User talk:SpikeToronto/Archive 07

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


November 2010/December 2010/January 2011

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 Someone added several unpublished works.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)

Unpublished works: Biography review

Curran, John. Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: Fifty Years of Mysteries in the Making. Harper Collins, 2009. ISBN 978-0-00-731056-2 (UK 2009 version) (see also ISBN 978-0-06-198836-3 (US 2010 version)).

I thought that, with this book, I could just go to the index, look up the word, unpublished, and be able to put together a list. Alas, the book is not so well indexed. However, the book does include two never-before-published short stories, which are as follows:

Hack, Richard. Duchess of Death: The Unauthorized Biography of Agatha Chrisitie. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, Inc. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59777-620-2

This book has an amazing set of appendices that list every work ever published by Christie. Alas, I could see no works in the list that were specifically noted as unpublished. Also, there was no trail that could be followed from either the index or the table of contents.

Morgan, Janet. Agatha Christie: A Biography. Harper Collins, 1997. ISBN 978-0-00-729663-7 (First published, William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd., 1984.)

Nothing in the table of contents, index, or appendices.

Thompson, Laura. Agatha Christie: An English Mystery. Headline Review, 2008 (paperback) ISBN 978-0-7553-1488-1. (First published, Headline Review, 2007.)

This book has a great list of all of Christie’s published works. However, nothing in the table of contents, index, or appendices regarding unpublished works.

Hope this helps River. Sorry I couldn’t come up with more. — SpikeToronto 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All right, Spike. Thanks for your time and effort. I worry sometimes about inaccuracies of the highly plausible sort creeping quietly into articles and then becoming part of the general common wisdom. There's no reason that should happen more now than it ever did, and I probably should just stop worrying. And yet I do. Rivertorch (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it’s great that you wanted to make sure the stuff added was accurate! Your fear is also my fear here at WP. It’s a type of subtle, insidious, invidious vandalism. At least new pages that are blatant hoaxes are rather obvious, and can be got rid of quickly. Not so this sneaky, pernicious stuff. Thanks for your continued efforts in this regard. I am only sorry that it took me so long to do as you had asked, but then, the books were only just recently unpacked. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S.  Happy belated New Year! — SpikeToronto 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And the same to you. Let's hope it's a good one, without any fear. (I fear I'll never get on top of my reading list, but hope spring eternal!) Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010

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 (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 — — 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

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

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)

December 2010/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011

INKAS Armored: deleted article

INKAS Article Review


Dillon: I would like you to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (shortcut → WP:CORP). We need to make sure that we satisfy its requirements. Otherwise, one of Wikipedia's many deletionists will come along and either (1) propose the article for deletion under the policy at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (shortcut → WP:PROD), or (2) create a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (shortcut → WP:AFD) under the policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion (shortcut → WP:DELAFD).

The easiest way to satisfy WP:CORP is to increase the number of third-party, independent, verifiable references/citations. Our problem is that, since this is a privately held corporation, there is less written about it. When a company’s stock is publicly traded on the stock exchange, there is more written about it as analysts discuss whether or not the company’s shares are a good buy, etc. So, before we roll this article out to mainspace, we will need to come up with more published sources and fit them and their material into the article. As it is, we’re relying too much on the company’s own website. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I searched up INKAS LAPV on google and this article came up. (Dillonraphael (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
My spousal unit just handed me a newspaper tearsheet of the following article:

Gray, Jeff. “The booming business of stopping bullets,” The Globe & Mail. Report on Business section, February 3, 2011, p. B15.

Typically, articles at The Globe are only available at their website free-of-charge for a brief period. (Until access is denied, you can find this article at The Globe here.) However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders (, a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.) The tagline for the article is: The market for armoured cars, some with James Bond extras, has never been better. But cheaper overseas competition is heating up. What until you see how young the fellow who heads up the armoured division is!

Anyway, we should find some very useful information in that article. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! So this is finally starting to come along! (Dillonraphael (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC))


 Done  Please review. Write any comments relating to the Infobox here in this section. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────UPDATE:  With this edit, added number of employees and annual gross revenue. Dillon, these were in one of your references, the Business Review Canada article. — SpikeToronto 00:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Partly done:  I have fleshed out each of the references per Wikipedia:Citing sources (shortcut → WP:CITE) and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners (shortcut → WP:REFBEGIN). However, I have not assessed them per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (shortcut → WP:RS) to see if they are likely to be challenged (e.g., I will assess their reliability as I come to them while copy editing the text.

I thought I should share this article that I found, which could be used as a reference. (Dillonraphael (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
It’s the same article I referred to (and linked) above in the Notability section where I said

However, it is reprinted, with permission, at Business without Borders (, a website hosted by the Canadian operation of HSBC. (You can find this article at BWOB here.)

But, I would rather you tell me about an article I’ve already seen than let one pass by. So, thanks for searching! Keep up the good work! — SpikeToronto 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of Article

Partly done:  Right now, the name of the article is simply INKAS. However, the name of the company is INKAS Group of Companies. I have already changed the name in the infobox and in the lede. I also need to change the name of the article to match. Let me know if you agree and then I will do it. Thanks!

I believe "INKAS" is their registered name, hence the "®" (Dillonraphael (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC))
Well the ® symbol just means that INKAS is a registered trademark. That does not mean that that is the name of the company. For instance, Coke and Coca-Cola are registered trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company, but neither is the company’s name. I notice that the copyright for the website (see the bottom of is held by INKAS Group of Companies. Note the uppercase G and C. I also notice that Bloomberg Business Week lists them the same. All this makes me think that the article should be named INKAS Group of Companies. But, at INKAS we would have a redirect to the full name so that anyone typing INKAS would still end up at the right place. Thus, the entire text at INKAS would be this: #REDIRECT [[INKAS Group of Companies]]. Thoughts? — SpikeToronto 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S.  I’ll do some online searching later and see what I can come up with. We do not have to deal with the name until we’re done. — SpikeToronto 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I see waht your saying about the footer on their website. It would be possible to redirect the name "INKAS", when searching to the article though? (Dillonraphael (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC))
Yes, all we would do is create two pages: (1) called INKAS Group of Companies contains the actual article, while (2) called INKAS would redirect to the article. Please read Wikipedia:Redirect (shortcut → WP:R) to get a fuller understanding of how this works. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done  With this edit, name changed from User:Dillonraphael/INKAS to User:Dillonraphael/INKAS Group of Companies. Redirect left at old name. — SpikeToronto 22:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede section

 Done  Please review. Write any comments relating to the lede here in this section. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Security Services section

Merchant services section

Partly done:  I have done the first paragraph in this section. But, I have not done the rest. Please review the first paragraph. Also, where you see {{Citation needed}}, that means that I could not find, in your various sources in the footnotes, the thing that is highlighted. So, I need you to tell me where you found the information. For example: You say that INKAS Safe Manufacturing was founded in 1999. I could not verify that. Re-find it and tell me where; then, I’ll add a reference.

Write any comments relating to the History section here in this section. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I found that information on the history section of their website ( - "1999 INKAS® Manufacturing was founded as a logical extension of the security services the company provided. INKAS® Manufacturing initially offered a proprietary line of standard and customized safes." (Dillonraphael (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC))
Great! I’ll footnote that. — SpikeToronto 21:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE:   Done  I added a citation for the 1999 date. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Partly done:  With this edit, I copy edited the second paragraph.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nota bene*  Dillon: Please note that verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) are needed for the LINK UK material in the second paragraph. I cannot determine from where you got the LINK UK info. Let me know so I can footnote it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I got the information from their website ( (Dillonraphael (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC))
I’ll check it out. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How are things going? Do you think its ready to be published, the article? (Dillonraphael (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Safe Manufacturing section

Armored Vehicle Manufacturing section

December 2010

Referencing Amazina/ GWAR woman

Original Query:

Hi 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)


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 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi 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

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

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.


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:

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: 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

Pine cone on pine tree.jpg Happy holidays!
Consider this your nudge.


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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)


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

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! Face-smile.svg 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)

Inadvertent Warning

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I saw your reversion on my talk page. Thank you for correcting that. I did want to take this opportunity, though, to point out a few things regarding warning templates:

  • Never issue a Level 4 template (e.g., {{uw-vandalism4}}) to an editor who has not been previously warned within the past 48 hours.
  • Always sign your talkpage entries and vandalism warnings by adding four tildes to the end of your posting like this:  ~~~~. The wikisystem will translate that coding into your signature.
  • It is inappropriate to issue a warning of any kind, let alone a Level 4, for this edit, which I assume was the edit for which you issued that editor a warning since it was the only edit ever made by that editor.
    • Issuing such warnings when not appropriate could boomerang on you and get you blocked.

I hope this helps. Otherwise, happy editing!SpikeToronto 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Maclean’s & Jean Charest

See also: Maclean's#Quebec controversy, bookmarked as at 14:14EST, January 4, 2011

You wrote to me that I need a secondary source that analyzes Charest's comments to have it included. I've done just that. Brian Segal's comment does not have a secondary source analyzing it. It's the same logic you used. Please be fair. I am not being disruptive. You are obviously trying hard to protect the Maclean's page without considering the rules. What is the reason for allowing the Segal comment to stay? Would you like to explain that? There was no secondary source that mentioned Segal's statement. Please stop bullying me. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote to me: "The reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources." But now I am using a secondary source for Charest's letter, and the Segal comment lacks just that. It is using only a Newswire source. Why are all of you so intent on protecting the reputation of Maclean's? You might be on their payroll but your explanations don't make any sense. You are contradicting the very rules you used to remove what I wrote. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit war today was with another editor, not me. If you had bothered to look at my contribs, or the revision history for the Maclean’s article, you would have seen that the last edit I made to that article was at 3:33EST, December 28, 2010, after you had been blocked — again — for edit warring. It would seem that you have never actually looked at the article’s edit history, or you would have found a lot of your questions answered in the edit summaries that I and other editors have provided you. I also hazard to guess that, in addition to ignoring the article’s edit history, you have not read any of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to which I and other editors have directed you, either through our edit summaries or on your talk page. I notice, for instance, that where you quote me above, you leave out the rest of the quotation:

The reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources. You can find it at WP:PRIMARY, as I have pointed out to you in edit summaries. [Emphasis added to missing part.]

In any event, if you had read that policy, or any of the others to which you have been directed, you would not have needed to make enquiries of this nature on my talk page as all of your questions have already been answered.

Nor have you chosen to participate in the discussion begun on your behalf at the article’s talk page. You have instead chosen to post a diatribe about conspiracies and how you are caught up in one with persons on the payroll of Maclean’s. I must say that that’s rather galling as there is no love lost between me and that conservative rag. The only pleasure I ever got from it was not renewing my subscription in 2010!

Conversely, what I do care about are the Five Pillars of Wikipedia including, but not limited to:

Your editing, Kidman, makes you appear to be very much a single-purpose account engaging in tendentious editing. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (shortcut → WP:TE) defines tendentious editing as follows:

Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. [Emphasis added.]

As I have said to you twice before — here and here — editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to have single-purpose accounts, nor use agenda accounts to prosecute a particular agenda. Keep this in mind when you are focussing your editing solely on Maclean’s. You need to start editing other articles in addition to Maclean’s in order to demonstrate that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just pursue an agenda on one particular article.

Finally, and as I have also said to you twice before — here and here — when other editors point out Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, they are not trying to silence or censor you. They are trying to help you improve your editing by bringing it in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to help you be a constructive, collegial editor, and not a disruptive editor. Thus, when we point you towards these policies and guidelines, you should take a break from editing, and instead read the things to which we are directing you.SpikeToronto 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:  This 14:14EST, January 4, 2011 version should put to rest your fears of a conspiracy.SpikeToronto 09:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Vivienne Poy quote

Thank you for your comments. I don't mean any disrespect. I saw you refer to my error in misquoting the Vivienne Poy article twice. Actually I was trying to fix it. I must explain this to you. I think it was quoted properly something to the effect of saying that Poy suggested the Maclean's article was offensive. Then the editor with the name Jaes (read as Chase) changed it. This editor changed it the same night I started working on it. He/she removed a lot of what I wrote including the word "offensive". So the result was that Poy "suggested the article was defined as denigrating to an identifiable group." -- something like that. I'm sure you know what I mean. How could the article or the magazine be defined as denigrating? It was what Jaes left it as. It stayed that way for several days, I think. I know that touching anything on the Maclean's entry is very sensitive and Jaes was always ready to pounce. But I made it clear that I was trying to fix the quote from Poy. Maybe I left it still incorrectly quoted but made it read something to the effect that the Maclean's article was offensive, defined as denigrating to an identifiable group. I hope you understand what I mean. Poy defined "offensive", she didn't define "Maclean's". It's like someone saying John is young, defined as under 21. But it obviously wouldn't make sense to say John is defined as under 21. Jaes edited what I wrote to leave it making no sense. Very obvious was the fact that Jaes was keen to remove the word offensive.

The other thing I want to comment on is that I will edit other articles. I need more time. I have much to contribute. The Maclean's edits were difficult for me, to say the least. I still think people were not being fair about it but I accept your suggestions. Thank you. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, as you can see here, I did my best to improve the phrasing of that particular section, a task made all the more difficult by the fact that you were (at that time) editing and overwriting any and all changes made by other editors. The content (since further modified) currently reads: "In a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Senator Vivienne Poy said "periodicals that contain offensive content, 'defined as material that is denigrating to an identifiable group,' can be deemed ineligible for federal support." Do you have additional concerns with this language? jæs (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The language you quote, Jæes, is where I went straight to the source and re-wrote the sentence so that it and Poy were quoted correctly. Kidman, Jæes, does make a good point that when the same section is being rapidly edited by more than one person at the same time, the section can get really screwed up. I didn’t realize that that had been going on and so perhaps incorrectly assumed it had been you that had incorrectly input the quotation. Sorry ’bout that.

There is a temporary template that can be inserted when an article or a section is undergoing a major intensive editing spree that alerts us. It is the {{In use}} template. To apply it to an entire article, place and save it at the very top of the article. To have it only apply to a section of the article, place and save it as {{In use|section}} in the particular section in which you are working. I often alternate between {{In use}} and {{Under construction}} when I am actively working on an article.

Thank you for your responses and I look forward to working with you gentlemen on other wikiarticles. Happy editing!SpikeToronto 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Kidman, If you ever have any questions about how things are done here at Wikipedia, do not hesitate to leave a query here on my talk page. Alternatively, you can place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, asking your question immediately below the {{helpme}} template, and someone will be along to answer your question there. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE:  Kidman, after reading your latest comments on the Maclean’s talk page, I sadly added my comments to the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I thought that after this incident you were on your way to becoming a productive, fruitful Wikipedia editor. But, your most recent comments show that you steadfastly and consistently refuse to read even the most important Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that you steadfastly and consistently refuse to get the point.

Still, if you ever have any questions, my door is always open.SpikeToronto 04:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


I saw that you issued this user a final warning when I went to leave warning. I don't know what's the proper way to do this but they have made further vandalism edits, as per your warning if you are able to I think this should trigger a block. thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time another admin has just blocked the editor for continued vandalism.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
With this edit, I issued IP a Level 4 (i.e., final warning). It was issued for this edit made to the Herbert Hoover wikiarticle. It came as the fourth in a series of escalated warnings for other vandalizing edits (see here/here (Level 1); here/here (Level 2); and here/here (Level 3)). However, usually, a miscreant such as this cannot be blocked until he has made a futher vandalizing edit, after final warning. Since he ceased after the Level 4 warning, a block could not be triggered. After all, he had done what he had been asked to do: Stop.

However, 24 hours later, he started back up again. At which time, no further warnings were necessary and a report could have been filed. (Had he waited 48 hours, the warnings would have been reset back to Level 1.) This is exactly what happened when User:Glane23 filed a report seeking Administrator action with this edit. This resulted in the vandal’s block a few hours later. Luckily, the blocking administrator made it a six-month-long schoolblock, which means that kids who want to edit from that school for the next six months (i.e., until school lets out) will have to register and create an account.

The general procedure is this:

I hope all this helps. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Also, if you need more immediate assistance, place the {{helpme}} template on your talk page, followed by your query, and someone will come along and answer your question there. Also, you can search at the Wikipedia:Help desk for guidance. Finally, you can also try at the village pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (shortcut → WP:VP)). — SpikeToronto 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you this is helpful information. I had never come across this situation before, most time after the first warning Vandals cease and desist.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections)

Items that...cannot be supported by reliable sources, or are not of significant importance to the subject matter can be removed in most cases.

Can you please tell me how the song lyric, ""I sing a song from Sing-Sing, sippin on ginseng" is significant enough for inclusion in the Sing Sing article? I looked for reliable sources discussing it, and found none.

For the sake of completeness, it would be interesting to be able to link to all songs that mention a certain subject, so I'm not entirely against it. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas! As I said in my edit summaries, I was just making the IP editor’s edits work/function. I was not assessing the correctness or appropriateness of them, merely that they were not vandalism and could be easily fixed. (I came upon them doing recent changes patrol.)

Your edit summary did not give a reason for the revert, suggesting that you were reverting as vandalism. I assumed it was because of the fact that the IP’s edit had messed up the H2 heading, In popular culture. Had I known you were reverting per WP:TRIVIA — with which I was not too familiar until I saw your later edit, and its accompanying edit summary, inserting the {{trivia}} template — then I most likely would have passed the edits by and proceeded to the next set of Huggle diffs. Once I followed {{trivia}} to WP:TRIVIA, then I kind of figured what you were up to.

Please feel free to remove my corrections of the IP’s edits. However, I’d like to suggest a brief note to the IP suggesting that they take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) (shortcut → WP:TRIVIA) to understand why their edit was reverted.

By the way, these trivia lists are everywhere in Wikipedia! The WP:TRIVIA guideline seems to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. I’m afraid that dealing with the enormous quantity of them might by a sisyphean task. Thanks for the feedback!SpikeToronto 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your style, ST. After reading your response, I'm wondering if you could provide some guidance for another user who is learning how to deal with vandals and vandalism, and who is interested in improving her interaction with other editors. The name of the editor is User:Anna Frodesiak and she is one of your fellow countrywomen. Would you be able to spare a minute and offer her some tips and tricks on her approach, and if possible, offer her some "required" reading on the subject, or links you find helpful? This is in regards to the thread on my talk page titled "Thank you". Any advice you can offer her would be great. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Viriditas. I would be more than willing to provide any assistance that Anna may want. But, I’ll leave it to her to ask. She may not be interested in someone with whom she’s had no interaction suddenly butting in with his 2¢ worth, when not requested. I try to avoid giving unsolicited advice; it has a tendency to boomerang on one. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Good answer. I just want her to have a "go to" person on the subject of vandalism and how to deal with it. Since the two of you have a bit in common, I'm sure she wouldn't mind hearing from you, but if not, I hope she knows you are available for questions. I linked to this thread on her talk page, so hopefully she's reading it. BTW, is there a reason you aren't an admin? You seem like the ideal candidate. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anytime Anna wants to ask me anything, I’m available. Thanks Viriditas. — SpikeToronto 05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My only tip right off the bat is for her to add more specificity when she templates a vandal. That is, she should specify the page vandalized. Otherwise, neither the vandal nor a blocking admin know to what she is referring. For example, if the vandalism were to Agatha Christie, and was a first warning, then she would place the following on the vandal’s page:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Agatha Christie}} ~~~~

This specificity might have made things easier vis-à-vis the XXxTheproxXx incident. — SpikeToronto 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a feeling you might be hearing from her soon. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Anna

Greetings SpikeToronto. I too like your style. Good advice. I will add the article name to the template in the future. Normally, I'm in the middle of something, check my watchlist, and notice a suspicious edit. If it's vandalism, I tend to issue the warning without adding the article name, so I can get back to my work. I have just learned why I shouldn't do that. Thank you for that.

As for not giving a vandal time to change, looking at my history, I've only done that a tiny % of the time, in cases of nasty vandalism. I've ceased that practice too.

I humbly welcome any and all advice you can offer regarding vandalism or other interractions. I'm always up for improvement. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna! A lot of people who are not regular recent changes patrollers (RCPers) only issue vandalism warnings for pages that are in their watchlist. Nothing unusual there. Then again, a lot of people only revert the vandalism on their watchlisted articles without ever issuing any warnings to vandals. So, it’s great that you revert vandalism to the articles you monitor and template the miscreants.

As for a specific incident, I read over the stuff here and I think that, to a certain degree, it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot. What you did I used to do also … often. I would template a vandal at Level 1 for the vandalism that I reverted. Then, looking at their diffs, I would template them for other vandalizing edits within the previous 48 hours for which others had not templated them, escalating each warning. However, I always specified the page vandalized so both the vandal and a blocking admin reviewing the warnings knew to what the warnings were referring. Thus, I never had any of my manual reports to AIV rejected. It’s amazing what a difference adding the wikiarticle title can make!

However, I came to discover that giving a bunch of warnings all at once, when they’ve received no others, is not the way to do it. We need to give the miscreant an opportunity to mend his ways. When one refers to giving a vandal time to change, what is meant is that the vandal needs time to read the warning before further warnings are issued. This is why I no longer issue warnings unless and until he vandalizes again after receiving a warning. This is built-in to the logic of such vandal-fighting programs as Huggle and Twinkle. So, before you issue a vandal a subsequent warning, you should have a look at their contribs and see if the vandalism came after or before they were warned last. When templated, whether a vandal is editing from a registered account or as an IP, they still get a banner at the top of their page alerting them to a new message. There’s no excuse for not having read it. If he continues to vandalize after receiving a warning, then a further warning is appropriate and necessary. On occasion you can skip a level; but, I advise stating explicitly why in your edit summary.

One further thing, the guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages (shortcut → WP:OWNTALK) tells us that it is okay for vandals to remove warnings from their own talk pages, be they registered or IP-only. When they do so, it is evidence of them having read the warning. Twinkle, Huggle, and other such programs, are usually not fooled and will escalate the next warning appropriately. However, if you are working manually, you may have to consult their talk page’s revision history to see what Level to apply next.

Hope this helps. You might want to also have a look at this discussion here. Any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I will take your advice on all those points. I will probably save me a lot of hassles.

If the first occurrence of vandalism is a really dirty word to a BLP, can I start the level higher than 1?

Very nice to hear Huggle etc. is not fooled by removed templates. That's good info I've been wondering about.

I do occasionally patrol with Huggle, but when I patrol from here and here, and then put them on a watch notepad if they are naughty, I will keep your advice in mind. I really appreciate the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a shorter link to newbies: Special:Contributions/newbies. And, here is a shorter link to new users: Special:Log/newusers. Also, rather than manually notepad users you are following, and since you use Huggle, you can use HG to monitor your watchlist.

As for warning escalation, if giving a first warning, and it is clear that the editor was not editing in good faith, you can start at Level 2. As for escalating straight to Level 4, or starting off at Level 4im, it had better be a pretty egregious edit (e.g., racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, etc.). If you escalate to Level 4, or start right off the bat with Level 4im, state explicitly why in your edit summary. For example: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist and homophobic nature of vandalism. (I think one can also use racist to apply to anti-semitic and anti-muslim edits.) — SpikeToronto 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I will follow that.

Thanks for the links.

I can't use Huggle monitor. I'm stuck with notepad because the great firewall of china crashes Huggle every 3 or 4 minutes.

Thank you again for the excellent advice. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna, instead of notepad, couldn't you use a subpage in your user space instead, something like User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/Vandal watchlist? That way, you can just click on Special:RecentChangesLinked/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/Vandal watchlist (or whatever you call it) and get the latest contribs update. ST, what do you think? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I had thought of that. But, I don't want users to feel like "wikipolice" are watching them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anna, I kind of like Viriditas’s suggestion of having a list in your userspace that you could use in a semi-automated manner. Also, you are only looking at new users and they wouldn’t know how to troll through the depths of your userspace to find something that would offend them. However, I cannot figure out how to get Viriditas’s string to work. So, if I were doing it, I would create a page called User:Anna Frodesiak/Watchlist supplement and then add the {{User|<username>}} template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.

Having said that, remember that until a new editor is whitelisted, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for recent changes patrollers to review. Most registered, vandalism-only accounts, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.

One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph, rather than hitting the Enter button twice, followed by a series of indenting colons (::::), instead insert a <p> after the last sentence of the paragraph and then start typing the next one. So, for instance, the paragraphs above, unformatted, look like the following:

Anna, I kind of like Viriditas’s suggestion of having a list in your userspace that you could use in a semi-automated manner. Also, you are only looking at new users and they wouldn’t know how to troll through the depths of your userspace to find something that would offend them. However, I cannot figure out how to get Viriditas’s string to work. So, if I were doing it, I would create a page called [[User:Anna Frodesiak/Watchlist supplement]] and then add the {{tlx|User|<username>}} template for each of the editors whom you want to follow for a short while.<p>Having said that, remember that until a new editor is [[WP:HGW|whitelist]]ed, all of his edits are funnelled through Huggle and Twinkle for [[WP:recent changes patrol|]]lers to review. Most [[WP:register|]]ed, [[WP:vandalism-only account|]]s, therefore, get caught within that period and indefinitely blocked.<p>One more thing, when you are adding to a talk page, and you want to start a new a paragraph …

Also, you can take a look inside the editor at either this paragraph, or your paragraph above that I reformatted, to see more of what I mean.

Finally, what do you mean by The Great Firewall of China? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am digesting the vandal advice. I am slow-witted, so it will take a while for me to figure it out. (This is why I like gastropods. They are also slow-witted, and also like lettuce.)

What's the difference between colons and the p thing? Just curious? Are the colons wrong?

(The p thing is actually quite quick -- "rightpinkieholdctrl-rightindex-leftmiddle-rightindex")

Yep. I like the p thing. Thanks.

Great firewall of China? You don't know? You must look it up! If I look it up, software will kill my connection for a few minutes. No kidding.

Did I tell you? I lived in the Annex for a decade. Lots of strange times in that city. Then I had the good sense to move to Van. :) Ha! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The p thing doesn't work. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The <p> thing works. You just weren’t using it right. First, it’s a lowercase p. Second, one doesn’t place it in the same manner as the indenting colons; one imbeds them in the text. Open the editor, and take a look at where the <p> thingies are in your paragraph above that begins with I am digesting the vandal advice …; I reformatted it with the <p> thingies so you can see how to use them. That’s how they are used. The reason why it’s preferable to the indenting colons (::::::) is that the colons mess up the editing area and allow some not-so-bright wikieditors to insert comments in between your paragraphs, which used to happen to me before I switched to the <p> thingies.

As for The Great Firewall of China, I understood that to be the firewall that the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had placed around the Chinese internet to control what the PRC’s citizens could and could not see. But, since I understood you to be here in Canada, I didn’t understand how it was crashing your Huggle. (Interestingly, when my spousal unit was a teenager, his older brother and father owned and operated a Chinese takeout called, The Great Wall of China. But, I digress …)

Anyway, give the <p> thing another shot. The trick is not to use the Enter button on your keyboard during your typing. Let the <p> thing replace your use of the Enter button on your keyboard. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Firewall of China

Until I, very slowly, figure out the p thingy, I will have to stick with the colons. I can see the advantages that you point out. But, I have never seen it used before, and find it strange to stick all the text together like that. What if I need to outdent one or two levels?

I am Canadian, but live in Haikou. So, the GFWC kills the connection a lot. Images worry them. Text can be scanned. But text can be in jpg form. Maybe Huggle will be better next year. At the beginning of 2010, it took 30 secs to access a wikipage. Now, 3 secs. Last provider, images. Now, no images in articles. I need a proxy to see them, and have to go to commons on proxy to see what images are in an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, vis-à-vis The Great Firewall of China, you could use one of those anonymizers from out of Scandanavia (Sweden?). They mask your IP and/or make it look as if your IP is elsewhere to make your work untraceable. Or, is that what you meant by a proxy?

Also, instead of Huggle, you might want to try other anti-vandalims tools such as Twinkle, IGLOO, STiki, etc. You can find a complete list at Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools (shortcut → CAT:CVT). Perhaps one of them might work better given your restrictions. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:  Anna, I just came across this — Wikipedia:Open proxy#Rationale — the second paragraph of which has special instructions for people editing from China who are trying to cope with The Great Firewall of China. It might have some informative tips and links for you. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi SpikeToronto. Sorry to be out of touch. Family is visiting until Thurs and I have to look after them.

I am very grateful for your efforts, but I've already tried everything to solve the proxy problem. In a nutshell: I am always searching for proxies. I usually have one or two that works. They have a lifespan because they get discovered and blocked. Proxies like TOR etc. that are covered in Wiki's pages are weak and already blocked. The ones I use now are good, but I cannot edit with them because they give an anonymous IP. IP exemption wouldn't help because proxy IPs change all the time.

Somehow, no matter what proxy I am using, or even if I am using a proxy, the connection gets cut every few minutes when accessing Wikipedia and some other sites. I don't know why, but this happens to everyone here. We don't question the powers that be in China. We don't ask such questions as: "Why does one ISP allow me to see images in Wiki articles and not another? What the hell is the point of that?" "Why can I upload images to commons only if they are less than 1/2 MB?" You can ask these questions, but the answer will be a frustrating blend of circular illogic, double-talk, deflection, and obfustication. I appreciate your help, though, but this is a rabbit hole that goes nowhere. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I’ve learned so much. All I know of anonymizers/open proxies is that some people use them here to bypass the download throttling that providers like Rogers use to discourage torrent downloading. Thanks again for the explanation. Very informative. Sorry I couldn’t be of any help. — SpikeToronto 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Actually I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner to prevent you from (so kindly) digging up info for me. And please, refrain from using the word "Rogers" in our communications. The very word makes my hair bristle. My blood pressure went up, and I had the sudden urge to vandalize the Rogers article. If I were Godzilla, the first thing I would do would be to stomp over to their headquarters and shake the building upside down until all the employees fell out. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please don’t. It’s only a block from my house and I do not want to hear their screams, feel the earth tremor, or deal with the ensuing traffic jam. Please. Control yourself! Face-smile.svgSpikeToronto 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's worth it. :) :) :) (By the way, I will watch your talk. You don't need the talkback.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Someone has my talk page watchlisted?! (He says incredulously …) You’ve made my day! Face-grin.svgSpikeToronto 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Wikipedia!

Can I have a gin instead? No, seriously, thanks. Cheers to you and Wikipedia on its tenth birthday! — SpikeToronto 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  I borrowed some ideas from your userspace for my user page. You’re credited in the coding. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine ;) ! What ideas did you take? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I adapted this from you, which I code into my userpage with this: {{User:SpikeToronto/Vandal notice}}. I’m a little thief who steals ideas wherever he can find them! Face-smile.svgSpikeToronto 05:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

IP and Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: As a result of my mistake, User: was blocked. As a result of my application to blocking admin, User: was unblocked. — SpikeToronto 05:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
See also: Discussion at User talk:Logan (reporting recent changes patroller), bookmarked as at 15:25EST, January 21, 2011
See also: Notification at User talk:, bookmarked as at 14:08EST, January 20, 2011
See also: Block log for User:

No, it is not vandalism. I have even explained the edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, geez, there isn't even almost a single source on the page, and you threaten me with blocking for a single edit?

Wikipedia is very unfriendly to newbies, isn't it? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Sorry for the delay, I’ve been researching the background. From your edit summary, I took your edit to be one of bias, removing an image because you object to international recognition of Kosovo as an independent state. Your physical location in Serbia added to this interpretation of the edit. However, upon further research, despite Kosovo being recognized by virtually all of the major powers of the world — except by those major powers facing separatist threats of the their own like China and Russia — Kosovo independence is, technically, disputed, as you said in your edit summary. Therefore, it is correct that I strike out the warnings related to this. However, your addition to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was such that it could not stand without verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), especially as it related to something as sensitive as alleged organ theft. If I had thought that the mere inclusion of an inline citation template such as {{Citation needed}} would have been okay, I would have done that rather than revert. Also, it is not relevant that there are no other citations in that wikiarticle. Their lack is not a licence for other wikieditors to add unsupported material.

Therefore, I have struck out the warnings related to the Stabilisation and Association Process article, and reduced the warning for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe article (see here.) I have also asked the other recent changes patroller to consider reducing his Level 4 warning to a Level 2 warning (see here). Finally, I will ask the administrator who applied the 31-hour block if he would reconsider.

Be patient, and I apologize for this.SpikeToronto 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE1:  I have spoken with the other recent changes patroller here and with the blocking admin here. Now, all we can do is wait. — SpikeToronto 17:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done  See here, here, and here. I’m sorry this happened. If you ever want any assistance in the future, feel free to leave any questions here on my talk page.SpikeToronto 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad the misunderstanding has been cleared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and, again, I’m sorry for the mistake. By the way, whenever you leave a message on an article talkpage or a user talkpage, be sure to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. — SpikeToronto 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Onslaught

Hello, I'm sorry about the blank content, i was trying to create a page for the Album The Onslaught of Lazarus. I'm wonder if can I? Hope not disturb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net34a (talkcontribs) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at a typical Welcome Message to get started. In particular, look at how to start an article. Also, if you look at the revision history for that article, you’ll see that there used to be a very brief article about the album there, and its contents got merged with the article about the band. Before starting a new article about the album, be sure that it is not sufficiently covered in the article about the band. Also, read Wikipedia:Notability (music), in particular Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs (shortcut → WP:NALBUMS). — SpikeToronto 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011/February 2011


Hi Spike. Sorry about the outburst. There is nothing personal meant, but the discussion had got completely off track by people joining in without reading from the start, assuming I'm some kind of noob, and going off and unilaterally making changes that everyone else is still trying to reach consensus on. Regards, — Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn’t read as an outburst to me. I personally am not happy about the entire NPP process. A lot of these NPPers do not seem to know what they’re doing. Often, they do not sufficiently understand the speedy delete criteria. Or, they pounce on new pages within five minutes of an editor having begun the page. They seem to be possessed of this idea that the first edit should present a fully completed article, which is absurd. Sadly, new Wikipedians do not know to instead create these articles in their own userspace and then move them to mainspace once they're complete. Nor do they know about the various templates they can use to alert NPPers to the page being a work in progress (i.e., “Bugger off ’til I’m ready!”). My biggest problem with the current NPP ethos and practice is that it underscores and promotes a deletionist mindset around here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I share your sentiment entirely, that's why I have revived the practically dead NPP project and with the help of User:Snottywong got a bot up and running to keep tracks on the pages that slip through the net. NPP is a necessary evil. I've patrolled thousands of pages in order to gather my own empirical experience before coming up with solutions about what to do, but of course I'm not one of those possessed of this idea that the first edit should present a fully completed article, however, firstly I do expect people to at least read the instructions that are glaring them in the face before pressing the 'save page' button on their first article, and secondly while perhaps as much as 80% of all new pages have serious flaws and do need tagging for maintenance, they don't all need deleting. There is nevertheless the blatant spam, self-promotion, attacks, and vandalism for which we should have zero tolerance, instead of believing in the fallacy that every new SPA and serial vandal is going to be a potential new, regular Wikipedian. Yes, in its present form NPP does breed a deletionist attitude but I feel the causes lie deeper:
  • The mistake was made on its conception to make New Page Patrolling a task any autoconfirmed user can do, instead of making it a minor right such as reviewer, rollbacker, etc.
  • Very few of the 'average' NPPers have even seen the NPP page. They proudly display NPP uboxen but have lifted the ubox template off other user pages instead of signing on for the project as proper members.
  • I have come across dialogues between children such as, "Hey, d'ya know about NPP? Let's see how many pages we can get deleted between us today - winner gets a barnstar!" I once intervened as cautiously as possible in such a case, and then they swapped barnstars for vandalising my user page!
I have spent a lot of time 're-patrolling' the patrolled pages, and there are far too many unsuitable pages being passed as patrolled, too many false positives with CSD tags, very little understanding of the subtleties of PROD, BLPPROD, and AfD, and a very high rate of not clicking the 'patrolled' link. One of the ways we can get round all this is to re educate the NPPers by encouraging them to read the guidelines, not discouraging them by giving them unfriendly warnings for not pressing a button, but to give a firm friendly warning to those who don't improve (it works).
The arguments against my suggestion for improving the 'warning' template come from those who have either never done any NPP, those who are just members of the Warning Template Project and want to see their own words in print, those who can't/won't take a holistic view of the actual project that a template is part of, or those who won't read discussions from the beginning before chiming in. Like NPP, unfortunately, such projects as WT:UTM often attract those who will never make it to adminship, but who want to acquire a feeling of power over other editors. Your input would be most welcome any time - we need all the intelligent help we can get. Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung, I just read your last comment at WT:UTM. Maybe you should start fresh on the NPP template discussion and bring everyone reading it up to speed. Here on my talk page you’ve discussed how the overall NPP process is broken, not just the NPP template. Most of the people involved with the UTM project are not as involved in the NPP process as you are. They work on “warning” templates, not necessarily the specific areas in which they are applied. Thus, they may be unaware of many of the NPP things you have discussed here on my talk page. Why don’t you create a convenience break at the discussion and start over. Provide a brief outline — bullet points would be nice! — of the issues at NPP. Indicate what is being done to rectify the process. Discuss the new bot that is being developed and any warning messages that it will be deploying. Indicate specifically why the NPP template as it currently is will not work with Twinkle. (Huggler that I am, I do not understand the technical problem for Twinkle.) Try not to show any pique in your comments. As my grandma used to say, “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” — SpikeToronto 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spike - you're right that I may have displayed a slight hint of frustration, but I was lectured at (repeatedly) as if I were some newbie, and it hurts my pride in my work, and damages my enthusiasm for all the gnomish improvements I make. I was upset that one editor breezes in without a word and radically changes the template while openly admitting that he's inviting a rebuke, and while the recasting of the template text is not 'cyclic' but is still very much under discussion. To make matters worse, an admin supports his flagrant (IMO) disregard for our consensus-building policy. You've hit the nail on the head about the template crew, and it's clear they appear to have little interest in considering the the site-wide effect each of their templates has, and in spite of repeated invitations, they do not appear to have followed the links to see what we are doing with our new bot at WP:NPP. It's as if they were excellent railway engineers but not realising that trains are designed to move people. One of them is a lawyer but still cannot understand that logic, and that dismays me even more. All this adds up to my exasperation, and feeling that the UW template project is a walled garden. Reading over that thread again, I feel I have already exploited all the kind suggestions you made above, and if I were to start over by spreading honey on the issue, I would ultimately be exposed as a hypocrite. I have also tried to appeal to common sense with messages also to their user talk pages by using analogies that I had hoped they would be able to relate to, but as Wikipedia most active editor No.132 (apparently), I have too many other plates spinning, especially repairing the broken NPP system because of my involvement in WP:BLP policies, and my own content building, to want to be further involved in that discussion, and I will not be returning to it. I may after a suitable lapse of time, quietly BRD and improve the template text myself - it's hardly ever been used and nobody had bothered about it for years until recently. In the meantime, for patrolling the patrollers, I will just have to use an appropriate text as manual 'reminder' that won't be usable in Twinkle, and it will slow our project down somewhat, but I'll have to live with that constraint. Nevertheless Spike, I appreciate your efforts, and I thank you enormously for somehow being the only one to have seen the wood for the trees. Perhaps with your closer involvement in UW template issues in general, you could take the relay. Kindest regards, Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I’d like to help, but I still do not understand the technical issue that prevents Twinkle from being able to use the current Template:Uw-patrolled. If you can explain that to me, then I might be able to work on it.

I have another NPP question for you: Are only new pages in the article namespace (i.e., main namespace) reviewed by NPPers? The reason that I ask is that I create a lot of new pages that might generate a lot of unnecessary work for NPPers (see here). However, I almost never create a new page in the article namespace. My work there is either gnome-ish, or to expand an existing stub to a full-fledged article. None of my new pages is ever marked as patrolled. (I assume one cannot mark a page of one’s own creation patrolled?) So, I was wondering if I should seek autopatrolled privileges, or is that not necessary since only new pages in article namespace are an issue for NPPers. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Spike, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I though I was - what I meant was that the manual, self written, more friendly template that I use manually cannot of course be programmed to be used in Twinkle. However, I think the matter is now moot because User:Fuhghettaboutit, the original author of the template that was later changed to be a dismal reprimand, has now quietly reverted POl's enthusiastic but misplaced text, and replaced it with something very close to the lines I suggested.
All new mainspace pages must pass through New Page Patrol, except for the creation creations of around only 1,600 2,700 Autopatroller editors, and the 1,700 admins. You have apparently only created one page yourself: John Dauglish so you wouldn't qualify for Autopatroller rights. Generally for that you need to have created at least 50 mainspace pages. The 39 pages you have created are all user pages and/or redirects, etc. that don't need patrolling. Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

User talk namespace templates

Hi Spike, as I have mentioned at WT:UTM previously, I have been working on a draft in my userspace to try and amalgamate the various disparate WP:UTM pages. It was also suggested in discussions that this would be an opportunity to write a behavioral guideline concerning the design of user warning templates (and user talk namespace templates in general). As this work represents a large structural change to the project, I would like to invite you and other project members and trusted contributors to have some input. The work I have done so far can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace, I would very much like to get other peoples ideas for expansion and improvement. Rather than engage in long, unwieldy discussions about what changes I should make, it would be easier if you were to make any changes you see fitting, directly into my sandbox. Please direct any related discussion to my main user talk page. You can take this message as my permission for you to edit the page User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace and any sub-pages thereof. If you are to busy or would rather not, don't worry. I won't be offended :) Pol430 talk to me 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pol430! I’ll take a look. By the way, is Pol430 in honor of your favorite fourth-year politics class? — SpikeToronto 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol, no... In fact my username is quite random really, although it roughly relates to my job. I wanted Tomosan which is a nickname of mine, but Wikipedia wouldn't have it... Pol430 talk to me 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Tomosan already exists. So, you cannot do a simple change of username. Also, as I interpret the rules, notwithstanding that he has not made an edit in over 15 months, you cannot usurp his username because of the first requirement, which reads:

The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances).

He has made 33 edits, all of which would be attributed to you if usurpation were permitted. But, perhaps your request might constitute a “rare exception”.

On another topic, what happened to your drafts?! Are they to be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spike, thanks for looking into that for me, I plan to stick with Pol430 so as not to confuse people :) On the second point, yes I have moved them to try and rationalise in my mind what pages I see where... My proposal will be to replace the main UW wikiproject page with the 'main page' of my drafts and that all other pages be sub-pages thereof. Except for the 'Table of templates' tab and the three 'view templates' tabs which I propose should replace WP:UTM. Effectively this makes a fairly minimal disruption change to WP:UTM but brings its pages under the stewardship of the wikiproject. I would propose that all talk pages re-direct to WT:UTM because this is where all the templates talk pages re-direct to (and we don't want to have re-re-direct all of those do we now!). You do of course, still have my consent to edit the page User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings and its sub-pages, in order to make any changes you think of benefit. Pol430 talk to me 11:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Spike, please see this comment I have left on Aerosprite's talk page and add anything you think appropriate. Pol430 talk to me 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. This is how it appeared on February 16, 2011, at 12:54AM EST. — SpikeToronto 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Was this a serious question? I've answered anyway Pol430 talk to me 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good call :) Pol430 talk to me 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File description pages

Hi SpikeToronto, I just wanted to let you know that when people create descriptions for files on commons, you can just tag them for speedy deletion under criteria F2! (For example, see File:Padlock-dash.svg, where you removed the text.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You’re right! I forgot that. Funny, when I come across them in Huggle I don’t forget. But, this time I came to the image manually to take a copy of it and noticed the text. Thanks for the reminder! — SpikeToronto 21:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Two words for the price of one

Hi, re this edit - respecting WP:NOTFORUM and all that so I'm not commenting there, but when I was at school, a number of our books used "to-day" instead of "today", which even as early as 1972 I found jarring. These books were written in the 1950s or, at best, early 1960s, such were school budgets then (so what's new...?). The education authorities only replaced them when they realised that they were written using measures which the Government had recently deemed obsolete - pounds/shillings/pence; stones/pounds/ounces; miles/yards/feet/inches; gallons/pints/fl. oz., etc. Perhaps a general change in the way that school books are written can trigger a change in spelling? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Leaving signature at each 'edit' to a wiki topic


greetings again. i've been contributing to a page/subject; i read that IF i'm posting to a talk-page then...i ought sign that post. But, when making a contribution to a proper wiki subject, not to. i guess i've just realized this. can/should you mend the error by cleaning up the contrib. string, or do i just mend my ways in future? On reflection, it seems to add clutter in the article, and exposes me to...well, i do not really know what that would be. Feel free to tidy it up as you see fit regards the minor edits and corrections. i'm trying to figure it all out. thx-dgjesquire :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjesquire (talkcontribs) 04:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

a friendly heads-up

Charles Johnson is sending a confederate to canvas you with his requirements for the text of the littlegreenfootballs article.

"It's that same obsessed weirdo again, putting back the badly-sourced edits that he was told he could not make, several times before. If you would leave a note for the admins, I'd appreciate it. I can't do it myself."(link)

"sure, the last admin and i were on the level about it all. ill write him after im done with this paper." (link)

"Thanks. That guy should be blocked from making edits -- he's demonstrated many times over that he's not on the level, and now he's sneaking back in to make edits he was told he could not make."(link)

Notanipokay (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

a friendly note about people who continue inserting disputed negative information

I'd just like to correct some of the false claims made by "Natanipokay."

First, it's not correct that I "sent" anyone to do anything. A reader of my blog informed me that Notanipokay was back, replacing the edits that he had already been told were not appropriate because of bad sourcing. Since I don't believe it's appropriate to edit the page for my own site, I asked that user to notify the admin about what was happening. Nobody was "sent." If there's a better way for me to deal with false information being posted on the LGF page, let me know and I'll be glad to use that method.

Second, the negative information this person is continuing to insert is defamatory and false. I absolutely dispute his characterizations, and they are based on statements made by a blogger who has a very definite agenda to smear me and my website. This is not the kind of information that should be in Wikipedia, as has already been explained to Notanipokay.

Yes, I did write the quotes above, and I do believe that Notanipokay is flaunting the rules because he's got an agenda of his own. He waited several months until the heat died down, then came back and made the very same badly-sourced edit.

CharlesJohnsonLGF (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Are you editing here?

Whoa! What a long tutorial. I spend three hours reading the first part of getting started! Well, why I have not heard of you for 2 days already. I may not be as active in wikia anymore cause I'll be editing in wikipedia maybe. Can you test me like what you do to HBH? --Zompenguin (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)