User talk:Spicemix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Spicemix! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Thanks for your edits in Kubera. I have addressed your comments on Talk:Kubera. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Graves[edit]

Hi, thanks for your Robert Graves comment. Could you add the full Penguin page ref that you mention by Graves' name detail at the head of the article? I have added the "von" bit. Any other useful (ref'd) biographical info you come across in the book would be very welcome. Thanks Span (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work on the article. Sterling stuff! Enjoy the weekend. Span (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Spicemix (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits under discussion on MMY[edit]

Thanks for your note. However I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me. Many editors of that article make "unilateral" edits and engage in reverts.[1] There are active discussions on the talk page, and we're all working towards a better article. If you want to prohibit reverts, please set the example you want others to follow.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe every complaint you see without looking into it further. You say I should "consider carefully" Keithbob's accusation of page ownership. I encourage you to look a little more carefully before you assume that charge is accurate. Here's a list of contributors to the MMY biography: [2]. Aside from myself, the top nine editors are all apparently MMY followers. Keithbob alone has made almost twice as many edits to the article as I have, and collectively those eight editors have made 1,785 edits, more than eight times as many edits as I've made. So if your concern is with article ownership, then I think you need to look at the person who made that accusation. I assume you don't think that an article on a religious leader should belong to his followers. As for my own behavior, I discuss my edits and work with other editors in a collegial and civil manner. Enjoy your wikibreak, I look to working with you more in the future, on the MMY and other articles.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised by your statement Will. The TM arbitration clearly did not group together editors or label them, and I'd suggest we follow that example. Unless editors have labelled themselves as "followers", I'd also suggest that you don't either. Clearly, as the sources indicate using a technique does not in anyway indicate someone is a "follower" of MMY, and have all of these editors on your list said specifically they use this technique, or are you assuming that.
The numbers you cite above are relatively meaningless. As overall edit numbers, they don't indicate the kind of edits; copy edits pile up fast while adding content and sources may add up slowly, nor can ownership be claimed from simply counting edit numbers, nor for that matter can ownership be claimed by the kinds of edits an editor makes. Ownership is a state of mind that allows an editor to think they can control both editors and articles, and that for some reason they have a right to do so. And if you are suggesting that edit numbers indicate some affiliation to the TM organization, a real stretch at best, then you as the editor who seems to have have written more TM related articles than any other other editor on your "list" by extension must be affiliated as well. I'd suggest treating editors as individuals, and that labeling editors hints at bias, while tossing them into a meaningless category and isolating them as a group that you then suggest has biased control in itself appears to be a way of creating ownership for yourself.(olive (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC))
Edit counts are not the only symptom of ownership, just the most easily accessed. Littleolive oil and other editors have engaged in a range of ownership behaviors but I don't see the benefit in listing them all here. My point is just that sometimes editors accuse other of the very behavior in which they're engaged. I think that's the case with Keithbob, which is why I consider his accusations to be made with unclean hands.
If there is a problem with any specific edits of mine I'd be happy to discuss them on the relevant talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Will. Your comments are completely predictable.(olive (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
As is the agreement among the pro-TM editors. If editors don't wish to be treated as a group they shouldn't act like a group.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we use the TM arbitration as a guide...It didn't group or reprimand editors as a group, and neither should we.(olive (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC))
The ArbCom laid out a number of principles, including the importance of following NPOV for COI editors, and of verifiably summarizing reliable sources. I look forward to all the editors following those admonitions. I have good faith that we will do so. Even you.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Just found your article on Anatol Goldberg. Good work! I've polished it up a bit. Hope you return from your break refreshed and ready to resume contributing. DS (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Thanks a lot for taking the trouble. Spicemix (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Skolnick[edit]

Hi Spicemix, I have to wonder why you chose to create the Andrew Skolnick article? You've only created two, so why did I get one of those honors? Thanks for all your contributions. Askolnick (talk)

Nice to hear from you. As a new editor I was looking around for an article to create, and I thought you were a notable lacuna.... All the best! Spicemix (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

TM Research[edit]

I have a question about the recent additions to the article. Please see the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll respond shortly. Spicemix (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence case and birds[edit]

I'm not a fan of Title Case for species names, but it is an established convention here, and is explicitly mentioned at MOS:CAPS as an exception to the usual rule. I suggest you stop decapitalising bird articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right! I should have read a little further. Thanks for your alert. But it's a weird thing, and I don't agree with it. Spicemix (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

afd Carmel School Giridih[edit]

Your comments are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih. Please note that you are being notified as you are one of the editors of this page , Thank youÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Ok sorry for that, I never called it Lyons, but I checked it is correct. But there is one link that is wrong.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Cappadocian Fathers[edit]

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As the edit summary made clear, there was mixed use of Br and Am spelling in the article. MOS is clear that that should be corrected. In the case of a European subject I see no reason to favor Am. Further, the article has sister articles (in this case brother articles), Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea and Naucratius, which are in Br Eng. There may be no explicit policy on this, I'm not sure, but it seems proper that there should be a consistent approach. Cheers. Spicemix (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

Hi Spicemix, Good to see you are still around. I haven't seen you for a while. You are now a Journeyman editor and can present this User Award on your page, if you so desire. Cheers! -- KeithbobTalk 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you...[edit]

I have seen your recent efforts in the article on Ronnie Lane. I would love to see the article expanded; there's plenty of material to add to it, and I think the Small Faces and The Faces, with Lane as a prominent songwriter, helped to shape rock and roll history. Please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you have questions or need help! :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I see the little box mentioning you as a new editor, but somehow I don't really think that is utterly true... either way, the help is always kindly offered, and I see you met User:Keithbob earlier who is a nice chap too. Think good thoughts! :)

Calabar Python[edit]

I have moved this as requested. That leaves a ton of double-redirects, but they should be sorted out by a bot within a few hours. JohnCD (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John! Spicemix (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way![edit]

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST[edit]

Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate it. Spicemix (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Christmas![edit]

PS and thanks for your help with the Natural Law Party related discussions and mergers. Peace!!-- KeithbobTalk 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at SMcCandlish's talk page. – SMcCandlish 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Monty Guild[edit]

Please participate if you have time.[3] -- KeithbobTalk 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks[edit]

Hands4 Overlaying.jpg

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- KeithbobTalk 21:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was good to see the support you had from such well-respected editors. Thanks for dropping by. Spicemix (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Spicemix, Happy to see you're as active as ever these days, and that you are now a Veteran Editor, with nearly 12K edits to your credit. Isn't it bout time you updated from Yeoman? Here's the designation you're now entitled to:

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

{{Veteran Editor II}}

All best EMP (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Boy! Thank you EMP. When I saw the alert I guessed another Disambiguation link notification, but this is much nicer. ( : The very best to you too. Spicemix (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted some edits you made on SS Kronprinz Wilhelm‎. Nothing really major, just some grammatical issues. We don't use the long hyphens to separate dates and we don't start sentences with numerals. When starting sentences with a number we almost always spell it out. Thanks for your contributions to the project! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of this note, I appreciate it. I take the point about not beginning a sentence with numerals, but I think it will look odd at longer nos, 131, etc.

With number ranges such as 1914/1918 I thought there was clear policy: see MOS:NDASH. If you look in the lead of the article you'll see 1914–1915. When you say "we", do you mean a local consensus at a WikiProject? Thanks again, Spicemix (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Uggh. I stand corrected. The shorter form of the dash (en) is used for denoting date spans. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, I wish there was a bot that could go round correcting all these hyphen/endash/emdash issues, it would save a lot of gnomishness. Spicemix (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist RfC[edit]

A few users are talking about merging the Zeitgeist articles in an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

V. R. Krishna Iyer[edit]

Continuing from the Edit Summary of 18:44, 7 January 2015‎, the 'Undo' to the earlier reverts finds support from the article - "Against the Current: Farid al-Din ‘Attar’s Diverse Voices" - Yaghoobi, Claudia (Persian Literary Studies Journal (PLSJ) V.1, No.1, Autumn-Winter 2012 ISSN: 2557-2322 at specifically the lines on an anachronistic narrative and the arguments countering it (pp 95-96). - SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[edit]

I left this reply on my talk page: I am sorry for the delayed reply but I have been in the hospital for tests for a few days. I have removed the material again. I do not see any relevance to the article for this statement of a rape by a nephew even if he inherited some of the property. Besides that, it was unsourced when it was originally put in the article and it remained unsourced because the bare urls put into the text (improperly) simply referred back to the editing page of the article. I do not watchlist articles in which I find problems when looking at recent changes because they would run into the many thousands, so I can't guarantee that this will not be put back in the article. If it is, I hope someone is watching who will realize it is not supported, really it is not even relevant. Donner60 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Hey, sorry but I keep seeing this. What does 'ce' stand for? Like the edit summary you just gave on Silicon Valley (TV series)? Thanks. Handpolk (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit. Cheers. Spicemix (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick[edit]

I wonder if you can help me to find a reference for this article, James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick? There are several referances to "White-Spunner", but this author is not listet in the bibliography. Can we possible identify him and his book? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Specific links"[edit]


Why did you "restore specific links"? Per what guideline? How does that help the reader? In the context, e.g. Weaver's place of death, the article refers to "Des Moines, Iowa". It does not refer to Iowa itself.

One should avoid common link targets, so where did you see a guideline supporting your changes?


HandsomeFella (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being in touch. Please note that this is a featured article with that style of link and I was restoring it. When I researched it some time ago I found there has repeatedly been consensus on the MOS talk page for that style; whether it has made it into the manual I don't know. Here is a recent example from an FA. But the preference is clear to me: people clicking on the second element of the link get what they want, or if you feel the second element is redundant as in Victoria above, then it needn't be linked. Spicemix (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I'm afraid I don't follow, and I can't see that you answered any of my questions. At this particular moment, the article's "style of link" is inconsistent, with "Place, State" linked separately in the infobox, while in the lead section, "Place" links to "Place, State" and "State" is unlinked, and in the first sentence of the first section, "Place, State" is linked, as one unit, to "Place, State".
Yes, it's an FA article, which is why I think it's important with consistency. And, following the guideline MOS:OVERLINK, which discourages links to common targets, "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions". FA articles are not exempt from this.
If the article refers to Dayton, Ohio, it's not referring to the state of Ohio, it's referring to a place in that state. There's no need to link the state separately, as per MOS:OVERLINK.
HandsomeFella (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Feedback request[edit]

I'd appreciate some feedback about whether this content is worth inclusion in the main Ali article or in a new Ali article: Ali. Thanks. Soham321 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Which content and what would the new Ali article be? Spicemix (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the new content:

If this material is not fit to go in the main Ali article but in a new article, then the new article would be containing details pertaining to Ali's religious beliefs, including the progression of his religious beliefs. Soham321 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Soham, sorry I didn't notice your wikilink in your first post. Well you know my general view that Ali is one of the most notable figures of the 20th century. I support coverage of all aspects of his life. I think this is a case for the creation of a daughter article and perhaps a rewrite of the existing religious content in the main article. The main article could expand almost infinitely without this policy. I recommend that you work up the material in your sandbox further before creating the article, more clearly to demonstrate notability. What would you call it—Religious and political beliefs of MA? Cheers. Spicemix (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ok let me try to expand on my sandbox page and then we can decide what to do with the content. Not sure about the title yet; we'll have a better idea once we see the expanded content. thanks. Soham321 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year[edit]

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Georgian with a big P[edit]

User:PoshSpiceMix at the recent Wikimedia "GenreCap-a-thon", held at Butlins, Skegness

Hi Spicemix. Thanks for the tidy up over at W. H. Davies. Re: Georgian poetry, as you may have seen, there is no article for any "Literary movement" or "genre" as such, just a re-direct to that article for the "series of anthologies showcasing ... published by Harold Monro and edited by Edward Marsh", which is essentially a series title. That's why I considered a capital P more proper. It seems debatable. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. I was following policy MOS:GENRECAPS, section 17 at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Cheers! Spicemix (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, as if that policy was ever contentious!? I'll try and grind my teeth quietly. Perhaps you believe, as many do, that "Georgian poetry" is a real movement or genre, even though we don't have an article for it. But I'll take care never to refer to you as "Posh Spice with a capital P." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You never know—I might be Victoria Beckham.... Spicemix (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
What an unexpected adornment. Thank you! But may I refer you to this policy.... Spicemix (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Vicky, luv. I thought it was common knowledge. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Your tag "associated with the subject" - the subject was "born" in 1770. Who do you think is close. They publish the music by some great composers, - two recently died, Wilhelm Killmayer and Klaus Huber. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

ps: Martin knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)