User talk:SpikeToronto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


@ This user can be reached by email.



[edit] REPLY POLICY
Welcome to SpikeToronto’s talk page.
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the Article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about a particular article). So, you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. Alternatively, you may want to specifically let me know where you’d prefer the reply and I will take that preference into consideration.

[edit] Queen's University Article

Hey, surely theology is a graduate program by your standards? I understand the differentiation between second entry and graduate but theology fees should be listed under graduate tuition. CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Platt (Coronation Street)

I'm glad to have been of assistance. Tracy is innocent! Happy new year. Ground Zero | t 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tracy was as innocent as one can be when one commits a planned and deliberate murder! Funny, for capital murder she would have received a death sentence in the United States. Here in Canada, for first-degree murder she would have received a life sentence without eligibility for parol. It's interesting that for first-degree murder in the United Kingdom she become eligible for parol after just 15 years. Heck, a life sentence for second-degree murder doesn’t have eligibility for parol in Canada for at least 25 years. At first I wondered if the Coronation Street writers had got it right; but then, I remembered seeing “legal advisors” in the closing credits.
Happy New Year to you too! SpikeToronto (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And in response to your question, “Instead of being didactic about it, why didn't you just fix it?!”, because I didn't understand what the sentence was saying. (I've missed several weeks of Corrie, so I didn't know what had happened.) Regards. Ground Zero | t 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As for David’s suicide attempt, it hasn’t been shown yet in Canada. We won’t see it until (annoying) sister Sara’s wedding to hot Jason Grimshaw. I just kind of, sort of, knew the point the wikiauthor was trying to make vis-à-vis the song and edited the sentence — as you rightly suggested — to make it clearer. SpikeToronto (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster-Scots Userbox

WOW! Thanks a billion buddy, this is definitely an improvement - I hadn't noticed the *Americans* part. Also, this is a great userbox, with the Red Hand of Ulster - I'm sure a whole bunch of people will be quick to take it up.GowsiPowsi (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thanks a bunch, buddy! GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Section deletions, nominating

No, you can't nominate a section for deletion. You can, however, just delete it yourself. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. You reached out on the talk page and got no response. You can probably assume that it's okay to just delete the section yourself. That's what I do. So, be bold, and just take it out. In the edit summary, say a summary of the reasons you told me, and then "see talk page". You may not be able to get anyone to talk about it until you do something (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If no one bothers reverting your change, it's good to go! Make sure to add the article to your wacthlist (if its not already_ so you can keep up on it. I don't mind any questions at all, but, in the future, if you want to ask someone else, you can go to either Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), depending on what exactly you need. I hope this help. Let me know if you have any further questions, and have a great day! нмŵוτнτ 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for the help! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to create links to categories

You mentioned that you had to use full http addresses because you couldn't get a category to appear as a link otherwise. The way to do this is to put a : in front of the cat name; for example, [[:Category:Superman]] creates Category:Superman. Pairadox (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I went to the Matt Sanchez discussion and made the category links work. Thanks again! Btw, I like both ideas of either alternate names for articles that capture “person[s] … known in multiple fields of endeavour under different names”, or Category:Pseudonyms of people appearing in gay pornography. — SpikeToronto (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Subheadings

Thanks for your help.CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images on your userpage

Hi there.

I just noticed you have some non-free images on your userpage, specifically this userbox. Non-free images are not allowed to be use don userpages so I suggest you remove it. Thank you! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I’m a little confused. I did not upload the image Image:Democratslogo.svg. It is already located on Wikipedia. Also, it is being used in the article on the Democratic Party. My understanding is that one is free to use images already located on Wikipedia in userboxes. If the image violates policy, the image will be dealt with directly and this will be immediately reflected in the userboxes and articles that had been linking to it. Therefore, when the image is deleted, my userbox will automatically reflect that change. Until then, one should be safe in assuming that the image is usable. But, I did not upload the image and cannot and will not be the one who deletes it.

Do you honestly think that any political party would object to its logo being used in a non-derogatory, non-pejorative manner, especially by a supporter of that party? Moreover, why has there been a wholesale attack on the images of the Democratic Party on Wikipedia lately with no corresponding action against the images of the Republican Party? It begs the question, was there a political motivation behind your comment regarding my userbox? — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I notice that on the page for this image, is the indication that it is acceptable under a non-free/fair use media rationale. However, I also notice the phrase, “Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.” [Emphasis added.] Is this the reason you are saying that I cannot use it for a userbox? You will note the use of the conditional form, may, and not shall. In any event, and if so, are you intending to similarly go after the userbox that uses a Republican Party logo, the use of which “on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement?” By the way, the Republican elephant logo is currently being used by all of these people. I expect that you will be leaving a similar message on each of their UserPages. When might I expect that to happen? — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DemLogo2.png

The logo of the Democratic Party is copyrighted. Even though the image was created by the uploader, it does not make it a free image as it is a derivative of a copyrighted image. It is against U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia policy to use copyrighted images in in userbozes and on user pages, which is the only place the image was being used. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If your motives are not politically motivated, then when can we expect you to remove the image located at Image:Republicanlogo Pn.png? It is equally a copyright violation. By the way, do you honestly think that any political party would ever object to a supporter using their logo? But, that’s not the point. What is the point is, why have you not also deleted the image used by supporters of the Republican Party? — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Republicanlogo Pn.png has been requested for deletion, but that image is on Wikimedia Commons. I am not an admin on the Commons and do not have priveledges to delete the image there. Sorry, I would delete it if I could. -Nv8200p talk 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s just that lately, it seems that every image associated with the Democratic Party is under attack. Given, the election goings on and the often underhanded tactics of neo-cons, I tend towards being suspicious … sorry if I was mistaken. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate entry

A3 requires that the article must consist only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images, which clearly is not met here as there was content other then the see also section and external links. Note that the overall amount of text in the article is irrelevant, as many legitimate articles are very short - see Wikipedia:Stub. If you think the page should be redirected then go ahead and redirect it - nothing's stopping you. The same goes for the other article. Hut 8.5 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Hut 8.5. I will add redirecting Graduate entry to first professional degree to my to-do list. Also, before I make the redirect, I will try to make sure that first professional degree accurately covers the material in this and the other article. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SpikeToronto/userboxes/Democratic Party

You can't have fair use images, such as Image:Democratslogo.svg, on non-article pages. You can see WP:NFC #9. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


First, you will note that that logo is not on my UserPage. Also, the userbox under discussion has no file links listed under it.

Nonetheless, when can I expect you to notify every person currently using the Republican supporter userbox on their UserPages of the same violation? Moreover, when can I expect you to replace its image contents with the non-free image removed logo? The Republican supporter userbox uses the non-free Republican image in its design and appears, therefore to be the same offense. Here is a list of the all the persons who currently have this image on their UserPages. By my count, there are approximately 81 non-article pages that contain the non-free Republican image.

You should have no difficulty informing each of the them of their violation. Please advise when you have done so. Should you not do so, then one can only assume that your motivation, vis-à-vis the Democratic supporter userbox, was political. Just as the laws must be applied equally, so too must the wikirules and wikiregulations. Application of the wikirules and wikiregulations must be done in a nonpartisan manner. One cannot carve out a special place for supporters of that other party. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Yes, I'm a down-in-the-mud democrat hater motivated only by extreme bias against such miscreants that could ever believe in such a failed party. Good grief. Look at the history of the republican box before you cast ridiculous accusations around about my motivations. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


All I see in the history is that, on November 28, 2007, you replaced the non-free fair use image in the Republican supporter userbox with a copyright violating image. To be a free-licence image, its creator actually had to have had a copyright that he could release. Just because someone redraws the first image in MS Paint doesn’t mean one suddenly acquires some unique copyright in the image that one can later release to the wikicommunity. Moreover, one notes that there is a request to delete that logo for the reasons I just mentioned: Redrawing the logo in MS Paint, that is essentially the same, lacks sufficient originality to acquire a unique copyright for its creator. Hammersoft, if you are enforcing copyright, then one can presume you knew, or ought to have known, that the new image had not acquired for its owner any new copyright and should have been treated the same as the Democratic image. Therefore, since the the Republican supporter userbox is using an image that is a copyright violation, instead of having inserted its filename, should not one have inserted the the non-free image removed logo and notified each person on whose UserPage the image appears of their violation? Isn’t that a task you should undertake, just to be consistent? — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • The image is marked as free license. Until such time as the community reaches consensus that it is in fact not a free license image, it is a free license image. Therefore, it complies with policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


I understand your words, but it is your action I find more telling. The Republican supporter userbox was using a non-free fair use image, so, in November you chose to fix that userbox by inserting code for a supposedly free-licence image. Similarly, a Democrat supporter userbox was using a non-free fair use image, however you chose to stifle that userbox by inserting code for the non-free image removed logo. Why were you not consistent in action? Why did you not instead choose to fix the Democrat supporter userbox by inserting code for an available free-licence image, exactly has you had done for the Republican supporter userbox? — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Spike, calm down. If you look at the edit history of User:Libertyville/GOP, you'll see that Hammersoft did exactly the same thing there that he did to the democratic box: he removed the non-free image. Another user, Penubag, [1] was the one who found the free version of the icon to include in the userbox; after that, someone replaced the free version with the non-free version and Hammersoft just reverted to the older version. There is no reason to suspect bias here. I'm sure that if the free version had been available in the democratic userbox, he would have done the same thing. Mangojuicetalk 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


But, it was available. And, Hammersoft did not do the same thing. I am worried that where things like supporter userboxes for political parties are concerned, adminstrators are not averting to the apprehension (i.e., appearance) of bias in their actions. Threy need to tread lightly. I am not accusing Hammersoft of actual bias, I am pointing out the apprehension of bias engendered by correcting one political party’s supporter userbox by pointing it to a free-licence image, while not doing the same to another political party’s supporter userbox, when a free-licence image was also available. I would like to believe that Hammersoft was acting without bias, but simply did not understand the apprehension of bias that such inconsistency of action could engender. This is especially so in an erea in which overly zealous neo-conservatives often act in the pettiest manner against their political opponents. You know the old adage about no topics being more incendiary than politics and religion. That is why I think one must tread lightly and be consistent in dealing with such issues. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • You are harassing me. This will stop, even if you refuse to stop. If you continue to harass me, I will ask you to be blocked. So far, I've only asked others to intercede to stop this. But if you continue, you will leave me no choice. You have gone way over the line and this WILL stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • You're accusing me of bias even if you say I'm not. You're accusing me of treating the Democrat box differently than the Republican box. I don't give a rats ass what box it is. I've removed fair use images from slews of userboxes, and I couldn't care less what political party it comes from. Mangojuice showed you your error, and you STILL insist I did something wrong and threaten me with dispute resolution. There doesn't need to be a special case when it comes to Democrats or any other political party. The case is that it was a fair use image being used outside of an actual article. There's no need to tread lightly. Such usages are removed. Period. This harassment WILL stop. Am I being clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hammersoft, the history clearly shows that when a free-licence image was available for one use boxed, you coded it in. The history for the other userbox showed that, even when a free-licence image was available for the other usebox, you not to code it in. I am not accusing you of bias. I am suggesting that you acted such that one could draw an inference of bias. If the point is too subtle, I can not think of how to make it more clear, except to say calm down and re-read my comments. And as far as threats go, what is “leave me no choice … WILL stop. Am I being clear?” if not threats? — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


No, Spike, the image was not "available" in the sense that it was right there where Hammersoft would have known about it. I don't know how you managed to locate the free image exactly but I can say that it's the kind of task I wouldn't eagerly engage in myself. In any case this has gone on way too far, Hammersoft was only enforcing Wikipedia policy in a way that actually is consistent and reasonable. WP policy is that you assume good faith of other contributors. If you can't let this go, you may have to be blocked. Mangojuicetalk 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


But, MangoJuice, I did not have to look for the free-licence image at all. Another user was using it on the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics page right next to mine, before Hammersoft made his first edit to my userbox. And, I took Hammersoft’s interpretation of the rules to be correct. That’s why, once I understood the non-free fair use image policy and after Hammersoft made his second edit to the userbox, I immediately asked to have the page with my userbox deleted: I didn’t have a free-licence image of my own and the one that was available looked more like a schnauzer than a donkey. And, you are right about assuming the good faith of other contributors/editors. I had forgotten about that even though I have a userbox to that affect on my page. I should do better to remember it more in future. (By the way, and just out of curiosity, does “If you can't let this go …” mean I have to let those threatenting to block me have the last word? I just want to know what is customary.) — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Since you re-instated the fair use image onto the now deleted userbox, your assertion that you took the rules to be correct is false. You knowingly re-inserted fair use imagery onto the userbox, when you KNEW it was wrong to do so. I didn't look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics and you can't prove I did. I did look at Image:Democratslogo.svg and saw it was used on a page outside of the main article namespace. I routinely do that with that logo and with Image:Republicanlogo.svg. Don't believe me? Look at this. Oh and gosh I did it here too. Boy, I must be an evil anti-republican too, huh? Hell, I've even removed Image:Libertarianpartylogofixed.png from User:Mobyrock/Userboxes/Libertarian. Oh and here too! I guess that makes me an evil anti-libertarian too? You're still on about me being biased and that I have some "overly zealous neo-conservative" bias against democrats. You accuse people of being petty for their actions against the Democratic Party? Well look in the mirror at the silly accusations you've made against me which are provably false. Before casting about accusations of bias, get your facts straight. Further, when someone shows you to be blatantly in the wrong, have the courage to admit error and back off instead of continuing the accusation as you are STILL doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hammersoft, please calm down and read what I write more carefully. I said that after your second edit, I took you to be correct re: non-free fair use images. When I re-instated the image after your first edit, it was because I did not understand that a non-free fair use image could only be used on article pages. I had thought userboxes were also covered by the fair-use doctrine. I read afterwards that non-free fair-use images could not be used on UserPages, which is why I asked for speedy deletion after your second edit, as I said above.

Also, I am not saying that you looked at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. I was merely telling MangoJuice that I did not do some complex search for the free-licence image, as (I think) s/he might have been suggesting I had. I found the free-licence dem (schnauzer) image on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics right above my (now deleted) userbox. I did not mean to suggest that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics plays a part in your monitoring correct usage of non-free fair-use images. I had no way of knowing what process you followed.

And, if you re-read above, (a) I was not referring to you with the “over-zealous” comment; (b) I said that I believed you were acting without bias; but, (c) had inadvertently created an appearance of bias since the history showed you correcting one image on one userbox while deleting another on a different userbox, when a free-licence alternative was also available. I did not know, nor could have known, that you were unware of the free-licence dem image. I only wish that it were possible to more clearly explain how one can manifest an appearance of bias even when one, such as yourself, is truly possessed of absolutely zero bias.

Nonetheless, I truly regret all of this. Please, can we let this drop. Let’s just leave each other alone. I understand now: You are right. I am wrong. As you (I now realize) so wisely put it: Enough is enough. — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also understand now, as MangoJuice reminded me, that had I assumed a good faith edit on your part, I would also have assumed that you would have done the same to the Democratic supporter userbox as you did to the Republican supporter userbox. The mistake, which is all mine, was in not assuming a good faith edit on your part. I will, in future, make enquiries. I will not make assumptions of bad faith edits.— SpikeToronto (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Just so you know, the initial reason why I reverted your first edit of the userbox, Hammersoft, was that I thought it was vandalism. Of course, I realize now that most vandals do so anonymously … but when I went to your UserPage and could not determine if you were an administrator or not, I assumed it was vandalism. Of course, and again as MangoJuice pointed out, I should have assumed a good faith edit and not a bad faith edit. I should not assume that only edits by admins are good faith. I should assume that edits by all users are good faith. I should have asked you why fair use doctrine did not permit non-free fair-use images outside of articles. Again, that mistake was all mine. — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Can I archive this entire page now? — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz McDonald OR Liz Tomlin

To memory, it was just the name above the enterance; it would make sense the legal name would co-incide with this also, but I can't recall the full converation or indeed conclusion. I've made a comment there. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That might make a difference, if she took his name, but did not change the name over The Rovers. That would suggest the article might be better named Liz Tomlin. — SpikeToronto (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)