User talk:SpigotMap

look. this guy is messing up this page because he thinks the Alternative Songs chart is a component to the Hot 100. I disagree. It's a genre chart. Every genre has charts on Billboard.David1287 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the discussion. You obviously are not familiar with it. Do not give me warnings that don't make sense.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been reverting vandalism. Therefore, I feel that, although your edit count is a little low for a rollbacker, you might want to request rollback here. The benefits of rollback are great for users who are involved in fighting vandalism and include access to the vandalism-fighting tool Huggle and increase speed of reverts. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have 25 cats!? You must go through a fortune in food and kitty litter...and furniture.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, for a second, I though you might be one of those "cat ladies".  :) Nevertheless, cats ARE furry little angels, aren't they? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AB died 24-05-2010 not the 25th thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.163 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you reverting the addition of that template to the talk page at List of domain name registrars, but perhaps you could have helped to facilitate things by submitting the page-protection request to the proper place. :-) Happy Editing. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D. And thanks for the sign reminder, probably the first time I forgot to sign in years! SpigotMap 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to the above article, unfortunately the warring editor reverted your edit almost the instant that the block expired. They've dropped their sock puppets however and used their account so maybe something can be done (also, the page is soft-protected in some way or perhaps just for me, so I can't help much). I lack the seniority to prevent a logged-in user from edit-warring so perhaps you can assist here? A check on their history as well as their sock-puppets that I linked in the talk pages will make their agenda pretty clear. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have the "minor edit" checkbox stuck on or something (like your browser caching the input field). The first two minor edits didn't change content, but the other recent ones have. Spacexplosion (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only content change was with the system requirements, which are sourced and not really likely to cause a dispute. SpigotMap 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. I thought it was weird that a seasoned editor would make a mistake like that, but I didn't understand it, and anyone can make mistakes. My understanding of "minor edit" was that the edit changes only format rather than content, but I haven't seen it used much yet. I'll take your word for it. You're right that the changes aren't disputable. Spacexplosion (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a word of advise, the majority of disruptive edits, disputed edits, etc that I've seen, the editors click minor edit. I would just ignore the little m that goes along with them and check all edits within your interest. Don't believe any edits are minor. SpigotMap 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional discussion concerning you and this article at User talk:Xyz231. N419BH 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment over on xyz's talk page. Hopefully he gets the WP:CIVIL point. If not, one of us will have to send him to WP:AIV. N419BH 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying I'm doing vandalism on that page? wow. I'm more amazed every day. Xyz231 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying across all of Wikipedia. I in no way was suggesting you were a vandal. I watchlist a couple thousand pages, not just PlaneShift. SpigotMap 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day and and I will say in advance that I do not think you are a vandal. However, I do have some concerns.

I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V edition last week. I noticed the the Talk page had been falsified. While restoring it, I came upon an extensive sockpuppet nest. The article itself has been disrupted locked down since May, frozen to a P.O.V. edition composed solely by the "Nest". No other editing has been permitted.

Your edits have caused some concern as they seem to be coordinated with those of the sockpuppet nest. If you could shed any light on the situation it would be much appreciated.

• Meatpuppets: Using or recruiting meatpuppets to dominate an article is a serious violation of Wikipedia Policy. It is wrong to recruit to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.

• Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

• Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits.

• "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.

It has been alleged that the Gospel of the Hebrews and talk page had been compromised by sockpuppetry. Specifically, it has been stated that

• Ari89 (talk · contribs · block log)

• Eusebeus (talk · contribs · block log)

• SpigotMap (talk · contribs · block log)

• BlueEyedM (talk · contribs · block log)

• -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

• Clinkophonist (talk · contribs · block log)

• 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log)

• CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log)

• 81.156.93.48 (talk · contribs · block log)

• 81.156.177.176 (talk · contribs · block log)

• The Wife of -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

• -RonTaril- (talk · contribs · block log)

• -Ronny- (talk · contribs · block log)

• -Ronny-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log)

are in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Not only do the edit histories, but more particularly the block logs show the editing to be ad idem.

Most Christians believe that the Gospel of Matthew was the first gospel written and Matthew to be the author. Indeed this is the position of the Catholic Church. Yet many modern scholars have challenged this belief. Scholars such as Parker, Nicholson, Lillie and Edwards have gone so far as to say the Gospel of the Hebrews was the first gospel to be written and that it was composed by Matthew. The sockpuppet nest has a very strong point of view on this issue. The "Nest" completely rejects even the possibility that the Gospel of the Hebrews could be the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and this is the source of all the conflict.

The sockpuppet nest seems to create single purpose puppets such as this and this.

According to WP:NPA, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a violation. Serious sockpuppet accusations require serious evidence. A characteristic of "the nest" is to edit war by making many sockpuppet accusations but with nothing to support the accusations. This, this, this, this, and this are but five examples of the "nest" behavior. Indeed it appears that every editor that has gone against the "nest" P.O.V. has been accused of being a sockpuppet with nothing specific to support the accusation. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were listed in a link (appears to be the same one above?) as a sockpuppet in a discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew as a potential sockpuppet by the user above, this time logged in as Ret.Prof. It's evidently not the case, as with other newer allegations he's made, but I thought you should be aware, if only to ignore. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy64000 has claimed a conspiracy theory against him and has resurrected the terribly written Virgin Birth content fork. I have no idea how they could possibly plan to "unmerge" content from an article that has been there for well over 100 edits, but I guess if you cry hard enough... Anyway, your input would be appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miraculous_births#Merge_of_Virgin_birth_.28mythology.29_into_this_article --Ari (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Ari (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The childish attacks have already begun [1] ;) --Ari (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did the edit i requested wrong, i said put February 15, 2005 as the release date of the second single "Hold You Down". But you put February 15 as the album's release date. the albnum's release date was corret (March 1, 2005). can you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.41 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you gonna fix it?

It's fixed. SpigotMap 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the talk page of the over (lindsay lohan song) article, you said "Done", but when you go to the main article itself, its the same, you didnt do the request. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.41 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your not gonna do the request? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.41 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.41 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this request from Brexx, a banned user. Please do not cooperate with him.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I revert all my edits done for them? The sources looked legit. SpigotMap 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's your choice. Brexx doesn't necessarily provide false information. I'd suggest you double-check more carefully than you usually would, and see if you can find a confirming source. In the end, if you are comfortable that the edits you have already made are sound, you can leave them. Now that you've edited for Brexx once, though, he will try to contact you via e-mail or talk pages, so you should be careful of people asking you to edit for them.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a great editor on WP, especially for the times you have shown up on a range of articles and when the odd editors show up with conspiracy theories and what not. --Ari (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not familiar with the topics at all and I went there because of a third opinion request. Everyone there, including me has been a bit uncivil or not assumed good faith, but the editor was severely and blatantly uncivil. SpigotMap 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SpigotMap, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Xyz231, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is as much an expression of a point of view as an attack; the only specific target is "administrators" and they have thick enough skins to take it. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's referring to editors, not admins. But I'm with you, I'd rather just let him say what the hell he wants to. Tuxide (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned with that AN/I comment about a specific editor, for which he has been rebuked elsewhere, but with the user page that was nominated as an attack page: it contains complaints about "people" and "troublemakers", but those are too broad and unspecific to be considered an attack; it also attacks "administrators" but, as I said, they can take it. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion was unnecessary. The users actions are being addressed at AN/I and if anything the user page will hurt, not help, them. My apologies. SpigotMap 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered to your inquiry about PS screenshots on my talk page. Xyz231 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that person worked for the NHS. Seriously, they have the right to take down the video due to health concerns. I dont want Wikipedia to be sued for someone playing a video that immediately gave them seizures. ----iSquishy (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not being used anymore, but some do exist. After glancing at a few aviation articles, I see that this done differently than in other fields, like cameras and cars. See Ford Model T, Chevrolet Vega, Nikon F2 and Canon F-1, all products that have not been manufactured in some years but still exist. It is not universally done this way for aircraft, see Cessna 150 and Beechcraft Model 18. I have opened a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide --rogerd (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on List of Paramore songs, as it underwent an AfD in 2009 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; this is not my endorsement for keeping the article. Feel free to list it at AfD again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpigotMap. You have new messages at Talk:Auction Hunters.
Message added 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • email) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]