User talk:SpikeToronto

My local time is: 12:32am (update)

@This user can be reached by email.

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 October 31, 2010.

Thanks

- for your exceptionally good work on vandalism and sockpuppeting.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It’s nice to be appreciated. — SpikeToronto 03:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs

See also: Talk:Little Green Footballs § "Alteration and Deletion of Posts" section; Talk:Little Green Footballs § Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing; Talk:Little Green Footballs § WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:V issues; Talk:Little Green Footballs § What you guys need to do; and User talk:SpikeToronto § Thanks for your help on my article

I want to discus the section-blanking of the Little Green Footballs article in talk, if you'd be so kind to join me. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

i really would like to work with you and the other editors on this in a good faith manner, but you make it difficult for me when you portray the issue in the terms you did at the request for protection board:

There is an edit war between IPs that cannot be dealt with through blocking because the IP addresses keep changing. The material being added fails WP:RS and introduces WP:BLP issues. Thanks! [[1]]

there are a number of errors in this statement of events. for one, whether the material in fact fails WP:RS or consequently introduces WP:BLP issues is highly disputable, and is in fact probably incorrect if what is currently the word at WP:RS is any guide. second, this material is not the material which is being added in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism. rather it is content which has stood for more than a month after having been tested by two other users at the time of its inclusion and is now being blanked from the article in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism.

with that in mind, i would prefer not to have the page semi-protected, as the effect of this action would be to freeze the article as it is, in turn rewarding the behavior of the two users who opened their accounts this evening with the apparent sole purpose of section-blanking items they didn't like, almost to the point of 3RRing themselves. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

1. The material clearly violates WP:RS as you can see from the response to the enquiry at WP:RSN.
2. There are clear WP:BLP issues as User:GB fan explained so perfectly both here and here.
3. I understand your concern regarding IPs converting themselves to newly registered accounts. However, the semi-protect only permits autoconfirmed editors to edit it. So newly registered accounts will not be able to edit it either, at least for a few days. Perhaps I should have asked for full protection so that no one could edit until the WP:RS and WP:BLP issues are fully resolved?

I have commented on the article’s talk page with this edit. Let’s keep the discussion there and not spread out over so many places. In the meantime, you might want to take some time and familiarize yourself with the various policies, guidelines, etc., at Wikipedia. A good place to start would be the welcome message I put on the talk page of your new account. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As for my comment at WP:RFPP that the IPs were changing, you have proven the point on your new account’s user page where you list not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six different IPs from which you had been editing! — SpikeToronto 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

William Garrison

Thanks for fixing that issue, don't know what happened. Well I do, but yeah, thanks for fixing the issue. --Jab843 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your help on William Lloyd Garrison Jab843 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jab! Thanks for the barnstar! You might want to give popups a try. It lets you choose the version you want to revert to and then it does it. Sometimes it is too tedious with Twinkle or Huggle to find the right one. And sometimes Undo simply cannot do the job. But, Popups can every time. Also, with add-ons, Popups can also be used to disambiguate wikilinks in articles. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my Wiggins, MS edit?

You told me to cite sources that Dizzy Dean did not live in Wiggins, MS. So I did (wikipedia itself agreed with me on the matter in the Dizzy Dean article) and then you reverted again. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it once, here, when there was no verifiable reference/citation provided. Another recent changes patroller reverted you the second time, here, using an edit summary telling you why. You used as your reference another wikiarticle. Articles on Wikipedia cannot use other articles on Wikipedia as citations. What you should do is:

1. Go to that other article
2. Click on the reference link for where it says Dizzy Lived in Bond
3. Read the external source and confirm that indeed it does say that
4. Then use that source as your citation.

But, it would be better to just remove Dizzy’s name from Wiggins — if you are sure he never lived there. You could then add it to the article on Bond, Mississippi, but it’s already there, with the reference you found in the other wikiarticle on Dizzy Dean. Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto 05:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would never remove it, because some idiot from Wiggins would put it right back. They must see that he never lived there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you’ve erred: When I do a Google search, there seems to be a lot of Dizzy Dean in Wiggins: his museum, Dizzy Dean Welcome Center, etc. But, I notice that he is buried in Bond, which may be significant. Or, perhaps he only lived in Bond after his retirement, having lived in Wiggins earlier in his life. The Congressional Record — the official record of debates in the U.S. Congress — seems to suggest that he lived in Wiggins at some point since the entire Mississippi delegation supported renaming its post office after him in 1999. Good luck with all this! — SpikeToronto 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. When you leave comments on talk pages, be sure to sign them by typing four (4) tildes at end of your comments like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 05:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND! I HAVE DRIVEN BY HIS ACTUAL HOUSE! IT IS A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM WIGGINS. I AM NOT CRAZY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.68.154 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

Bond is less than a half hour’s drive from Wiggins, about 26 miles. Perhaps, quite simply, Bond was/is too small to support a museum, welcome center, etc., whereas Wiggins is so much larger. After all, Wiggins is the county seat. Perhaps it’s a matter of economic convenience. Every reference I’ve seen since we began this discussion, says he lived in Bond after his retirement. So, it’s not like anyone is trying to whitewash his history and deny that he lived in Bond. It’s written everywhere! However, the entire county has less than 17,000 people. So, it certainly makes sense to me that they would have located everything in the county seat to make things easier for tourists. Similarly, the paternal half of my family comes from Jackson County, Kentucky, with a similar population to Stone County, Mississippi, and locates eveything in its county seat too.

Why not do a footnote in the Wiggins wikiarticle wherein you say that he actually lived in Bond and provide a reference? That way you are not removing it from the Wiggins wikiarticle; you are only clarifying the issue. The footnote would be entered something like this:

<ref>In actual fact, Dean spent his retirement at his home, ''Deanash'', in nearby [[Bond, Mississippi]]. See: Frick, Lisa. “[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407900133.html Dean, Dizzy]” ''[[Encyclopedia.com]]'' January 2004. ''(Retrieved 2010-11-02.)''</ref>

This would produce a footnote that would look like this at the bottom of the Wiggins wikiarticle:

In actual fact, Dean spent his retirement at his home, Deanash, in nearby Bond, Mississippi. See: Frick, Lisa. “Dean, Dizzy” Encyclopedia.com January 2004. (Retrieved 2010-11-02.)

You can copy and paste that into the Wiggins article if you want. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are still not signing your talkpage comments. When you leave comments on talk pages, be sure to sign them by typing four (4) tildes at end of your comments like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 16:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC Questions

See also: User talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive 9 § IRC Questions

{{tb|Fridae'sDoom#IRC Questions}}

In case you didn't see this on your watchlist, I hope this answers your questions, if not I'll be happy to further assist you. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:48pm • 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi FD! I have responded there with this edit Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc

• Thanx for the vandal revert :) Mlpearc powwow 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• You’re welcome! — SpikeToronto 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.248.103 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? — SpikeToronto 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article (publishing)

I'm afraid that when you reverted 59.95.22.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s blanking of the article, you failed to note that it had previously been vandalized by Captain Xman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I fixed the article, and warned the latter vandal, and commented on the IP editor's edits. Perhaps you might comment there, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Normally, when I unblank a page, I look very carefully at what appears after the transaction. This, apparently, I failed to do. Otherwise, I would have noticed that this text had nothing to do with the subject, Article (publishing). Usually in such instances, I then find the last clean version, even if it is several edits past, and revert to that version using Popups or Huggle. If, in doing so, this removes some edits that were added to later “unclean” versions that are themselves bona fide edits to the article, I will manually re-add them to create one good, clean version. Moreover, when I see someone legitimately trying, yet not quite succeeding, to revert vandalism, I usually leave them a Welcome message and an explanation about reverting, something akin to {{Uw-revertvandalism}}. Thus, you can imagine how embarrassed I am that I missed this one so badly. It is not uncommon for me to leave a message such as yours on another recent changes patroller’s talk page. This is the first time I ever remember getting one myself!

WP:AGF notwithstanding, I am curious, though, if a CheckUser would indicate any connection between the registered account and the IP reverting. It is not unusual to come across vandalism subsequently reverted by the editor who inserted it in the first place. However, they usually put the article back to its pre-vandalized state. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mitigate my error in any way. I should have looked more carefully at the result of the transaction and reverted all the way back to this version. I cannot believe I missed text so glaringly at odds with its subject heading!

Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. I feel utterly chastened. I have all these detailed procedures I follow when fighting vandalism to ensure that I don’t incorrectly, unwarrantedly warn bona fide editors. Yet I failed in this instance. Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, when I come across a blanked wikiarticle, before I take any action, I always open the history to make sure that the blanking editor is not the creator and only provider of substantial content to the page. In such an instance, of course, I flag the article for speedy deletion per CSD#G7. — SpikeToronto 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page with your alternate account! You deserve a cookie!

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect timing! We’re just about to have a pot of tea. You’re welcome, by the way. — SpikeToronto 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ripplebrook, Victoria

See also: User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 21 § Ripplebrook, Victoria

{{Talkback|JamesBWatson|Ripplebrook, Victoria}} JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This discussion can now be found here. — SpikeToronto 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thor Equities

Original Query:

Hi Drmies. There is an IP-only editor who is removing material from the above-captioned article with edit summaries such as “Unnecessary detail regarding unremarkable innovations in retail.” However, I think that these edit summaries are less than accurate as what is really being removed is material relevant to the history of the organization. Perhaps the anonymous editor has an axe to grind, an agenda, is a competitor, etc. Therefore, with this edit,^† I reverted a particular edit of his/hers. Then, with this edit,^‡ I reverted to the last truly clean version since, again, s/he seems to be removing valid material. However, with this edit,^¶ I restored your deletion of some material. Would you please review my actions and give me a second opinion? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

— from Thor Equities at User talk:Drmies

^†http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395889955

^‡http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395890292

^¶http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Equities&diff=prev&oldid=395890406

Response:

Thanks for cleaning up. It's really a shame--this topic looks quite interesting, but it's a poor and unexciting article. I removed some more puffery from it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the material you removed is two-fold: (1) it is not from an independent, third-party reliable source; and (2) it would be more appropriately placed in a separate wikiarticle about the man himself, unless of course he is not sufficiently notable to have his bio hived off from the article about his company.

Since I only came upon this article while on recent changes patrol, I doubt I’ll be involved in its future in any way. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blind man's buff & Blind man's bluff

See also: Talk:Blind man's bluff (game) § Bluff or buff?, and User talk:Materialscientist § Blind man's buff & Blind man's bluff (game)

I gave this user this warning because he redirected an article to the same article he's redirecting it to, and that why I gave him an error warning on Huggle. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wayne! I’m not really sure why you are telling me this. But, anyway, sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. Once I realized what had happened, I knew that further action was required. I wanted it to all be complete before responding.

It turns out that the editor you templated was attempting a good faith edit. But, since he did not use any edit summaries, no recent changes patroller could have surmised that. If you read this, you can get a full understanding of what happened. After that, look here, here, and here.

As regards your Huggle action, I would have handled it differently. If it was not a good faith edit, I would have reverted and warned him/her using one of {{Uw-redirect1}} or {{Uw-delete1}}. The template, {{Uw-error1}}, that you used, is more appropriate when an editor adds (or changes) information to an article that is a factual error. For example, suppose an editor changed the wikiarticle on Elizabeth Taylor to read, “Never married, Taylor lived her whole life as a bachelorette.” That is a factual error. One reverts it, and templates the editor using the appropriate Level of the template series that begins with {{Uw-error1}}. That was not what User:Grapegrape did in this instance. He wiped out the entire article replacing it with a redirect. So, {{Uw-redirect1}} or {{Uw-delete1}} would have been better.

Cheers! — SpikeToronto 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Spike because I thought he redirected to the same article he was redirecting it too. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For a moment, he did redirect the two things to each other, because he hadn’t finished the other step in his two-step process. But, that is not a factual error, which is what the {{Uw-error1}} series is for. You were correct to revert, given the information he had not provided in his edit summary. But, you gave the wrong warning. When we revert, we most often template the editor whose edit we are reverting as a way to provide him/her our rationale for the revert. Thus, the template has to truly explain to him/her where s/he went wrong so that s/he can learn from the experience and apply that to future edits.

You might be wise to spend some time reading the actual warning templates that are generated by Huggle when you template an editor. In this case, you would notice that when you use the Level 1 Huggle template for introducing factual errors, it tells the editor that her/his edit

“appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles.”

You will notice that when you use the Level 1 Huggle template for blanking pages, it says

“Please do not replace pages with blank content … as this is confusing to readers.”

Finally, you would also notice that the Level 1 template for malicious redirects ({{Uw-redirect1}} → you have to do this one manually; HG does not handle it) says

“one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted.”

You can see that the edit made by the editor we are discussing does not fit the text, appears to introduce incorrect information. (See Liz Taylor example above for the sort of edit that constitutes this.)

The more familiar you become with the actual templates you apply to editors’ talk pages, the more accurate you will be in informing them of the rationale for reverting their edits. — SpikeToronto 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agatha, once again

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)

Sorry River that it has taken me so long to get back to you. We have been living under almost constant renovations since early last June and the activity ebbs and flows. Last week was a flow! I’ll take a look over the next few days. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

At your leisure. Don't let the renovators get you down! Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, we’ve been working with these people on various projects for almost two decades. So, I actually enjoy seeing them, even if I do not enjoy the turmoil that the work creates. It makes it bearable when the people doing the work are your friends. Thanks for the sentiments! — SpikeToronto 06:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, River, I forgot about this. I could not find anything on the web. I could look in the various Christie biogs that we have. Alas, they’re still all boxed up awaiting reshelving from our recent renovations. It may be a while before they’re once again nicely ensconced on their own little shelves. I’ll take a look through their indices at that time. But, I am the prototypical, absentminded professor type, so a little reminder nudge would not go unappreciated. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no hurry. I'm barely here myself these days, but I'll try to remember to nudge you in a little while. Rivertorch (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg Kurstin

Just a heads-up, the user Windowhaircut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you reverted at Talk:Greg Kurstin is almost certainly the subject trying to remove inaccurate and unsourced speculation. This is legitimate even on talk pages. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I may, I would like to discuss a few points in regard to which my understanding may be incorrect.

You say that the single-purpose account, User:Windowhaircut, “is almost certainly the subject trying to remove inaccurate and unsourced speculation.” My understanding is that we cannot accept at face value that a given editor is the subject of a wikiarticle. We have no way of knowing this. User:Windowhaircut may be merely a committed fan who sees his/her role as protecting the sacred reputation of a much beloved individual.

My further understanding is that there is a process that one should follow in this regard. This is outlined at WP:BLPWMF, WP:BLPSELF, and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). I understand that verification of the user’s identity further requires the opening of an OTRS ticket by emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org.

I do understand that, per WP:BLPEDIT, such edits purportedly made by the subject of the article, are not to be treated as vandalism. This is why, although I reverted the deletions, I did not template User:Windowhaircut. However, User:Windowhaircut never made any assertions that s/he was the subject of the article. Morever, if one is Greg Kurstin, then would not one correct one’s own birthdate rather than simply remove it?

Regarding the talk page, the only comment that was finally redacted from the talk page seemed to me less speculative than it was forum-y. I would have thought it more appropriate to have removed that comment per WP:NOTFORUM than because it ran afoul of WP:BLP.

Thanks for the feedback and discussion! Always appreciated. — SpikeToronto 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You might find it interesting to note that another sysop elected to indefinitely block User:Windowhaircut. (See also here.) I’m not entirely certain that I would’ve done that. On the one hand, I’m not sure that there was enough dialogue with him/her. On the other hand, one might conclude that his/her lack of response on his/her talk page every time this manner of editing arose since January 2009, when his/her single-purpose account was created, suggests a lack of desire for dialogue on the matter. — SpikeToronto 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a WP:OTRS volunteer, I have seen email which I believe was from the subject and whihc makes it clear that this was him. In any case, SPAs removing material from biographies should be taken seriously, at least until it's shown that they are doing something bad. You know the issues with WP:BLP articles in the past, just tread carefully and AGF and you'll be fine. This was just a heads-up in case you see a similar case again in future, no biggie. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you might tell me if I had any of it wrong in my (longwinded) posting above. The reason I ask is that we (i.e., myself and other wikieditors) have experienced this recently on another wikiarticle and this was the route we suggested to the editor who was claiming to be the subject of the article. In doing so, we were able to obtain confirmation and work with her in correcting errors in the article. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, as far as I know the approved method for validating identity is email to OTRS, which is what happened here. But this is Wikipedia, stuff changes daily! Guy (Help!) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the common law! — SpikeToronto 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some IP

Thanks for the welcome! --91.55.24.91 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You’re welcome! You should consider registering. It protects your identity more than editing directly from your IP address and provides you more functionality such as the ability to watchlist wikiarticles you frequently work on. Have fun and, again, welcome to Wikipedia! — SpikeToronto 06:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganges vs Ganga

Hi Spike, could you please have another look at the issue; I've posted some data re WP:COMMONNAME at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. Cheers, --JN466 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure! No problem. Thanks for the update. — SpikeToronto 18:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up. With this edit, I posted the following comment

Comment. The problem with a Google search that uses Ganga, is that the results include the ubiquitous slang word for marijuana, ganga. Google.com is the international search engine for Google, not Google.co.uk or Google.pt. When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganges + river, one gets 811,000 results. (See here.) When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganga + river, one gets 448,000 results. (See here.) Jayen, one cannot initiate an argument based on Google counts, and then, when it is shown that the results are diametrically oppopsite to what one had interpreted, dismiss that methodology. One cannot have it both ways.

I’m sorry that I wasn’t persuaded to change my !vote. I do think that, one day, all of us around the world will be referring to the Ganges as the Ganga, much the way we now refer to Bombay as Mumbai.

— SpikeToronto 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Google web counts are very unreliable, and we shouldn't really use them as an argument (I think various guidelines make that point). For example, I get completely different figures when I click on your links (3,400,000 for ganges + river, 967,000 for ganga + river). The "About x results" statement you get on your first results page can generally be out by several orders of magnitude. Sometimes they will say "around 21,000 hits" on the first page, and then when you click through them, you realise they stop at no. 31. Here is an example (that works for me at least): [2] This says "About 673,000 results", but the list actually stops at 36, or 47 when repeated with omitted results included. Now I've just clicked Search again, and the first page says "About 1,600,000 results". Etc. It's different if you search google news because you can narrow search hits down to a week or month or year, and if you get something like 120 vs 60 hits, that is a manageable number -- you can examine them individually to verify that they are not phantom hits, but actually exist, and you can weed out false positives. [3][4] You are right that the change will come sooner or later, but perhaps not just yet. Cheers, --JN466 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also [5], [6], used as references in WP:GOOGLE. Cheers, --JN466 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now when I click on the Ganges + river search, I get 3,380,000 results! And, 998,000 for Ganga + river. They’ve doubled! What gives?!

Nonetheless, one can’t help but notice that the there is still significantly more hits for Ganges + river than for Ganga + river. Plus, they are both searched in the same manner (i.e., without quotation marks) so that eliminates Liberman’s issue. So long as the comparison is rendered apples vs apples, by using quotes/noquotes equally, the issue he raises should not arise.

De Boyne Pollard’s article applies more when searches are made without quotation marks. So, let’s do our search with quotation marks. “Ganges river” yields 436,000 results, while “Ganga river” gives us 179,000 results.

So, in all these searches, Ganges occurs strikingly more than Ganga. Thanks again for the discussion. It’s quite fascinating. — SpikeToronto 04:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is. :) The intricacies of google. But remember, earlier on, when I clicked on Flamarande's links, I got 538,000 for Ganges river and 7,510,000 for Ganga river. These figures are so unreliable as to be meaningless. They really only ever work well as negative evidence: if there are just 5 hits for a topic on the entire web, it is probably not notable. Google books is a better method too, though there too I am not sure whether Google's coverage is even across the world, and you mustn't trust the number that comes up on the first page ("About 4720 results"), but have to click through to the end of the actual listing. So we have 82 books with Ganga in the title and river in the text, vs. 88 books with Ganges in the title and river in the text. (River in the text is just to exclude non-English books.) That's pretty even. What we'd have to do now is analyse the publication dates; older English publications are more likely to use Ganges. --JN466 05:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

11 of the books with Ganges in the title are from the 19th century (and there are a good few pre-1950s as well). All of those with Ganga in the title are from the second half of the 20th or the 21st century. --JN466 05:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a Google News search is that I would expect my null hypothesis ($H_{0}$) to be that, since more news articles are written in India about the river in question, then one would expect more occurences of Ganga. If in one’s Google News search, one were to eliminate any Indian sources (solely for math purposes, not meant in any way to discount Indian sources!), then one would expect the opposite: more occurences of Ganges. That is, if one were to do such a search — I haven’t attempted the Boolean parameters yet — I would hazard to guess (my $H_{0}$, as it were) that there would be more occurences of Ganges internationally than of Ganga.

Finally, if the wikiarticle gets re-titled, Ganga, there had better be some very good redirects, because few outside of India will be searching Wikipedia using that term. Thanks Jayen! — SpikeToronto 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the vast majority of Indian English news sources using or mentioning the name Ganga will be Indian sources, and that the rare mentions of the river in Western sources will in most cases use Ganges. On the other hand, the frequency with which the river is mentioned in Indian sources will also correlate with the location of readers who view the article. The river is simply of far more interest to Indians, for cultural, religious and current-affairs reasons, than it is to Westerners. Anyway, this has been a useful discussion, even if I haven't managed to change your mind. (If I have, please consider changing your vote to neutral!) Cheers, --JN466 04:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I am thinking about changing my !vote to neutral. I think I might have a word with a few of my non-Wikipedian South Asian friends and see what they have to say on the matter. Thanks Jayen. — SpikeToronto 05:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Google searches: Use precision

How do you do? (that was so typically British - which I'm not :)

Look I hereby asking you if you could explain me some details about Google if you have the time and patience. While I don't put much trust upon Google-results they are commonly used and I'm not that savy about their inner workings. I do know that the results largely depend upon the words one uses.

To my honest surprise as I made a regular Google-search (at www.google.com/webhp?hl=pt) with the words: "Ganga river" I received 7.880.000 results, way more than the results with the words: "Ganges river" which only received 534.000 results.

However being thorough (and quite stubborn when I honestly believe that I'm right) I took a look at the settings and found some flaws. First of all I went to www.google.com and changed the language from Portuguese towards English. Afterwards I made a new search with the words: "Ganges river" and now I received 812,000 results. Making the search with "Ganga river" I got 446,000 results.

Still not satisfied I went to "advanced search" and filled the "Find web pages that have... all these words:" with "Ganges river" and received 3,770,000 results. Making an advanced search with: "Ganga river" I received only 927,000 results.

I obviously believe that the last search is more trustworthy but I'm unable to understand the first results. Perhaps you could you shed some light upon these enormous discrepancies? Which results are in your honest opinion more reliable (and what are they truly worth)? Flamarande (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noting that I have presented what I believe to be a conclusive analysis over at the Ganges talk page. [7] Cheers, --JN466 10:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Flamarande. I wasn’t really able to access my computer yesterday.

Generally, I always use Google.com rather than any particular national site. However, if I want results limited to, for example, Canada, then I’ll use Google.ca; for the United Kingdom, Google.co.uk; for Australia, Google.com.au; for Portugal, Google.pt; for Spain, Google.es; for France, Google.fr; for Germany, Google.de; etc.

In order to ensure that your search results are in any way reliable, you need to use search strings that provide precision. Unfortunately, Google has made some changes to their search alogorithm over the last few years, so we sometimes get odd results. If you do not use double quotation marks ( " " ) around your search terms, Google often searches using an (unstated) wildcard operator. Thus, a search using the word bankrupt returns results containing both bankrupt and bankruptcy. I imagine that if one went deeply enough into the results, one would find that it also returns results such as bankrupts and bankruptcies. But, if all you want is for the results to contain bankrupt and no other variations, then you must enclose it in quotation marks like this: "bankrupt". This eliminates all the other variations.

We also have to apply logical, common sense and know when to apply further limitations to the search. Thus, one would never search ganga by itself because, not only would the results contain hits relating to the Ganga River, but one would also get an enormous number of hits related to marijuana, as ganga is a slang word for the mellow weed (see here). Because of the marijuana connection to the word, ganga, we must eliminate those hits from impacting our results.

In light of the above, our search terms must be enclosed in quotation marks. Thus, for the Ganges, enter your search thusly,

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"

For the Ganga, enter your search thusly,

"ganga river" OR "river ganga"

These are not exhaustive, of course. Often, one refers to the river as The Ganges or The Ganga, but we had to leave these out because The Ganga might also return marijuana hits.

Note that the search operator, OR, is in uppercase; were it in lowercase, the Google system would mistake it for the plain English word, or, instead of an instruction telling it how to deal with the search term(s) that follow. Conversely, the search terms themselves are in lowercase: only search operators (e.g, OR, AND, etc.) are in uppercase.

Ultimately, though, it will not be an analysis of search hits that decides the issue. It will be India and Indians that decide the issue. I am sure that when, for instance, Bombay was changed to Mumbai, it was irrelevant which was more common in English internationally. All that would have mattered was that India and Indians wanted it changed. Much the same will probably come to pass vis-á-vis Ganges versus Ganga. Therefore, when India officially changes the name from Ganges to Ganga, and the rest of the world’s governments, diplomats, international agencis, NGOs, media, etc., follow suit, so too should and would Wikipedia. Hope this long-winded posting helps you. — SpikeToronto 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an Indian government source stating that the Ganges is, in fact, officially known as the Ganga: [8]. The Ganga Action Plan is known as such on the appropriate Indian government website: [9]. Likewise the National Ganga River Basin Authority: [10]. A joint statement by the World Bank and the Indian government reported in the UK Independent refers to the Ganga (Ganges): [11]. --JN466 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen for the update! Now, we just need the rest — other governements, diplomats, wide-spread media, etc. — to also make the change. However, any attempt by a country to throw off the historical shackles of colonialism is one that should be welcomed and supported by the rest of the global community. Perhaps my !vote should reflect that sentiment. — SpikeToronto 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That change in !vote reflecting my long-held anti-colonialism sentiment was given effect with this edit. — SpikeToronto 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it, Spike. --JN466 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note [12]; what you wrote above about placing quotation marks around "Ganges" and "Ganga" does make a difference to some of the results. My search hits for "Ganga" seem to have included at least some occurrences of "Ganges", so placing quotation marks has reversed the preponderance for in-text mentions, putting Ganges back in the lead; in article titles, Ganga remains more common. Whatever the outcome of the move request, this examination of Google has been most useful. Perhaps we should write an essay.  ;) --JN466 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One cannot just put quotation marks around ganga and then run one’s search because that will still yield hits that have nothing to do with the river and everything to do with marijuana. That is why one has to further qualify the search by preceding and succeeding — within the quotation marks — the word ganga with the word river. Then, to make sure that one is comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges, one needs to do the same with the word ganges. This is why the search comparison has to be between

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"   versus   "ganga river" OR "river ganga"

I hope I am explaining this clearly. If not, please let me know. Thanks!

— SpikeToronto 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That part of it I was familiar with. I actually ran google scholar searches like intitle:ganga river, or ganga river without quotation marks, but the presence of river (as well as the fact that it was a google scholar search) pretty much eliminated the likelihood of matches relating to ganja (I looked through the listings and couldn't see any; what came up was very definitely about the river; e.g. see [13]).

What I hadn't realised was that a search like ganga river would also bring up matches for Ganges, because Google treats Ganges as some kind of inflectional form of Ganga unless you place quotation marks around Ganga (as per your "bankrupt" example above). So searching for "ganga" river, with quotation marks added around the single word ganga, eliminated those. The reason that I didn't run "ganga river" OR "river ganga" was that the name Ganga is frequently used by itself, or used in other compounds like Ganga plain, or Ganga basin.

Interestingly, the intitle parameter, e.g. as in intitle:Ganga, does not need quotation marks to prevent the search from straying into presumed inflectional forms. In other words, intitle:Ganga and intitle:"Ganga" yield exactly the same results, while Ganga Brahmaputra and "Ganga" Brahmaputra do not -- Ganga Brahmaputra also returns some of the same results as "Ganges" Brahmaputra, with "Ganges" actually highlighted in bold as a search hit even though you searched for "Ganga". That fairly surprised me. --JN466 22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing odd about Google suprises me anymore. I really wish that their system would permit those of use who are familiar with Boolean search operators to use them instead of just a few of them like AND and OR. I would rather it not return results like my bankrupt example above unless I ask for them using wildcard search operators like asterisk (*) or question mark (?).

As you know, my response to Flamarande was only with regard to Google web searches. Thus, if only ganga were in quotes with river not included within the quotation marks, one would still get marijuana results. This is because Google lacks a proximity search parameter. Thus, a search like "ganga" river is the same, in Boolean terms, as searching "ganga" AND river. Thus, it would include in one’s results a webpage about some adventurer’s rafting trip down the Mississippi River while smoking his ganga. It would also return digest pages wherein there are entires for articles on ganga (marijuana) as well as entries for some river other than the Ganges/Ganga.

I knew that when I suggested to Flamarande, and repeated to you, that the better Google web search was

"ganges river" OR "river ganges"   versus   "ganga river" OR "river ganga"

that such a search would not be exhaustive as it would leave out references to the river in the form of either The Ganges or The Ganga, in addition to any references that follow either of Ganges or Ganga with basin, plain, etc. But, here’s a fix for that:

"ganges river" OR "river ganges" OR "ganges basin" OR "ganges plain"     (About 4,010,000 results)

 versus

"ganga river" OR "river ganga" OR "ganga basin" OR "ganga plain"     (About 1,560,000 results)

Note that with these two new Google web searches, you will see that the Ganges search is about 2½:1 ahead of the Ganga search.

I have never done a search on Google Scholar, so I cannot speak to it. Nonetheless, I find your comments interesting. I do, from time to time, search Google Books, but my entry point tends to be as the result of a Google web search. I like Google web searches because they yield books, news articles, blogs, websites, government sites, etc. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although we have to bear in mind again that these estimated totals are the algorithm-generated ones. Sometimes, these collapse from "about 32,000" to "69", once you actually step through the search listings and find you suddenly hit the last page, where the matches run out. The other problem is that google searches are capped at 1,000 hits, making any total greater than 1,000 unverifiable (unless you do clever stuff like search splitting, first looking for X without Y and then looking for X with Y, hoping that each will come to less than 1,000, and then adding the totals).

Google Books has some useful parameters that are not widely known, such as inauthor:smith (to look for books whose authors include someone called Smith, or, with a minus, to exclude all such books from the search), or inpublisher:university (to look for books published by publishers with university in their name, i.e. university presses). Books that don't have previews in Google Books sometimes have previews in the linked amazon page. --JN466 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Operating system

Whilst I welcome your suggestions about NPOV, I would also question the quality of NPOV control in other parts of the article. A quick read through the Examples of operating systems section, and one notices a nice and friendly-looking screenshot of Windows 7. Then, when you go the Unix, instead, you see a complicated timeline graph that is nowhere near friendly-looking. Similarly, when one scrolls down to BSD, one can see an old and dusty PC. In contrast, go down a bit, and you'll see another beautiful screenshot of a Mac. How is that exactly NPOV, when wikipedia, through visual aids, seems to promote a different image of Windows and Mac OS, when compared to Unix and BSD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.58.6 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, you are already 5 minutes behind your claimed response time of 15 mins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.58.6 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit changed this:

Examples of popular modern operating systems for personal computers are Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and GNU/Linux.

to this:

Examples of popular modern operating systems for personal computers are Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. An example of unpopular, but frequently paraded operating system is the GNU/Linux. [Emphasis added.]

There was more than one reason for reverting that particular edit. Rather than editorialize with words like unpopular and paraded, you could have used the reference provided to note that Windows has 90.18% of the OS marketshare, MAC OS X has 4.41%, while Linux represents only 0.86% of the market. Just state the facts; don’t offer an opinion of them.

The issue with words like unpopular and paraded is that it interprets the statistics rather than presents them. Interpreting them amounts to original research — another reason to revert. Also, words like unpopular and paraded suggest a POV bias on the part of the editor adding them (more the paraded than the unpopular) — another reason to revert. For more on words that introduce bias, see the wikiguideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (shortcut → WP:WORDS). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, as regards the 15 minutes, I was actually no longer online. I had forgotten to change my status to reflect that, which is why you saw the green light rather than the red. In any event, even had I seen your query and started typing a reponse posthaste, I could never have got it finished in 15 minutes! I am just not that fast! :) — SpikeToronto 05:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Do not forget to sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes at the end of your posting like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society

Thank you for your help/suggestions/critique. Brand new user. Have no idea what I'm doing. Stumperc Stumperc (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Stumperc! To become better acquainted with everything that is Wikipedia, work your way through the information contained and linked in the welcome message that I put at the top of your talk page. Also, don’t forget to use edit summaries every time you edit: 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.

Finally, if you ever have any questions or want any help, please do not hesitate to ask. You can either leave me a message here on my talk page, or place the {{help me}} template on your own talk page with your question and someone will come along to help you.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia users

Some Wikipedia users don't like me. Could that happen? WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be referring to two groups: (1) Vandals who do not like having their handiwork reverted; and (2) Good faith editors who do not like being (mistakenly) treated as vandals.

I would not worry about the first group. But, I would be extra diligent in my vandal fighting to ensure that the second group cannot come back at me for my reverts. Remember: Recent changes patrol is not a race. It doesn’t matter who gets there first. Keep your chin up! — SpikeToronto 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus users who don't want to respond to my messages when I message them on their talk page. I know RCP is not a race but some users can't be beaten out there sometimes. ClueBot and the new ClueBot (ClueBot NG) and previous anti-vandalism reverting bots have to be fast. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

When I said that RCP is not a race, what I meant was, take your time over every diff that shows up in your HG screen and do not worry if once you make a decision, you discover that some person/bot has already done it. At least you will have made a decision that you can apply in a similar situation in the future. — SpikeToronto 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It may take me a few seconds to look at the edit to see if it's vandalism or not in order to revert. Sometimes I may need to scroll down because the vandalism may be at the bottom when I scroll down. Sometimes there may be more than 4 users on Huggle at once which could be hard to take your time to look at the diff carefully before reverting. But when you see the diff, it may take you longer to revert than other diffs depending on the edit that person made. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my article

See also: Talk:Little Green Footballs § "Alteration and Deletion of Posts" section; Talk:Little Green Footballs § Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing; Talk:Little Green Footballs § WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:V issues; Talk:Little Green Footballs § What you guys need to do; and User talk:SpikeToronto § Little Green Footballs

As I said, I'm new to Wiki so I don't know if leaving a message thanking you is appropriate. But thanks. I'm still reading through the 'how to' pages so hopefully I won't commit as many basic errors in the future. Obdicut (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m not done going through the article. But, I had to spend the day hooking up and programming a bunch of audio-video equipment, a router and some gateways, and an NAS. So, I’ll finish up with the article this weekend. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I just did a whole bunch more, but I’m still not finished. More tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. — SpikeToronto 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to thank you for my patience; thank you for taking the time to work this over with me. I can't understand how I messed up the formatting for the last section. Can you explain? P.s. I'm not sure I've got the hang of talkback yet. Obdicut (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} is meant to be used to keep the discussion in one place. So, when I place {{Talkback}} on your talkpage, it is meant to direct you to the string on my page where we can keep the whole discussion together. Similarly, if someone leaves a message here on your talkpage, and you respond here (as you should), you would then put a {{Talkback}} on their talkpage to let them know that a response awaits them here. Hence why I left you a {{Talkback}} here on your talkpage, to let you know that there was a new addition to our discussion on my talkpage and for you to respond there if you had anything further to add. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’ll take a look at the formatting issue and get back to you. — SpikeToronto 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Fixed with this edit. You had forgotten to use <ref></ref> at the beginning and end of the citation. You had also forgotten to use {{Cite news … }} at the beginning and end of the citation. Since you had not had that problem earlier, I think you just might have been tired. Sometimes, I cannot make head nor tails out of the coding when I am bleary eyed! — SpikeToronto 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done  I’ve finished with your draft of the article.

Using the {{Cite quote}} template, I noted a few quotations you give that are lacking citations. You should fill those in.

Also, you mention some claims made by the neo-Nazi, Bill White, that were reviewed by the website, and The New York Times Magazine’s Heffernan’s referring to this review. But, you do not state what White’s claims were and what the blog ended up saying about them. That needs to be fleshed out a bit.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragon tales: Mighty thanks!

The most recent edit to Dragon Tales involved removing three verified sources. This has occurred many times from time to time, but you helped make sure it doesn't happen. I support your help on keeping this piece of information. Jonghyunchung (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You’re welcome! I was doing recent changes patrol using a browser-like program called Huggle (HG). That particular IP-only editor was making those sorts of edits on several articles. So, when one of his such edits appeared on my HG screen, and I reverted it, I then opened his contribs to see what other of his edits might also require review. That was when I came upon his unreverted deletion of material from the Dragon Tales wikiarticle. Glad I could help! — SpikeToronto 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

IP Warning & DHCP

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)

You are editing as a non-registered, IP-only account. Your service provider, Bard College, apparently uses Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). DHCP means that the IP address you are using today — 72.22.180.144 — was being used by someone else two months ago on September 29 when that warning was issued. (That edit, by the way, removed material from a wikiarticle without explanation).

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. — SpikeToronto 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor review: CharlieEchoTango

See also: Wikipedia:Editor review/CharlieEchoTango

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)

Hi CharlieEchoTango! I appreciate that you asked and would definitely have participated. But, for some reason you removed the request seven hours later. If the editor review is still active, and you are still looking for reviewers, let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

After second thoughts, I judged it was a bit too bold asking specific editors for review, especially considering I probably came out of the blue for most of those I posted to; but yes you are more than welcome to participate in the requested review and I definitely thank you for your interest. Cheers - «CharlieEchoTango» 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I also noticed the reversion on a several pages of sysops that I have watchlisted. In any event, it still got their attention. Perhaps an explanatory edit summary with the revert might’ve helped. In any event, I’ll participate sometime over the weekend. Never participated in an editor review before … — SpikeToronto 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I sent it to a few editors/admins which names were either on my watchlist or naturally came to me when thinking about wikipedia (because I encountered often through reverting vandalism and what not, example Courcelles). But then I decided it was too bold; your right about the edit summary though. Thanks again for your interest! Cheers - «CharlieEchoTango» 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I’ve begun a draft of my comments for your editor review. Please bear with me as I’ve never participated in one before. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem take all the time you need, I very much appreciate that your actually doing it :) ! I only imagine if I myself "had" to do one... I would be very much clueless. Can't thank you enough. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 08:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Huggle Whitelist

See also: User talk:Courcelles/Archive 37 § Huggle whitelist, and Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback § Whitelist question

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)

But, why does that happen? What’s the point of the whitelist if HG is only going to re-add someone who has been removed from it? On the other hand, I see your other point that by removing someone from the whitelist, even edits to their own talk page will show up on HG screens. Ultimately, the whitelist is meant to include individuals who are not likely to vandalize, which I believe the editor in question is not likely to do. However, WP:Huggle/Whitelist states:

This is a list of Huggle users whose contributions may be ignored while searching for vandalism.

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! — SpikeToronto 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist/Header just needed a copyedit. It is users ignored by Huggle, not users who use Huggle, which I've updated the header to make clear. Courcelles 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Courcelles! You seem to know much more about this than do I, so: How does HG decide whom to ignore? Is it based on some algorithm that uses edit counts or some such? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember the precise algorithm, but essentially all registered users with a certain combination of time served/edit count will be added. I don't know of any permanent method of removing users from it (not that there is any particularly compelling reason to do so in this case).--Dycedarg ж 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (as I had said above). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

INKAS Armored: deleted 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))

I also thought that the two articles should be merged into one. As you know, I moved the INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing article into your user namespace at User:Dillonraphael/INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing. As for the other INKAS article, I’m surprised that it was deleted without the requisite notification to your talk page, which I see was not given. Also, I’ve searched at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (shortcut → WP:AFD) and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (shortcut → WP:PROD) and cannot find it. What this means is that the article was not deleted according to either of those two processes. Instead, it was deleted via Wikipedia:Speedy deletion (shortcut → WP:CSD), which still requires notification to your talk page, unless you had blanked the article (see WP:CSD#G7).

Do you remember the exact name of the article? If you had it watchlisted, then it would still be in your watchlist (click here). You would just have to scroll down until you see it in red. Once you find the exact name, there are three ways you can get a copy, which are as follows:

1.  Contact the administrator who deleted it and politely ask him/her to userfy a copy of it into your user namespace. You may want to indicate that you never received notification of its being tagged for speedy deletion so that you could place a Hangon tag into it with an accompanying rationale on the talk page, or to at least have had the time to have userified it yourself.

2.  There are administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, who will userfy a copy of it into your user namespace. You could contact one of them and politely ask him/her to do this for you. You may want to indicate that you never received notification of its being tagged for speedy deletion so that you could place a Hangon tag into it with an accompanying rationale on the talk page, or to at least have had the time to have userified it yourself.

• You can find these administrators listed at Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

3.  You can file a request for userfication at Wikipedia:Deletion review (shortcut → WP:DELREV). Just follow the instructions given there. You may want to indicate that you never received notification of its being tagged for speedy deletion so that you could place a Hangon tag into it with an accompanying rationale on the talk page, or to at least have had the time to have userified it yourself.

Hope this helps. I’m sorry the answer is so long, but being new to all this, I thought the more detailed the guidance, the more it would help you. Good luck! If you have any more questions on this or anything else, please do not hesitate to ask. — SpikeToronto 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE:  I see from the deletion log, that the article was deleted by Administrator Bearcat. He did so under WP:CSD#G4, thinking that INKAS was the same as INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing whose deletion discussion ended in Delete. I would be very surprised if he would not be willing to restore a copy of INKAS to your user namespace where you used to have it at User:Dillonraphael/INKAS. So, just drop him a note on his talk page and ask him to userfy a copy of the article to your user namespace. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 06:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really do appreciate. I am trying to get an understanding of wikipedia, and did spend a lot of time on these articles, and then just get them deleted sucks. I send him a message. Thanks again. (Dillonraphael (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Please, let me know how you make out. Also, if you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. — SpikeToronto 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Still havn't gotten a reply.... (Dillonraphael (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I noticed that. I find it especially odd since he has been on and editing since you made your request on his talk page. Let me see if I can get a different admin to userfy a copy of it to your userspace. I’ll get back to you later; just give me some time. — SpikeToronto 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE:  With this edit, I made a userfication request here. Keep your fingers crossed! — SpikeToronto 21:44, 13 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! — SpikeToronto 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really appreciate it! So there are nice people on wikipedia! lol. Do you think everything would be fine if I moved the article into the "real world"? Or would I get into trouble? (Dillonraphael (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

I would not move that article into article namespace (i.e., the “real world”) until you have thoroughly polished it, and had your final draft reviewed and vetted. If you’d like, when you have completely (re)written it, let me know here on my talk page and I can review and copy edit it for you.

As a courtesy, you might want to (1) leave a note on Eagles247’s talk page thanking him for restoring the article for you, and (2) strikeout (like this using <s></s>) your request at Bearcat’s talkpage asking him to userfy the article, and add a new note letting him know that it has been done.

Finally, if you are connected to the company, Inkas, you should read the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (shortcut → WP:COI) before you start working again on the article. If you have any questions about WP:COI, or anything else, please do not hesitate to ask me. Or, you can place a {{help me}} template on your talk page with your question and someone will come along to help you. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 04:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, im not connected to the company at all. I wanted to do some research after watching the movie "The Town" and came across this company. Does it not look proper the article? To me it seems informative. I spent a lot of time on this article.(Dillonraphael (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

No, no. I just thought it odd that anyone would have heard of them. (I’ve seen their safe catalogues.) So, I figured nobody but an employee would want to write an article. It’s great that you’re not connected to them and were inspired to write it. As for the article itself, I have not read it. I’ll take a look at it when you tell me you’re through merging the two and want it proofread, etc. — SpikeToronto 04:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I merged it before it got deleted. I made sure to delete the other article before merging it. You can see the armoured vehicle section near the bottom of the article. Thanks again, I really do appreciate the time you have been giving me. (Dillonraphael (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Well, let me know when you’re ready to have the article gone over and I’ll take a look. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ready to be looked at? I spent a lot of time on it, as it is. Thanks again! (Dillonraphael (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

I’ll take a look at it then. — SpikeToronto 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

INKAS Article Review

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! — SpikeToronto 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I appreciate it! You think it's to soon to move the article? (Dillonraphael (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC))

You are more than welcome! But, all I’ve done so far is the lead section. I have not had time to get back to it and all given the busyness of this time of year.

And, yes, I do think it is too soon to move the article back into article space. Please, let me finish reviewing it for you first. I am afraid that if it goes back too soon, we run the risk of having overly agressive, overly deletionist new page patrollers flagging it for another speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, followed by an overly agressive, overly deletionist administrator speedy deleting it per WP:CSD#G4 and salting it for good. Once you and I have finished with it, I would like to have the administrator that userfied it for your “certify” that it is indeed different than what got deleted and was in fact not the article at AfD anyway.

Thanks and Merry Christmas! — SpikeToronto 00:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and happy new years. Dont mean to pressure (im just really excited), how long do you think it will take to review the article? Are there enough resources? (Dillonraphael (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

There’s no rush. Remember, at Wikipedia there is no deadline. I did some work on it today. But, then I got a bit stumped trying to do a find-and-replace on the use of bold for INKAS (i.e., INKAS) throughout the article. According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface (shortcut → MOS:BOLD) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Format of the first sentence (shortcut → MOS:BOLDTITLE), INKAS can only be bolded once, in the very first sentence of the lede section. Now, there were a lot of occurrences of INKAS in boldface and I didn’t want to spend a lot of time fixing them individually. So, I spent sometime trying to figure out how to do it with a semi-automated editor, but couldn't get it to work. So, I asked someone else to help out on it (see here). This all took time. Also, my spousal unit and I are off work this entire holiday week, so I can only work on it when I am not busy off-wiki. But, don’t worry: it is getting done. I worked a bit on the infobox today and will work more on the article off-and-on over the week. Don’t be in such a hurry. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Amazina/ GWAR woman

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! — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

— from Referencing Amazina/ GWAR woman at User talk:75.62.158.218

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)

Hi 75.62.158.218. A few tips:

1. Leave messages for people on their talkpage. You left your query above deep inside my userspace. It was only by chance that I found it.
2. Register and get your very own account. It is private. You do not have to provide any personal information. You can log into it from anywhere in the world. The way you are editing now reveals your IP address, from which people can track your location, physical address, etc. Also, by not logging in when you edit, it makes discussions with other editors difficult since your internet service provider may recycle IP addresses giving you a different one from time to time. Finally, with your own account, you can more easily keep track of the pages you regularly edit.
3. Unfortunately, to do what you want to do, you have to do some reading. Here’s a list:

1. Read the welcome message for newly registered editors. And, follow the links contained in it.
2. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (shortcut → WP:RS).
3. Read Wikipedia:Citing sources (shortcut → WP:CITE).
4. Read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcuts → WP:REFSTART or WP:REFBEGIN).
5. Finally, since XLinkBot specifically rejected your links to YouTube, you should read WP:YOUTUBE and Wikipedia:External links (shortcut → WP:EL).

Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Alternatively, once you have a registered account, you may place the template {{help me}} on your talk page along with your question, and someone will come along and put the answer on your talkpage. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Donna Musil Article

See also: User talk:98.245.148.9 § Donna Musil

Hi, I just responded to your post on my talk page (for my IP address, which is 98.245.148.9).

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)

Have responded there, as requested. — SpikeToronto 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed: Edits reverted as vandalism

Hi Spike, I am also editing Military brat (US subculture) and I believe I am dealing with a known Wikpedia cyberstalker.

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)

Hi Telemachus. He is not a cyberstalker. He is a recent changes patroler (RCPer). In all fairness, you were editing without signing in again, which, while permissable, when combined with the fact that you were providing little to no edit summaries, looks like vandalism. This is especially the case when, because of your lack of edit summary, the system, in some cases, generates an edit summary for you that reads, Tag: section blanking. So, tripping tags, no edit summaries, IP-only edits, removing text without explanation (see this example), these all add up to a prima facie case of vandalism or some other form of disruptive or malicious editing.

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! — SpikeToronto 05:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Cyberstalker, I'm a wikipedian who reverts vandalism with the tools of wikipedia, I'm not a cyberstalker, I am little disturbed by that say about me: liar, cyberstalker; but I laugh at the this misunderstanding. I'll explain the situation: I reversed the following changes Military brat (U.S. subculture) diff, Military brat (U.S. subculture) diff, I reverted these changes with Huggle its appeared in the Filtered edits and I saw these changes as page blanking because there was no explanation of the change in edit summaries, and even more if it is an anonymous user, it was two times that it was the same changes I decided to send a warning message "removed content from the page without explanation" with Huggle; but I had a problem with HG, which did not respond (lag) and in the log not appear the message, my mistake was not checking the user talk page User talk:98.245.148.9 to see if the message was or was not, therefore I send the warning again with HG for blanking page (Military brat (U.S. subculture)), without realizing that the IP user had sent me a message on my talk page, then with HG automatically included in the warning the last contribution of ip user (the message into my talk page) and consider this also as blanking page (my talk page) but this never happened I admit that was my mistake to send another warning with HG and don't responding to the ip user manually on their talk page. All this has been a misunderstanding then I always had intentions to archive my talk page I did not to hide anything or delete anything. I hope you understand me all of what I explain here. Thanks. D6h! ^{What's on your mind?} 14:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A nudge and a pine cone

See also: User talk:SpikeToronto § Agatha, once again

		Happy holidays!
		Consider this your nudge. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Your timing couldn’t be more perfect. Just yesterday we unpacked the box that contained all those Christie bios. Merry Christmas! — SpikeToronto 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas card

Merry Christmas

At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

---

Thanks Acather! Just what I always wanted: the gift of work … :) Hope you have a great holiday season! — SpikeToronto 02:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas card (2)

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)

Sometimes my talk page can be really weird, as if it were its own little wikiverse. I think the problem was with the holiday wishes preceding yours; it needed a </font> at the end.

Thanks so much for the holiday wishes! I hope you have a Merry Christmas as well! — SpikeToronto 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz SL-Class

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! — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

— from Mercedes-Benz SL-Class at User talk:Dgjesquire

^†http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercedes-Benz_SL-Class&action=historysubmit&diff=404355851&oldid=404355035

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)

Al fresco is still not quite what is customary in a wikiarticle (see WP:WORDS). Alternatively, you could have written, The roadster version of the 300SL succeeded the "Gullwing" in 1957. It is simple, to the point, and not flowery. It also took me awhile to get used to this here since I was often being reminded not to use puffery, weasel words, etc, that were part of my normal writing style. Thanks for the feedback. — SpikeToronto 01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Say! JUMP

See also: Talk:Hey! Say! JUMP § Merge with Kei Inoo

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)

Thanks! I wasn’t sure if the original discussion would still apply after more than two months. Gee, for an article that interests me not in the least, I sure have spent enough time dealing with it off and on! Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 21:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, consensus was reached so a redirect is the proper state of the article. Consensus can change but not without further discussion. J04n(talk page) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)