User talk:SpikeToronto

@This user can be reached by email.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives

The previous discussions are archived as per Wikipedia’s talk archiving policies. Wikipedians may want to survey the archives before starting a new discussion to determine if any issue of interest is dealt with therein. This current Talk page is for starting new discussions not covered in the archive, or for re-visiting older issues. The archives themselves are not to be edited. Thanks! — SpikeToronto

Archived to May 22, 2010.

Glad you're back

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

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

You are now a Reviewer

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

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Courcelles. I will make use of this to help the Wikipedia project when I have more free time. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your "Reviewer" status. I know you will make an excellent one! Mugginsx (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the constant faith you show, but they’re handing them out like candy. I didn’t even ask/apply for it! The criteria are also quite minimal. However, that being said, I think it could be a useful tool for those of us who do vandalism patrol. It could be used in addition to the recent changes list. Although, those of us who Huggle would probably catch all the recent changes made to those pages covered by the reviewing process, made by those editors whose edits are covered by the reviewing process. Hope all’s well. TTFN. — SpikeToronto 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

CSS Class for Citation needed template

Hello, SpikeToronto. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed.
Message added 03:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Thanks so much for the update, but I do not think that I will be participating in the debate. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Images to Wikipedia

Hi Spike. I was wondering if you would insert the picture of this man - http://www.paulcdoherty.com/ into his Wiki article - http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Images cannot be added to Wikipedia unless they meet Wikipedia’s copyright rules. Basically, this means that unless you took the shot yourself — and release the copyright to Wikipedia — or the photographer has made the photo public domain or in some other way licence compatible with Wikipedia, it cannot be used. See the following:

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright
• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

The long and the short of it is, first we have to know that the image is in keeping with WP’s copyright and licencing policies before we can upload it. Hope that helps. — SpikeToronto 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from the author allowing permission to copy the image of himself from his website to this Wiki website about him. Will that be sufficient? I can e-mail the message I received to you at your e-mail site. Mugginsx (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have correspondence from the copyright holder giving you permission, there is a process you can follow. Althought, I cannot for the life of me remember it! (I think it may involve using the OTRS system. Look especially at OTRS Permissions) But first, I have the name of a Wikipedia copyright expert that you can ask: Moonriddengirl. She’s who I go to whenever I have copyright questions. Good luck and let me know how things turn out! — SpikeToronto 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I have reviewed the information you suggested and I think I will let the author and/or his webmaster take over from here. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks anyway Spike. I passed the information on to the author and his people will take over from here. Mugginsx (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dan Lietha

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)

You are undoubtedly 100% correct. However, Wikipedia policies prevent either you or I from labelling them as such ourselves. To do so constitutes original research violating WP:NOR and also makes the edit appear biased violating WP:NPOV. The thing to do is to find a source that calls them pseudo-scientific and then anchor your use of the word with a verifiable reference/citation. — SpikeToronto 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

LGBT

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)

Homosexual is the word used by those groups that would marginalize the gay and lesbian community and deny it its basic civil and human rights. Think of how each time a member of the religious right gets up on his/her soapbox against the GLBT community they hurl the word, homosexual, at gay men and women like thuderbolts from on high. It has all sorts of negative connotations for gay men and women: judgement by others, illegality, perversion, mental illness, etc. Unlike the Q-word — queer — the gay and lesbian community has not found a way to take back homosexual and make it its own. — SpikeToronto 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand that connotation, but I'm not sure that LGBT should be substituted in without discussion in general. It is the most widely understood, utilized term for LGBT individuals outside of the community itself in addition to being the scientific definition. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere before, but I couldn't find it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The only time I see the word homosexual used these days — instead of gay and lesbian, LBGT, GLBT, etc. — is in scientific/medical literature including the CDC. However, even these sources are using the term less and less, including the CDC who has developed — for epidemiological purposes — more descriptive labels (e.g., MSM). — SpikeToronto 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick search reveals it's still used in many article titles here on Wikipedia, see [1]. I'm not opposed to changing the terminology, but in this particular instance it could change the meaning of the sentence. Do transgendered people not have a different legal classification? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the fact templates on the Intelligence article.

Hi, SpikeToronto, I see you added fact templates to two statements I edited last evening on the article Intelligence. That's an appropriate reminder to source those statements (which were made in slightly different form by other editors before I came along to that section). I have an office jam-full of sources about human intelligence and IQ testing, which I read and log in to the source list as they roll into my office from friendly libraries in my town. You are very welcome to suggest other sources any time you discover some that I haven't listed yet. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I added the {{FACT}} tags more as an object lesson for another editor who had given the editor who added that statement a {{Uw-unsourced3}} warning template, when the addition of {{Citation needed}} tags and a friendly talk-page reminder to the other editor of Wikipedia’s prime directive, WP:V, and the requirement for statements to be anchored by verifiable references/citations, would have sufficed. Boy is that a run-on sentence! — SpikeToronto 17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:219.93.197.153

I've given this IP a 31h break from editing. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I’ve been reverting each of his edits. If only he would put as much effort into building the project as he does in tearing it down (i.e., vandalizing it). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, from his contributions it seemed a waste of time going through the uw-van1, 2, 3, 4 process, so I got my trusty banhammer out of the toolbox and gave it a whack! Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Useless article

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)

The article to which you are referring is the wikiarticle, Height and intelligence. If you think that the article is useless, then you can propose that it be deleted. To understand how this process functions, and how to begin the process, you should read WP:DEL. Once you make this proposal other wikieditors will have the opportunity to weigh in on the deletion debate. However, you cannot unilaterally delete an article by blanking its content or replacing it with text unaccompanied by verifiable references/citations. I hope this helps you in this matter. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this issue. — SpikeToronto 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You have been vandalizing[2]. I think you're reading a little too far into the article. It was a study done in real life, and has an entry included in the encyclopedia. If you have a problem with it, rather than trash the page, you should discuss it on the article's talk page. Just remember to maintain civility and you can feel free to put your case forward. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that Ishdarian is directing these comments not at me but to IP 59.101.134.153. — SpikeToronto 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whoops! My bad! Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• — SpikeToronto 07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you beat me to the punch with the {{Uw-npa3}} warning template. I got an edit conflict and discovered that you had already dropped the hammer. You also beat me on reverting the NPA. — SpikeToronto 07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

You really are going about this the wrong way. You sound like you're suffering from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Like I stated before, bring it up on the Height and intelligence talk page to voice your concern about it. Attacking other editors can get you blocked fairly quickly. You might want to look at WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT before making your case. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You know I think the idea that taller people are somehow smarter than shorter people is poppycock too. After all, it doesn’t jibe with my own anecdotal observances that shorter people are actually smarter than taller people!

However, Wikipedia’s rules do not let me, or you, or anyone else vandalize an article just be because one doesn’t like it. And, my anecdotal observances are not scientific/statistical fact. If we think that the wikiarticle is too slanted in one direction, then we do something constructuve about it: we do some literature searchs (start with Google) and better balance the article by adding information to the contrary, albeit accompanied by verifiable references/citations. Rather than tearing down a wikiarticle, we should work to improve it.

You were in the wrong here, ignoring and flouting the rules, policies, and guidelines. You will get much further if you work within the rules, policies, and guidelines and improve the article by adding to it. So, let’s see how well you can write! Let’s see you improve the article! — SpikeToronto 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fainting game

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)

Well, whether or not I had the pleasure of riding on your dick, if you say that the fainting game also has other names, you need to provide verifiable references/citations. Wikipedia’s prime directive is that all articles and all statements contained within them must be verifiable.

In the meantime, I am going to revert my reversion of your edit and instead flag the other names section with an {{Unreferenced section}} template to give you time to add some citations. I think maybe I should have done that in the first place. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll take you up on that dick ride some other time!

P.S. Be careful when you post on someone’s talk page that you do not violate WP:NPA, WP:WQT, and/or WP:CIVIL: You could get yourself blocked for it. — SpikeToronto 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. With these edits, I input, as per WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN, the reference that you came up with. I should warn you, though, that many wikieditors will not consider Urban Dictionary to be a reliable source. You may want to check out WP:RSN in this regard. In the meantime, as much as I may not want to, I’ll hop off now. — SpikeToronto 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your violations among others of WP:RS

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--188.23.176.149 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Get off your high horse.

You get on me for "vandalizing" but, I see your in an editing war?