User talk:Spicemix

Welcome

Hello, Spicemix! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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

Robert Graves

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

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

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

Reverting edits under discussion on MMY

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

Don't believe every complaint you see without looking into it further. You say I should "consider carefully" Keithbob's accusation of page ownership. I encourage you to look a little more carefully before you assume that charge is accurate. Here's a list of contributors to the MMY biography: [2]. Aside from myself, the top nine editors are all apparently MMY followers. Keithbob alone has made almost twice as many edits to the article as I have, and collectively those eight editors have made 1,785 edits, more than eight times as many edits as I've made. So if your concern is with article ownership, then I think you need to look at the person who made that accusation. I assume you don't think that an article on a religious leader should belong to his followers. As for my own behavior, I discuss my edits and work with other editors in a collegial and civil manner. Enjoy your wikibreak, I look to working with you more in the future, on the MMY and other articles.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your statement Will. The TM arbitration clearly did not group together editors or label them, and I'd suggest we follow that example. Unless editors have labelled themselves as "followers", I'd also suggest that you don't either. Clearly, as the sources indicate using a technique does not in anyway indicate someone is a "follower" of MMY, and have all of these editors on your list said specifically they use this technique, or are you assuming that.

The numbers you cite above are relatively meaningless. As overall edit numbers, they don't indicate the kind of edits; copy edits pile up fast while adding content and sources may add up slowly, nor can ownership be claimed from simply counting edit numbers, nor for that matter can ownership be claimed by the kinds of edits an editor makes. Ownership is a state of mind that allows an editor to think they can control both editors and articles, and that for some reason they have a right to do so. And if you are suggesting that edit numbers indicate some affiliation to the TM organization, a real stretch at best, then you as the editor who seems to have have written more TM related articles than any other other editor on your "list" by extension must be affiliated as well. I'd suggest treating editors as individuals, and that labeling editors hints at bias, while tossing them into a meaningless category and isolating them as a group that you then suggest has biased control in itself appears to be a way of creating ownership for yourself.(olive (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

Edit counts are not the only symptom of ownership, just the most easily accessed. Littleolive oil and other editors have engaged in a range of ownership behaviors but I don't see the benefit in listing them all here. My point is just that sometimes editors accuse other of the very behavior in which they're engaged. I think that's the case with Keithbob, which is why I consider his accusations to be made with unclean hands.

If there is a problem with any specific edits of mine I'd be happy to discuss them on the relevant talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Your comments are completely predictable.(olive (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

As is the agreement among the pro-TM editors. If editors don't wish to be treated as a group they shouldn't act like a group.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we use the TM arbitration as a guide...It didn't group or reprimand editors as a group, and neither should we.(olive (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

The ArbCom laid out a number of principles, including the importance of following NPOV for COI editors, and of verifiably summarizing reliable sources. I look forward to all the editors following those admonitions. I have good faith that we will do so. Even you.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Goldberg

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

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

Andrew Skolnick

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

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

TM Research

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

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

Sentence case and birds

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

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

afd Carmel School Giridih

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited Sole meunière, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dover sole (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) 11:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lyon

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