myself and see if the tag can be removed. Finally, if you want to have an article you have created deleted, just blank the entire page and place {{db-g7}} at the top. However, I think that that is too rash. You have put in a lot of effort and the article reads well. One experienced editor has already copy edited it and wikified it. The conflict of interest tag at the top will not stay there much longer and then the article will be unsullied by its presence. Don’t act in haste. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]UPDATE: Have a look at the article now. At this point, by the way, it cannot be deleted by either blanking or using a {{db-g7}} template. Too many other editors have worked on it since you originated it. Let me know what you think. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank, you...It is better written and addresses some of the issues I had when first reading the approved poorly written version. I did not respond last night because I signed off after posting to your talk page. Thank you, for your time and effort in helping to produce a good finished article. The hardest thing to do is to come into this process with no experience and be expected to already know everything. Haven't quite got the premise of the talk page. Are the items posted to the discussion tab on the article visible on the internet? The talk page does that work like a behind the scenes communication vehicle? Again, thank you. Your approach has helped to make this a more pleasant experience.