This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: |
I agree with you. I also wanted you to know that I learned alot from you. I think you are an excellent editor and I wish there were more people as good as you. Do not get discouraged. (As you can see) I'm still learning. Glad you're back. Mugginsx ( talk) 09:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on your "Reviewer" status. I know you will make an excellent one! Mugginsx ( talk) 10:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Spike. I was wondering if you would insert the picture of this man - http://www.paulcdoherty.com/ into his Wiki article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C._Doherty ? I haven't the slightest idea of how to do it. I have his permission to use anything from his site and will produce whatever you require to satisfy you of it. Thanks, Mugginsx ( talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi thanks Spike, but have you ever read any of Dan Liethas comics. They are full of pseudoscientific ideas. Most of the time the comics seem to mock creationism on a lower level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.211.48 ( talk) 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there some established consensus that LGBT is the terminology used? Or am I missing something? I understand that the wider gay community identifies themselves as such, but I'm not sure that it's the term that should be used everywhere. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, SpikeToronto, I see you added fact templates to two statements I edited last evening on the article Intelligence. That's an appropriate reminder to source those statements (which were made in slightly different form by other editors before I came along to that section). I have an office jam-full of sources about human intelligence and IQ testing, which I read and log in to the source list as they roll into my office from friendly libraries in my town. You are very welcome to suggest other sources any time you discover some that I haven't listed yet. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
FACT}}
tags more as an object lesson for another editor who had given the editor who added
that statement a {{
Uw-unsourced3}}
warning template, when the addition of {{
Citation needed}}
tags and a friendly talk-page reminder to the other editor of Wikipedia’s prime directive,
WP:V, and the requirement for statements to be anchored by
verifiable
references/
citations, would have sufficed. Boy is that a
run-on sentence! —
Spike
Toronto
17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)I've given this IP a 31h break from editing. Mjroots ( talk) 06:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to have that article you say I have been "vandalising", I was merely trying to point out to everyone the uselessness of and the rudeness of it. Why should it be on wikipedia to cause some people to look down on others, and others are told they are stupider on wikipedia after being looked down on their whole lives. 59.101.134.153 ( talk) 07:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Uw-npa3}}
warning template. I got an edit conflict and discovered that you had already dropped the hammer. You also beat me on reverting the NPA. —
Spike
Toronto
07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)He reverted it. Why not make libelous claims about him/her? It was only going to be on for a short time and none of the people he knows will know. Think about the years of defamation shorter people have had to live through. 59.101.134.153 ( talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia’s rules do not let me, or you, or anyone else vandalize an article just be because one doesn’t like it. And, my anecdotal observances are not scientific/statistical fact. If we think that the wikiarticle is too slanted in one direction, then we do something constructuve about it: we do some literature searchs (start with Google) and better balance the article by adding information to the contrary, albeit accompanied by verifiable references/ citations. Rather than tearing down a wikiarticle, we should work to improve it.
You were in the wrong here, ignoring and flouting the rules, policies, and guidelines. You will get much further if you work within the rules, policies, and guidelines and improve the article by adding to it. So, let’s see how well you can write! Let’s see you improve the article! — Spike Toronto 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Im sorry but i dont want to spend my life becoming a professional article editor on wiki like you but there is pretty much no other information about the fainting game on the internet so if you would like to figure out all the names people call it why and where it came from be my guest but for now just hop off my dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.104.69 ( talk) 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, I am going to revert my reversion of your edit and instead flag the other names section with an {{
Unreferenced section}}
template to give you time to add some citations. I think maybe I should have done that in the first place. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll take you up on that dick ride some other time!
P.S. Be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. — Spike Toronto 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. --
188.23.176.149 (
talk)
17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Once you added the {{
Citation needed}}
templates to the extraordinary statements and accused me of edit warring, I was careful not to revert you again. Instead, I added a {{
dubious}}
tag to the statements and began a discussion on each article’s talk page, inviting you to participate there. I did nothing further. Nonetheless, you chose to continue edit warring with yet another
recent changes patroller.
I was never at any time edit warring with you. You were being asked to comply with Wikipedia’s verifiability policies, policies to whch each and every one of us are subject. You attempted to deflect the request to comply with Wikipedia’s rules by playing the 3RR card in a situation in which it did not apply.
And again, as I stated on the article talk pages, when you add an egregiously extraordinary statement to an article, it is incumbent upon you to anchor it with a verifiable reference/ citation. It does not lie in your mouth to tell those who would remind you of WP:V that it is up to them to come up with a source to support your extraordinary ( original research?) claims. — Spike Toronto 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You get on me for "vandalizing" but, I see your in an editing war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.136.78 ( talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As for your comments here, be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. Oh wait, you did! — Spike Toronto 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Accidental refactor?
|
---|
SpikeToronto, your edit at User talk:75.212.6.96 seems to have refactored my comment there. Was this accidental? Please be careful. -- Bsherr ( talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Four warnings within 67 seconds—somewhat over the top, no? It's not very reasonable to warn without giving them a chance to read it and react. Chzz ► 07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to change the process because you do not want to scare off vandals — as opposed to scaring off new, genuine, good-faith editors — then pick the forum and build a consensus. But, since neither of us using Huggle violated any existing rules or procedures in this instance, which you have clearly asserted that we did do, then we have nothing to change. You want vandals treated with kindness and kid gloves. I am more interested in welcoming genuine, good-faith IP editors to Wikipedia and giving them whatever help they need in learning the ropes. That is much more productive than worrying about coddling a persistent vandal. The logical conclusion of your approach, unless I have misunderstood it, a possibility since I can be rather dense, is that no recent changes patrol should be done with automated tools so that each vandal’s history for the evening can be thoroughly researched and care be taken not to scare them off by attempts to get them to cease and desist with their vandalizing. Man, I hope that I have misunderstood that, that that is not what you are suggesting. (Hey look! I used the word that three times in a row! I wonder if there’s a way to do it four times? Oh, now I’m off track … ) Why don’t you go to the Huggle feedback page and suggest that they increase the grace period, the throttling, from its current setting. There may be general consensus for such a change. I for one think it should be lowered: the sooner a vandal can be escalated to Level 4 and then reported to AIV, the better. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Chazz. If you look at the history
here and
here, you will see an example that better fits your approach. This fellow made a legitimate edit that kept getting reverted as vandalism. Thing is, the only issue was that the reference was not in English. But, it clearly supported the statement that the IP was adding to the article. Nonetheless, as you can see from the IP’s talk page history, he was escalated to Level 4 rapidly. Rather then templating him at all, the
RCPer should have added a |
User:60.51.61.82
|
---|
Original Query:
Response: I know exactly what I was doing, so did the vandal. The level 1 warning wasn't appropriate when they were clearly not interested in civil communication. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that we come at this differently. All I know is that I follow up on every report I file — filed either manually or automatically — with AIV and have never had one rejected. All have resulted in blocks. So I must be doing something right. (There are two exceptions: on two occasions Huggle erroneously filed reports on two editors who had not had sufficient warnings; these I immediately flagged for the AIV Admins as erroneous.) However, I’ve seen a lot of others’ filed reports rejected by the AIV Admins for insufficient warnings; translation: escalated too quickly. Can we wrap this debate up now? I’d like to archive this string. —
Spike
Toronto
04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated Jebus989 ✰ 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SpikeToronto. I removed the section of Chavez's ancestry because he is widely believed to claim tri-racial heritage in order to appeal to all sectors of Venezuelan society. In reality, his ancestry, like that of most Latin Americans, is not clear, though he is most likely of at least predominantly American Indian ancestry. How can I go ahead with this edit? Sorry for the questions, I'm new to Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caloox ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In this case, that citation would take you here. The article discusses at length Chavez’ racial heritage and seems to suggest that he is indeed mestiso. Do you know of other verifiable, reliable sources that say otherwise? If so, the thing to do is not to remove the statement that is there. Rather you add the alternative position provided by other reliable sources. This is how wikiarticles develop balance and a neutral point of view. I do note, however, that you say “predominantly …” also suggesting that Chavez is mixed race, meaning that you would agree with the referenced statement. Finally, and generally, when you want to remove text from an article that is referenced and fits with the article, it is best to open up a conversation with the other editors of the article on that article’s talk page.
As for being new and asking questions, that’s great! We were all new once. So you can ask me questions anytime you want. The only two things I would suggest to you now is to read the Welcome message that I put at the top of your talk page. It provides invaluable information for how to be a good wikieditor. Secondly, whenever you leave a message on an article talk page or on a user’s talk page, be sure to sign it by typing four tildes at the end of your message like this: ~~~~ Thanks! — Spike Toronto 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
nn = non notable, those removed names do not conform to Wikipedia definition of notable. lists of non notable people are not encouraged. 147.200.199.37 ( talk) 07:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! — Spike Toronto 07:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Lady Gaga Alejandro
|
---|
Don't you think it was a little harsh to issue a Level 4 warning for a first offense? -- Confession0791 talk 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
But what was particularly odd was that
Huggle (HG), the automated vandalism tool that I use, did not catch it either. I recalled vividly all of his/her edits and new that s/he had been previously warned, despite HG stating otherwise. Usually, when an editor blanks their page of warnings, the blanking does not affect HG: it knows where to pick up from. Hmmm … —
Spike
Toronto
07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Hey spike Toronto im a jejemon so please leave me alone!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.251.121 ( talk) 07:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
is it not true that the Fed is privately owned and has higher authority than the President himself?and who the fuck are you to change my post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W3stside42 ( talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter that we may know these things to be true, other readers may not. And, such other readers need to be able to verify the information you insert by checking out the verifiable references/ citations you provide. Thanks for the feedback! — Spike Toronto 06:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Emancipation Proclamation Observance
|
---|
I have no idea what is going on. The normal talk page that was there the other day has gone away. The article I spent my valuable time creating which I would have preferred someone else to write from the beginning, is stating vandalism or vandalization. The only reason I came to wikipedia in the first place is to archive this subject matter as history. Not to read pages of items, I have no long term interest in. My first impressions was that you would be the one writing the article, not myself. I struggled through the first few days of writing it and finally got it to a point you thought it was suitable to be published. But, I didn't. After looking at it a day later it was a poorly written article at best. The first two sentences started with "the". I corrected that and the poor flow of content. Now, all that work has been wasted. I have no idea what any of these error messages mean or the items you are outlining is needing correction mean. Then there are all these pages and pages of instruction of what looks like greek to me. Where can I find direct access to someone to speak to about the days I spent on the internet researching the content for this article to have it destroyed with big box warning of what I have no idea? After you approved it, I was sent a message to continue to work on it which I did following your instructions and found more source links to add and then today I have gotten eight or nine error messages of different types that I have no idea what they mean or how to fix them? Is there a main administration person to whom I can speak to? I have been leaving responses to the error messages, to the various people or place from which they come from, to attempt to resolve whatever the issue is, to no avail. Cwestllc ( talk) 05:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank, you...It is better written and addresses some of the issues I had when first reading the approved poorly written version. I did not respond last night because I signed off after posting to your talk page. Thank you, for your time and effort in helping to produce a good finished article. The hardest thing to do is to come into this process with no experience and be expected to already know everything. Haven't quite got the premise of the talk page. Are the items posted to the discussion tab on the article visible on the internet? The talk page does that work like a behind the scenes communication vehicle? Again, thank you. Your approach has helped to make this a more pleasant experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwestllc ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the suggestion - it's pretty much what I saw when I reviewed the UAA pages. I only left the note on the user's talk page because I wanted them to know that somebody found it offensive. I've removed your post on my page because I find that other username so offensive I don't even want it on there. No slight against you. 69.181.249.92 ( talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |