User talk:Sparkie82/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sparkie82, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good faith

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Yes, I tagged by own talk page... I hope there are no rules against slapping your own wrist. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

UnitBot

Hi,

I noticed your interested in UnitBot. I would appreciate assistance in actually creating it, and would particularly appreciate help with the interface to the Wikimedia software. Can you help, or recommend someone who could help? — Hyperdeath(Talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hyperdeath, I don't know anything about the API or creating bots, but I did some poking around and it looks like there has been quite a bit of development during the past couple of years around making the process easier. Several frameworks have been developed (see Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#PHP). If you get stuck, I'm sure one of those guys would be willing to lend a hand. I'd be willing to help test/verify it when it gets going, though. Let me know. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sparkie82. Thanks for your help. I've found "botclasses.php", which hadn't been developed when I first started on UnitBot. It does exactly what I need, namely handling all the communication with the Wikimedia API. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this project. Godspeed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of controversial elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of controversial elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. When you recently edited Wheat and chessboard problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Word problem and Exponents (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited BIOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ROM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal Cliff: Revenue and spending in lead

Please look in Talk:United_States_fiscal_cliff#Revenue_and_spending_in_lead for comments about your recent change to the Fiscal cliff article. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketplace Fairness Act

Please see the talk page on the Marketplace Fairness Act for a query re: reverted edits. Thanks. Erincg (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Many a times you might feel like you are editing well, but other editors may not think so. Do tell us what those edits are you are talking about; and if its reasonable, we can do something about it.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Fiscal cliff. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. FurrySings (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Given your claim (with no evidence that I can see), that your version is the 'consensus version' of the article—you should probably also read this article WP:OWN. FurrySings (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This warning tag was placed here by FurrySings in response to a similar tag I placed on his talk page. I placed the warning on his talk page because he would not respond to requests to discuss his edits on the article's talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Survivor of the End of the Mayan Calendar Barnstar
I am happy that you seem to have survived the End of the Mayan Calendar. I look forward to your future edits until the world ends. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Inspiring Userbox Award

Inspiring Userbox Award
I like your Secret Chiefs userbox.

It has inspired me to attempt to compose a userbox that says something to the effect of: "This editor angrily rejects assertions that he operates in concert evil entities including, but not limited to, the Secret Chiefs, Gozer the Gozerian, the Illuminati, and the Vast right-wing conspiracy".

It's a bit long, I admit, but I'm going to try to make it look good. 

Deicas (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Umask, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Binary and Bits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eye black, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War paint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Shona Holmes claim she had a life-threatening brain tumour...

Your edit summary said no references supported the assertion she ever claimed she had a life-threatening brain tumour. Did you watch the videos of the commercials she appeared in? Doesn't she explicitly describe her condition as a life-threatening brain tumour in those videos? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Set up Archive

I set up an archive for older messages. Click the link at the top of the page to view the older messages. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

please see the article talk page on the Bundy standoff

Hi Sparky82, I support your reasoning for a Cliven Bundy wiki page on the article talk. Are you able to create one? Cheers 66.225.161.37 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lingua franca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hybrid languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Rhode Island gubernatorial election, 2014

Hi, I saw that you've been involved in discussions about including third-party candidates in election infoboxes. We're currently discussing whether or not a candidate should be included in the Talk:Rhode Island gubernatorial election, 2014 page. I think I made a good case on the talk page that the impact the candidate has, and significant media coverage should warrant inclusion to the infobox. RhodeIslandGreen (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Actually, notability is not an issue there, WP:N only applies when deciding whether or not to create an article on a topic, not on whether or not to include something in a list or article. See my most recent edit at Louisiana Senate election article for details. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Riccardo Patrese

Greetings. If you would like to weigh in further at WP:RSN, it would be appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Americans" revert

Sorry, I meant at the revert, I meant to invite you to join in the discussion over the first sentence at Talk, "Main paragraph thingy". Several of us are concerned at accuracy of the sentence as it is now written. Your deletion altogether could be an alternative in the upcoming RfC. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DeflateGate

Someone removed your sentence in the Intro comparing DeflateGate to Ray Rice. I removed another recently added sentence of the Intro, declaring that the Pats had not been found guilty of anything. I stated in my Change Summary that I thought your sentence was satire of the other sentence. If you think a sentence is stupid, remove it, as I have now done; don't illustrate by adding an even stupider one; no one will get it, and someone will have to make the edit you were hinting at. (If, instead, you really think the Intro of an article on DeflateGate needs a segue to Ray Rice, ignore this comment.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Spike-from-NH: I was not aware of that previous sentence and my edit was not intended as satire. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying in the article. However, though your new sentence is clearer, I don't think the Ray Rice incident has anything to do with DeflateGate, not even in setting the stage on which the events were evaluated, and certainly don't think the link is important enough to be in the Intro. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) PS--I have indeed moved it out of the Intro and into Media coverage. 21:23

I started a section on the talk page. Better to discuss it there. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Have done so. You have to learn this one (you were corrected in the Intro and have now done it again in the new section header): "Heal" = make well, cure. "Heel" = back of the shoe, or something just behind the current event. On the heels of. Cheers! Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is my face red!... I've always had trouble with hominids. (I'm pretty good with cinnamons though.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Airspace System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NextGen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for

...the earlier cordial and collegial response regarding the Western culture edits. I am no expert, but am a scholar, and keep an eye on sourced vs unsourced material, per WP:VERIFY. I am often not so warmly welcomed. TY for breaking the mold. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Probability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reliability. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pell Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Striking out other people's comments

Hey, I would like to call to your attention an edit you made to one of my comments. There is a behavioral guideline that says "striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request". So in the future please refrain from altering users' comments in a way that changes the original meaning. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was mistake. I thought that that was how those types of edits are handled because other editors had done that to my talk comments in the past, but now that I think back on those situations, those editors were at fault. I see that you have fixed it. Thanks for the reminder. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please Vote

I invite you to vote here for whether or not Ralph Nader should be included in the info-box, @Sparkie82:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to fractional reserve banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A brief history of the infobox-inclusion discussions on U.S. presidential general election articles

For those with an interest in the history/status of discussions about which candidates get included in the infobox on U.S. presidential general election articles, here is how those discussions started, what has been agreed to (and not agreed to) and generally what has happened so far...

The reason why Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox (or should not be) is because of the consensus reached in 2012, for presidential general elections, that says that (before the election occurs) only candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to be able to achieve 270 electoral votes (not write-ins) are included in the infobox of presidential general election articles. Here is a link to the discussion that established that criterion: [1] (Note that after the election there is a completely different set of criteria for infobox inclusion because actual vote totals are available then) The recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with a bold edit to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. Because that Aug 23 discussion was only a few hours old when the attempt to add Castle was made, and because the bold edit was challenged (reverted) and because other editors at the discussion also opposed the addition of Castle, there was no consensus at that time to add write-ins (although an editor claimed there was consensus a few hours into the discussion). The discussion continued on other threads (because that Aug 23 thread was immediately archived) and the addition of Castle and other write-ins has been proposed/challenged/discussed (and edit-warred about) ever since at discussions on the 2016 presidential general election article, including the thread at [2] and several other threads without reaching a consensus to add them.

Eventually, a RfC was started which is still under discussion at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle with no consensus to change the 2012 criterion or to include write-ins in the infobox, therefore, any edits that try to put write-ins in the infobox should be immediately reverted because it's a challenged edit (until a compromise is worked out at the RfC). (See WP:BRD for an explanation about challenging/reverting edits) Unfortunately, the RfC was ambiguously worded and the first wave of editors to comment on it used the word "keep" instead of "add" when indicating a preference to add write-ins to the infobox.

There was an inappropriate attempt to prematurely close the RfC and that attempt was challenged (reverted). The editor who actually tried to close the RfC was inexperienced and his attempted closing statement incorrectly indicated that there was a "rough consensus", which there was not because half the editors at the RfC opposed adding the write-ins. (Here's a link to an admin noticeboard discussion about the inappropriate close of the RfC [3]). However, immediately after the attempted closing of the RfC, several editors launched several threads nearly simultaneously all claiming there was a "consensus" to add write-ins, which there was not. In coordination with all that, the notice at the top of the talk page that refers to the 2012 consensus, was removed and replaced with one saying that there was a consensus for adding write-ins (there's an editor(s) who continually keeps removing that notice -- that notice, or similar notice about the 2012 consensus has been on the talk page of U.S. presidential articles for a long time)

Once the stage had been set with all those threads, someone requested full protection to the article (which happened), then the incorrectly closed version of the RfC was reinstated and immediately archived so it looked as if there was a closed RfC showing consensus to add write-ins (which there was not because the RfC is still active). Then an edit request was made to add the write-ins [4], and discussion at the edit request referred to that incorrectly closed RfC (and another completely different RfC) along with all those staged threads. An admin (@MSGJ:) came to the talk page to answer the edit request, saw all those staged discussions, and added the write-ins, (presumably) based on that incorrect information.

(Note: All along the way through this process, some editors were making stealth changes to people's comments on the talk page, some on which I am still uncovering, so don't necessarily trust the what's there or in the archieves without verifying the history and seeing exactly what people wrote.)

So that's where we're at, and the RfC continues to attempt to find a compromise as to whether or not (or how) to add write-in candidates to the infobox.

Hope that clears things up. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82's account of what has happened since the initial close of the RfC is accurate, but I want to add more information on the 2012 consensus since I was involved in the discussions then.
In 2012, photos of the Constitution and Justice Parties' candidates were both included in the infobox for the entire period prior to the election, both of whom needed write-in access to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold. The message at the top of the 2012 article's talk page stated that "any candidate with a mathematical chance of winning 270 pledged electoral votes, and thus the election, is included in the infobox... including write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified."
The 2012 thread that Sparkie82 referenced above (Archive 9#Number of candidates in the infobox) was not primarily concerned with whether to count write-in status. The consensus on write-in status was developed in a later discussion (Archive 10#Applying due weight to the top row of the infobox) which determined that we would count write-in access if we could verify that electors had been appointed. This consensus was confirmed in several threads afterwards (in Archive 11: #What to Do with Constitution Party/Virgil Goode, #Regarding Counting Write-In States, #Third candidates, and #Conformity with other election pages). Given these discussions and the practical fact that the verified write-in candidates remained on the article for the entire period prior to the election, it is clear that the 2012 consensus supported including these candidates.
In 2016, a brief discussion that Sparkie82 referred to above confirmed this (Archive 10#For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox), although the discussion was archived by the bot after 7 days. The 2016 RfC in question was thus correct to frame the discussion on the write-in candidates as keep or don't keep. After the RfC was initially closed on 19 October, no one even made an attempt to remove Castle and McMullin between 20 October and 29 October, just before the article was protected.
One final point I want to raise is that at the time the RfC was running, Castle and McMullin were the only two candidates under contention for the infobox, both of whom would have qualified under the 2012 consensus. Just before the initial close, other candidates who would not have been eligible under the 2012 consensus began to be the subject of edit wars, initially De La Fuente and Kotlikoff, and later Hoefling and Maturen. After the page was protected, we reached a tentative compromise to include their names without pictures in the infobox at #Protected edit request on 29 October 2016 (3) based on ideas raised in previous discussions. We are awaiting a proper close of the RfC and myriad discussions on currently on the talk page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Antony-22: Those discussions were not previously mentioned on the talk page and yes, of course they change the discussion and appear to be dispositive as to a consensus to include write-ins in the infobox. With the exception of the first one, none of those can be found with a search for "infobox" in the archives. When were you first aware of those discussions? Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I just modified my first comments in this thread with strike type based on the new information that Antony-22 has just revealed here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've been aware of them since 2012, since I was involved in many of them, and I linked to some of them in May 2016. I assembled them mainly by searching for "write-in". Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you were aware of them, you should have chimed up when we were discussing the issue of consensus for including write-ins in the infobox. Keeping that information to yourself caused a lot of unnecesary discussion and edit-warring. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I thought that it was already sufficient evidence that the talk page consensus box said that verified write-ins counted, and that the verified write-in candidates were actually consistently kept in the article. Tracking down all the original threads and writing it up took significant time, and I didn't expect that it would actually change your mind given the strength of the evidence already presented. If I knew it would have changed your mind, I would have done it earlier. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sparkie82. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Eusociality

Hi, thanks for your contribution to this article. A suitable citation from the likes of Dawkins, Hamilton or such is required, however. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your question to me about why I didn't give editors 3 RR notices

First, there's the obvious reason. They didn't even get to 3RR. You did. Your attempt to get Drmies blocked at WP:ANEW was turned down by two Administrators and was clearly a retaliation. Secondly, the other obvious reason. I saw nothing here or in your archives that suggested you'd ever had a warning. The other two editors quite clearly knew about edit warring. No one gets to over 80,000 edits like Corkiethehornetfan without knowing about it (and I saw discussion in his archives), and Drmies is clearly aware. All of my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee are very well versed in all our sanction policies or we wouldn't have been elected. And he has taken people to 3RR before. Of course, now that you are clear about edit warring, it isn't necessary to warn you before blocking you for it. So I'd advise you to stop at 2RR in the future, 3RR isn't an entitlement. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for that explanation. Since I have your ear, let me ask you a question about WP policies regarding the BRD procedure. If editor "A" makes a bold edit and it is reverted by editor "B" and referred to the talk page for BRD, then editor "A" reinstates the edit without discussing it, what should editor "B" do about that? And more generally, how does one deal with editors who appear to be gaming the system rather than working toward reaching a consensus and improving WP? Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sparkie82. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Because I am incredibly clumsy

So sorry about the ping. Of course you have no idea why I pinged you. It was my utter clumsiness in mixing up two RfC's. My bad! Thanks for all your work on the Senate members page.Horst59 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<b>[[User:Sparkie82|<font color="#333333">Sparkie82</font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">t</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">c</font>]])</b>  : Sparkie82 (t•c)

to

<b>[[User:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #333333">Sparkie82</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">t</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">c</span>]])</b> : Sparkie82 (t•c)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for the heads-up. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

November 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Current members of the United States Senate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to pay more attention to this warning and the one below, and not keep adding the pointless tag on Current members of the United States Senate which doesn't help the reader even slightly. Keep that kind of thing on the talk pages. Jonathunder (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate#RFC:_Which_columns_of_information_should_be_included_in_the_list?

Hi Sparkie82, just to let you know this RFC has been closed. Apologies for the delay, I am slogging my way through the closure backlog. Cheers, fish&karate 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the closing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imperious, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Information icon As a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Liberty Counsel are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I'm specifically referring to your last edit there. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that WP guideline and I certainly did not even come close to violating it. If you posted this to be ironic (threatening someone's comments about free speech), then: ha!, ha!, thanks for the laugh. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ride Him, Cowboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ride 'Em Cowboy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Stitt moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kevin Stitt, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm working on it right now! The article is <1 hr old! It's a stub. Thanks for the help. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Stitt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kevin Stitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As an unelected candidate he doesn't meet WP:NPOL & the timing of the new page points solidly to it being a WP:PROMO campaign advert. Cabayi (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kevin Stitt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Stitt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Stitt (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

hello Sparkie82, I see you were recently involved in this deletion discussion. A similar AfD is now underway at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Campbell_(politician), which may be of interest to you.  JGHowes  talk 20:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sparkie82. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

March 2019

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Supreme Court of the United States. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The section is titled "Criticisms". The absence of financial disclosures has long been a criticism of SCOTUS, most recently by Congress during an budget oversight hearing. Why don't you take a shot a wording it yourself. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers

Is query predatory and thus not a suitable reference. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
  2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
  3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
  4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read and understand this. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkie82/Archive_1&oldid=1144164621"