User talk:A8UDI/Archive 2

Archive 1 does not exist

Homosexuality

Thank you for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Great_job.21 What do you like most? Come to help with this topic. :-) --Destinero (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

honestly, i dont have any suggestions but it does look very very well rounded from history and cultural status etc etc etc etc Tdinatale (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

I like that new comment that you added to your User page:

“ Know that these beliefs are my own and will not hinder my editing on pages, even if I strongly disagree with a topic. ”

That perfectly encapsulates my own editing philosophy since I joined Wikipedia. It’s amazing some of the utterly repugnant topics one can edit well, and do so fairly, just by always conducting one’s edits as per your statement above. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it!.... Although, you gotta wonder why reality has a liberal bias.. lol Tdinatale (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lancet

You’ve been sent a PDF copy of The Lancet article for you to assess yourself. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I had thought that perhaps you might not have known that (a) registration was free, and (b) that the journal makes most of its articles freely available after a few months (so does The New England Journal of Medicine, by the way), and so might have been discouraged from trying to get it from The Lancet’s website. — SpikeToronto (talk)

I signed up.. but I still only see the summary paragraph. How do I actually read the 200 page study? lol Tdinatale (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to this link at The Lancet. This takes you to the abstract. If you have signed in, running down the right-hand side, you will find a box entitled, Article Options. If you choose Full Text, you will see the entire article presented in HTML format. If you instead choose PDF, you will be presented with a PDF of the article. Finally, you can choose Printer Friendly Version, which provides an HTML, ready-to-print version of the article. I prefer saving a PDF version, since it obviates the need to track down the article all over again. By the way, did you receive the PDF sent to you? — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. You might want to take a look at this edit. SpikeToronto (talk)

Ah thanks.. where would i get it? Tdinatale (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m confused. IT = VPR (i.e., Vague Pronoun Reference). Where would you get what? The PDF that was sent to you? Check your email @gmail.com. — SpikeToronto (talk)

Ah thanks! It= pdf lol and i appreciate all your info about the cities.. I think I'd Toronto the best then but I still love to travel! Tdinatale (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to use {{done}} sometime. Type: {{subst:Done}} and it gives you this: Y Done. By the way, did you see this erased edit? — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what a heroin addict thinks honestly. I try to be nice, they still argue, their loss. Tdinatale (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As we both said, but in different words, their problem with the chart seems to stem simply from not liking what it says. Period. Full stop. The Lancet is the preeminent British medical journal. It is peer-reviewed. The article, and its accompanying graphs and charts, would have been submitted months before publication — if not as far back as a whole year — so that they could be peer-reviewed and vetted prior to publication. In fact, if you go back to that article, running down the right-hand side, you will find links to comments — not blog comments, but comments from other medical writers, editors, and scholars — regarding the article, its graphs, and its methodology. These comments will also include criticism, if any. You should also find somewhere on that page other articles that have cited it and be able to see how it was received and how it is being put to use. Medical journals have great cross referencing! Finally, the only reason I put in my 2¢ worth was that I was getting tired of that anonymous editor saying over and over how s/he had read The Lancet article and that its chart was being used in the wikiarticle in a way not intended by its creators. It seems to me that, if that is his/her position, and s/he has read the article, and it is freely available to be read by all, and the article is only seven PDF pages long, then s/he should put up or shut up. I was getting pissed at how s/he was treating you without once providing any evidence when such evidence, if it existed, was freely and easily obtainable. <grrr!> I’ll stop messing up your purty talk page with my rant now. — SpikeToronto (talk)

Adding the taxobox

If I'm not mistaken, there's been consensus on paleontological articles to use the extinction taxobar only if it isn't patently obvious you are talking about an extinct species such as early hominins. I've gone ahead and reverted, and now I'm asking the Primate project for some clarity on the subject. Thanks, Auntie E. 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it just looked prettier.Tdinatale (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Chart

I noticed the new flowchart on your Talk page and decided to commandeer it for a dispute resolution reminder guide that I keep for my own use. It certainly pretties it up! Plus, it’s kind of useful. Thanks! …always learnin’ something … :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

lol glad u like it.

Cannabis smoking

With this edit, I put the word tobacco back in front of cigarettes and explained why in the edit summary. You can take it back out if, after reading the explanation, you still think it unnecessary. I’ll defer to you on that decision. On another matter, I notice your edit summaries are really, really good. I wish everyone did as well, especially the anons. Have a nice weekend! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured that, but the term cigarette is almost never used for marijuana. A joint is the term for marijuana wrapped in rolling papers, the equivalent of a cigarette, while a blunt would be the equivalent of a cigar or cigarillo , cannabis wrapped in tobacco. Tdinatale (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m well aware of the terms blunt, joint, even spliff. I’m part of the rock generation, remember! :) But, since the section of the article was dealing with lung cancer research, I thought that it should use the same wording as is used by the researchers. They would say either marijuana cigarette or tobacco cigarette, as having a spouse whose a medonc has taught me. I knew where you were coming from, though, and figured that using the common vernacular (is that syntactical redundance?!) was the animus of the change. To be honest, I’m not much interested in the MJ topic. I came at the article to fix its improperly entered references, and then did some copy edits to the section because, while I am not much interested in the MJ topic, I am quite interested in the Lung CA topic. Hope all’s well! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha my mom is too. I try explaining all about Cannabis to her and she doesnt like it.. but is like "the 70s were sooo much more liberal than today" and I was like no wayyyy...... I am interested in the plant's effects and the evolutionary significance in terms of not just the why it produces THC but more how it came to be that way. Tdinatale (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in many ways the Seventies were significantly more liberal than today. There are only a few areas where, after almost 30 years of American Christofascism, we are more liberal today than the Seventies. I should point out that I am not quite old enough to be considered a child of the Seventies. But, I do have older cousins of that pursuasion … — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dala11a

You are playing right to Dala11a. He is a POV pusher of the worst shade. Have a look at this talk page. Have a look at the history of this article, and most of the other drug articles. He had a friend that OD'd at some point, so now he spends his free time trying to prove to WP that drugs are evil. All illegal drugs that is. Think about it: Why should we care what a tremendously flawed organization like the FDA thinks in a section devoted to science??? There's a separate section devoted to legality. If there must be a mention of what the FDA thinks, it is in the public policy (legality) section. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First, to have a separate paragraph that briefly describes the MEDICAL legality in the MEDICAL use section does not constitute a POV. Second of all, I don't care about your opinion on the FDA -- there is no reason to not have its stance in that paragraph. I put it at the bottom, because youre right, it doesnt need to be at the top, which would be a POV. Tdinatale (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

perplexing edit

Hi, I don't understand this edit. The material you re-added is basically spam, and the very controversial concept of "marijuana addiction" can't be supported by a link to a rehab center web page. Also I don't understand your edit summary, Need more refs in order to have this in here. Is it possible that you accidentally reverted the wrong edit? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's a mistake. I meant to just undo the Argentina et al. medical cannabis legality, not the most commonly abused substance edit. sorry Tdinatale (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation complete. Tdinatale (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I missed the other part of the edit, so I was just confused. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Fact Template

Hi Tom. When you come across an edit that requires a verifiable reference/citation, it is good Wikipedia practice not to simply delete it. Rather, one is supposed to use one of the templates found at {{Fact}}; this is why they exist. {{Fact}} is the most common one to use. But, you will note in the {{Fact}} documentation a whole host of others that you can use, depending on the circumstances. For instance, while {{Fact}} is used for single sentences requiring a verifiable reference/citation, {{Reference necessary}} is used when multiple, contiguous sentences require verifiable references/citations. Then, after a decent interval, if either you or another wikieditor have/has not been able to rectify the problem, you are justified in removing the material. The only exception to this is when this occurs in a biography of a living person, especially when such a statement may be libelous. In which case, WP:GRAPEVINE policies and guidelines at WP:BLP take precedence over the foregoing. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This came about because I was looking at a questionable addition by an anon editor, was just about to place an appropriate template around it when, <poof!>, it disappeared! Hence this little note. Otherwise, you are blowing me away with how quickly you’ve taken to editing. It’s astounding! You’ve learned in no time what took me ages to learn, and you’ve really taken WP:BOLD to heart! Show off!! :) — SpikeToronto (talk)

I forgot to mention that when you add a {{Fact}} template to a line in a wikiaritcle, you might want to consider adding an appropriate warning template, from those found here and here, to the talk page of the editor who made the insertion, when you are 100% certain who did it. In this instance, if you go to the anon’s Talk page, you will find where I input {{uw-unsourced1}}. If s/he does it again, within reasonable time and on this or another article, it gets elevated to {{uw-unsourced2}}, and so on through {{uw-unsourced3}}, and ultimately {{uw-unsourced4}}. — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same as cn (with the {{}})? Tdinatale (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one. I use {{FACT}} because it’s easier to remember and easier for other editors to understand when looking at the diff screen from a page history. Be sure to also familiarize yourself with the other verifiable reference/citation templates at Template:Fact#See also.

By the way, to type cn (or any other template name) with the {{}}, and not have the template actually load to the page, do the following: Use Template:TL such that {{tl|example}} generates {{example}}. In other instances, and along those same lines (i.e., typing characters without having them do anything), you might want to look at Category:Typing-aid templates. I’m not too familiar with them. But, knowing you, you’ll have them understood and internalized in a nanosecond, you little brainy bugger you! :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. “Bugger” is a term of endearment in CanE! I don’t think it has any meaning in AmE and means something entirely different in BrE. So, it wasn’t an insult! SpikeToronto (talk)

I figured that. I reverted that because it was an obvious edit and doesn't contribute to the actual article. But anyways, I do have a question. On my watchlist, what does all the (+345) or (-11,432) in green or red mean? Tdinatale (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I used to wonder that too, and then one day it struck me: It’s an indication of how much, in bytes, the edit shown in your watchlist for a given article has either increased (green) or decreased (red). Note that the watchlist for a given account is very private: Not even an admin can figure out what is on your unique watchlist. You can read more about Watchlists, their interpretation, etc., at WP:Watchlist. Btw, how’s school? — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

that makes sense, thanks. school is fine, although in class i seem to get some strange anxiety. <<tommy>> (talk)

Cannabis (drug)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Cannabis (drug): You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Hi Tom! I think it’s great that you reverted that edit to Cannabis (drug) that perhaps the other editor, here’s my gritted-teeth good-faith edit assumption, thought was more politically correct. But, it’s also useful for Wikipedia as whole to also warn these editors by reference to an appropriate warning template as I did for this particular editor on his/her talk page. The appropriate template for him/her would have been {{Uw-delete1}}, but because s/he was so deliberate about the edit (it took him/her three tries!), I started him/her at a level 2 warning, which is a level 1 warning minus the polite welcome that I gave him/her at the top of the talk page. Personally, and as a ranting aside, I think that all edits should only be permitted to be made by users with logged in accounts; otherwise, WP will never grow to maturity … but, now I am just venting. Good work! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any questions about using these warning templates, I would only be too glad to help you! — SpikeToronto (talk)

I dont understand any of that.. =/ The whole template things on wikipedia are still confusing.. but If I'm correct they're basically {{formula}} like that and it comes out as an image or message, right? <tommy> (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, every WP:UTM template, when you go to its page, shows you at the top of the page how the template will look when you use it. Also on any given template’s page is documentation telling when and how to use the template along with syntax examples. So, if you go to the {{Uw-warn}} template that I placed here, or the {{Summary}} template that you received earlier, you will see examples of what I am talking about. But, because all templates have to be substituted (see WP:SUBST and {{Uw-subst}} for what that means), when you look at a page that has received one, you cannot always see what it looked like in its raw form. But, they are all listed at WP:UTM. Gee, I know it seems daunting. I wish I could explain it better … Just remember, when you revert vandalism, those perpetrating it should be warned. As those warnings escalate, the perps get blocked. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ohhhh i see! Thank you! I thought those were only for admins though?? <tommy> (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can almost see the lightbulb going on over that beaming, cute face! The warning templates are for the use of all logged-in users. Once they escalate to level 4 (e.g., {{Uw-vandalism4}} or {{Uw-vandalism4im}}), then only a bot or an admin can actually block the user. The only problem is that some of the people who receive them delete them from their talk pages. The result is that if you and I don’t check their history we start them back at a level 1 warning (e.g., {{Uw-vandalism1}}) or a level 2 warning (e.g., {{Uw-vandalism2}}) when, given the time frame, they may actually be due for a higher level warning. Additionally, the bots won’t know to institute a block unless the latest warning template visible on the page is at a level 4. Anyway, if you ever want to apply one to a talk page and are not sure which one from WP:UTM to use, hit me up for some help! Oh, and don’t forget to sign the templates thusly: {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article|Additional text}} ~~~~ with four tildes after the template’s closing squiggly brackets }}. — SpikeToronto (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I can see from this edit that you’ve almost got the hang of it, but not quite. With that particular template, the syntax that you want to focus on is this one:

{{subst:uw-removevandalism|Article}} ~~~~

Wherein you replace the word Article with the actual, precise article name (e.g., Effects of cannabis). That way, the article name is automatically generated by the substituted template along with a proper link to its history. Thus, you would enter it as:

{{subst:uw-removevandalism|Effects of cannabis}} ~~~~

Alternatively, if you have something extra you want to say, then you want to focus on this syntax:

{{subst:uw-removevandalism|Article|Additional text}} ~~~~

Wherein you replace the word Article with the actual, precise article name (e.g., Effects of cannabis). And, you replace the words, Additional text, with anything additional that you want to add. That is where you would provide your words of wisdom. :) Good job Tommy! — Spike (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I’m not picking on you! I cannot believe how fast you have picked this all up! You certainly have me beat by a mile! — Spike (talk)

Same-sex marriage

Same-Sex Marriage

Tommy, look at Ragazz's user page: He wants the opposition to same-sex marriage in the lede because he opposes the use of the word marriage for gay men and women. He clearly shows through his userboxes that he will never support the use of the word marriage by gay men and women: He can only support civil unions. This is important because it means that he will always work to undermine this article and will never accept a neutral lede that omits the oppostion. Thus, the semantic war against him can never be won by you. The wikiarticle is his battleground in the fight against gay marriage. This is why I made the, perhaps too subtle, point about how the opposition seek to appropriate the term marriage equality as a way of saying that granting it makes their marriages unequal (see my comment on the article’s discussion page). I do not believe the foregoing constitutes a personal attack: I am only stating information which the editor in question clearly indicates on his user page. See why I hate every aspect of the topic, Same-Sex Marriage?! The U.S. will never be able to achieve marriage equality in the manner in which it was achieved in Canada. It is systemically impossible.<grrr> This is why these days I find myself more interested in the way in which law enforcement, prosecutors, and the judicial systems in Canada and the U.S. deal — or rather, don’t deal — with the lynchings of gay men. <grrr> — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I also believe his behaviour of late is verging on lawyering to win his semantic points. For instance, essays, like WP:TIGER to which he refers, are not official Wikipedia rules/guidelines that one has to follow. One may elect not to. — SpikeToronto (talk) Ya I know. He can believe whatever he wants, but on wikipedia, it'll be neutral. <tommy> (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The problem is that as long as he can prevent consensus, he can prevent the article from being well-written. To be honest, an article on SSM can never be well-written on WP b/c the religious right will never permit it. Perhaps the gay left should be sure to add sections to the wikiarticle on traditional marriage about how the advocates of TM trample the equal rights of a significant minority of Americans struggling for marriage equality, with verifiable references/citations, of course. By this I mean quid pro quo and not tit for tat. — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC) He wants to dictate the terms of the article so that it satisfies his opposition to same-sex marriage. Then, he gets two articles on WP against it: the traditional marriage article and the same-sex marriage article. I got to say, he’s getting under my skin … — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) “Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Just remember me when the full import of this phrase hits you! :) — Spike (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) A certain wikieditor is a frequent guest in the SSM section of the wikiarticle on (traditional) marriage. Check out the history starting here, and continue beyond Linestarz’s attempt to fix it. This certain editor also appears to misuse edit summaries to make it appear that s/he is removing bias when s/he is actually adding bias. When the bias gets removed, s/he puts it back in while claiming to be doing the opposite. Or, at least that’s how I read it. There’s nothing like letting an opponent of a movement control its flow of information! Note on the SSM talk page MishMich’s comment wherein s/he pointed out that the editor in question’s idea of balance is two points that support SSM and four points against it! I thought that hit the nail on the head! Look how this certain editor twists SSM to say that SSM leads to polygamy, yet if advocates of SSM don’t want marriage rights to be extended to polygamists, then we’re not truly for marriage equality. Why do you think he’s pushing so hard for a polygamy section? Because it makes SSM advocates look bad. You cannot permit opponents of SSM to control the article. Better it should be deleted from WP in its entirety than be written as a thinly veiled treatise supporting traditional marriage. I really feel for you, Tom, fighting this fight. You are a paragon of patience! I could learn from you. I’m done venting. You can give me a swift kick in the ass later … — Spike (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage arguments

Tommy, it is a pleasure working with you and I admire your impartiality considering that the issue seems to be very close to your heart. Editing the page has been a learning experience and I'm glad to have had the opportunity thus far. It honestly seems that even though the issue of polygamy has been exploited in the debate as a form of inflamatory propaganda, its mention is widespread enough to warrant inclusion into the article. Please don't block attempts for its addition based on your distaste for the argument. In addition, please don't argue against it's inclusion based on your conclusion that the argument is false, as we are solely trying to document the controversy and not the truth of the views described.Ragazz (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

k but don't push for something either unless they're realistic either. Many people don't believe in evolution but that's not in the evolution article because unfortunately for them that's just reality. Anyway, while I assume you have good faith, based on your support for civil unions, I tend to get the feeling that you are against actual marriage equality because it might just lead to the polygamy arguments you keep mentioning. I'm not getting personal but thats the vibe i consistently get. <tommy> (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice suggestion about the evolution article! j/k. I think in an article about a controversial topic we should include arguements on both sides of an issue, not based on their silliness/validity, but on their appearance in the debate.

Please understand that gay marriage is a relatively new concept for many of us. I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am actually undecided on whether legally using the label "marriage" for gay marriages is a good idea. I am currently leaning towards Marriage privatization, although I'm leary of anything with "privatization" in it's name. I can see why everyone might think that I'm some prop 8 troll or something, but I'm not. I was just reading about the topic on here and felt that there were some issues with the article and wanted to contribute.Ragazz (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that's awesome! Im just figuring anyone from the bay area would be for gay marriage :P PS whats it like over there? <tommy> (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

good weed, good mexican foodRagazz (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL i'd figure, it's almost de facto legal there. I think I wanna move to the bay area when I'm older. <tommy> (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lotsa fun over there :/ But of course your opinion is always welcome. Hey, I see you've been editting on the pot pages. Any info about the various legalization proposals you can point me too? I heard there could be more than one initiative on the ballot.Ragazz (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The most popular one is AB 390 which would legalize for those 21 or older in California. There are a few in federal congress... but they dont legalize pot, they just analyze why we, in the US, have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We all know pot is part of the reason but yeah. :) Tommy talk 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Background Color & Signature

Background Color & Signature

Hi Tom. Did you see this edit for this topic? I thought you had because you, quite correctly once you had read it, removed the {{Talkback}} template, but you didn’t answer a question there that I asked there, so I thought perhaps you didn’t know there was more. Hope all's well and stop your edit warring and attacking others! :) (Just joking. I have no idea what the above thread is about. It’s none of my beeswax). — Spike (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) oh those conservatives... I make arguments they don't like hearing and of course, I get a warning! Hmp... figures. You'd think I'd know better than to argue with anyone who'd dare to question them. Tom (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Well, Tommy, in all fairness, the administrator that gave you the warning, gave the same warning to all three of the persons named in his/her warning above, not just to you. Also, I kind of reckoned that it wouldn’t be too long before you got a warning about your posts to talk pages: Your passion and commitment sometimes cause you to verge on what may be construed as personal attacks and WP has a rule about no personal attacks. Also, when an edit war warning or a 3RR warning comes from an admin, one had better take it seriously because the next step is they give you a time-out by blocking your a** for a few hours, or even a few days. Often, it is the warring editors that get blocked before an edit block is placed on the wikiarticle in question. That’s why I don’t participate in articles anymore that might inflame my passions (e.g., homosexuality, same-sex marriage, conversion therapy, certain environmental matters, etc.). Just remember to always assume good faith, even if you have to choke on it, and always come up with a way to make your comments on talk pages be about another editor’s edits and not the other editor him/herself. WP:AGF is difficult for me at the best of times, especially when confronted by moronic edits, but it is the primary rule by which we are admitted to this playground. There, there now … be a good boy and run along and play! :) — Spike (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's why I should have known... oh well it doesn't bother me too much it's a dying breed.. yeah I know when it comes from an admin I back off. bla Tom (talk) And I know what you meant when you double negative.. but it overall was too negative :P umm as far as the signature... I tried a couple and it didnt work =/ ... i copied and pasted the one you gave me but all I got was this crazy code and i started getting annoyed so i gave up :P Tom (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Hey Tom. If you go to your sandbox, I put it in for you. It works now, so just copy it, try different colors, etc. You know, I’m really bad at this, but what are the emoticons :P and =/ Thanks! — Spike (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) new signature! tommytalk 21:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) although the talk link doesn't work :S I notice that the talk link works in your sandbox, though. There is a slight difference between the signature here and the one there: The one in the sandbox has a space that is not present in the signature here. Sandbox [[User:Tdinatale|<font color="#000080">'''tommy'''</font>]] [[User talk:Tdinatale|<font color="#808080">'''talk'''</font>]] Here [[User:Tdinatale|<font color="#000080">'''tommy'''</font>]][[User talk:Tdinatale|<font color="#808080">'''talk'''</font>]] I suggest that on your Preferences page, trying inputing the one from your sandbox with the space. Then try it with Sign my name exactly as shown ticked and then unticked and see if either works. — Spike (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Okay. I figured it out. 1. Highlight and copy this string: [[User:Tdinatale|<font color="#000080">'''tommy'''</font>]] [[User talk:Tdinatale|<font color="#808080">'''talk'''</font>]] Highlight and copy it from here, do not go into edit mode. You do not want to pick up extraneous codes like <nowiki></nowiki> 2. Then, go to my preferences from the top of any WP screen. 3. Go to the User profile tab. 4. Go to the Signature section. 5. Paste the copied string into the box labelled, Signature. 6. Y Place a tick mark on the box labelled, Sign my name exactly as shown. 7. Scroll to the very bottom of the screen and click the Save button. From now on, wherever you put four tildes, it will appear. And, the talk link works too. I tried it, with your signature design, in my sandbox and it worked. Good luck! — Spike (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I think the design of your sig is really, really great. It’s clean and elegant. Now, would you do one for me?! Please??!! — Spike (talk) P.P.S. After doing all the above, I found this: WP:CUSTOMSIG. It might also be useful. — Spike (talk) I see you already got it to work. If you’d said so here, I wouldn’t have wasted my time. Btw, the warning template should have been a Level 2 and not a Level 3, since the template from yesterday was only a Level 1. Escalated too soon. Escalating too quickly can get you a {{Uw-tempabuse1}} warning. — Spike (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks spike!!!!!! Yeah I basically got that too. I only gave him a level 3 warning because I saw he has a history of vandalizing so I figured a level 2 warning isn't going to do it for him. Also, as for my talk link ..... it works when I preview it on my preferences plane.... but not when I use it here!! wtffffff tommy talk 12:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC) What kinda font/color would you like? tommy talk 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC) The emoticons by the way... :P denotes a tongue/"silly"...  :) smiley ...  :/ unsure/worry... :S confused ... :o) clown... :D super happy... XD Really really happy!! :P :D tommy talk 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Okay. I’ve tested it in six areas and the talk link works in five out of the six: It does not work on your own talk page. Check out the tommy sig in each of the following: Spike’s sandbox Spike’s talk page. You have to open up “Background Color” and scroll to the bottom of that section. Tommy’s sandbox One article talk page. Scroll to the bottom. Here, on Tommy’s talk page. You can see it immediately above. The talk link does not work on your own talk page, it seems. It even works in article space, but one never signs in article space. I have not tried it on user pages. You can try it on your own and/or on mine, if you want. As for me, I want red and black. I have a picture to send you with the color combos, so check your e-mails! Ciao for now. — Spike (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. On the warning levels, vandalism history for anons really only counts if its immediate history. When it goes to WP:AIV, a blocking admin will take longer term history into account in assessing the degree of block to place on the IP address. Your job is to start at Level 1, and add one Level each time thereafter. Take a look here: WP:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction#Edits_from_IP_addresses. Having said all this, there is a legitimate way to escalate: Look at the anon’s contribs; chances are they’ve vandalised other articles in the past 48 hours. Check those out, if they’ve not been reverted, do so. If warnings were not placed on the anon’s page, add them! You can add a warning for each instance. When you hit Level 4 or 4im (which you can sometimes achieve in just a few minutes, thanks to their contribs!), go to WP:AIV, follow the format, and report their a*ss! The anon’ll be blocked anon! (Shakespearean pun!) — Spike (talk)

Thanks

Hi Tom, thanks for the message. I still don't quite understand how to sign my posts... sorry. Do I have to go into the discussion/ talk page of the article and create a new message/ post detailing what I have done? Thanks for your help! I am loving being involved with Wikipedia, it is an awesome resource and I hope I can help. --bessmorris 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When you edit articles (especially controversial ones) other editors may disagree with you (but by no means always and this strongly depends on what article). In order to effectively contribute to wikipedia on these articles, click the Discussion tab (next to page) and discuss anything that may be bothering you with that article. Under a new heading type your message And then to sign your posts all you need to do is type four ~ ...just type four of them in a row And your name and time will automatically be placed so other editors may talk to you too. Also check out your preferences- you may change the skin (I like the Vector one it looks nice :D) and you may change your signature to your real name if you'd like. The talk page is more for solving problems or suggesting improvments ideally. An edit summary is highly recommended when editing pages though... unless you're adding periods or whatever then who cares. lol On talk pages, an edit summary isn't needed... why? because you are talking! ;p You don't need to summarize what you're already saying :P.

Wikipedia has some strange HTML idk computer systems? haha I just learn by looking at articles- the tutorial is a good place to start though!; a useful one to know is [[ ]] which links anything to the corresponding wikipedia article (if it exists; otherwise it'll appear red). Example: man OR you can change the hyperlink by using the | (above enter) to make the following formula: (two opening brackets) Wikipedia Article name|Appeared text Here (2 closing brackets) ... This is used to link an article in which the articles name would look strange in a sentence. So, if I want to have text (for example) say "yummy" but link to "chocolate" it'd look like this: yummy but it would be like this when editing: (two brackets) chocolate|yummy (two brackets)

Another really useful thing to know is how to Italicize, bold, Italicize & bold, underline and strikethrough words and it's really easy! However, since (well the beta is coming out now so you may not need this-- but it's still useful to know) there is no button unlike on MS Word, it all has to be typed out manually. **Note: you may practice all these by playing in the WP:SANDBOX

• To Italicize simply type 2 apostrophes around the word/sentence/phrase/code anything. Note: quotation marks " " will appear the same.
• To bold words, simply type 3 apostrophes around the word/sentence.
• To Italicize and bold words, type 5 around the word/sentence.

• To underline type "u" but without the quotation marks and < > instead, around the word/sentence.
• To strikethrough type "s" but without the quotation marks and < > instead, around the word/sentence/phrase.

Thats a lot but it'll get you started here in no time! Also, previewing your work is a good habit to get into! you mess up a code and then you'll just have to WP:undo it all! And don't be sorry! This stuff is weird... but fun :O) tommy talk 12:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, whenever you use pointy brackets codes, <>, the turn-off one should have a slash in it:

• <s></s>
• <u></u>
• <blockquote></blockquote>

— Spike (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom Thanks again, much clearer. See you around!bessmorris 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Pages

Hey Tom. You know, instead of deleting sections from your talkpage, you might want to try archiving them instead. It can even be set up to happen automatically on a so-many-days-dead schedule that you set! — Spike (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. How’s my new sig coming? :) — Spike (talk)

Yeah, I know I am just too lazy to try to figure out how it all works :O :P ... and your signature... what colors and font would you like? tommy talk 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can set up the archiving to occur automatically for you, if you’d like. Just tell me how many dead days you want? 15? 5? As for signature, you asked me about colors yesterday and I said I would send color combo by e-mail, which I did. As for font, surprise me! You’re the creative one! :) — Spike (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a bit more about what you asked me, what do you think of using a font that has serifs? Although, your sans serif font looks so elegant … clean lines and all … Also, do you think you could make it be “SpikeToronto” … for now at any rate? Gee, I still cannot get over how great your new signature looks! It’s one of the best I’ve seen! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

lol! um well I'd say, open word and just fool around with what you'd like... then gimme specks and I'll TRY to get it just like what you had. tommy talk 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and did it myself. I cannot figure out how to change the typeface, the font to something with serifs though, like Times Roman or Georgia. —  SpikeToronto  05:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard usage

I double checked before making that edit, and the right way to refer to islands in English is to use "of," as in "the island of Malta" or "the island of Lesbos." If only the name is used than this does not apply, as in " am flying to Malta."

As for old Sappho, it may sound better to say "women" but the fact is that the tradition treats her as analogous to Socrates, and according to this tradition, just as Socrates did not love men but boys, Sappho did not love women but girls. Haiduc (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I understand what you're saying. I originally removed of because if you read the entire sentence it sounds strange. See what I'm saying? And as far as girls, I don't doubt that, but younger women just sounds better than girls. "Girl" (like boy) refers to prepubescence and back then, most relationships were pederastic, not pedophilic. To say she liked girls sounds like she liked 10 year olds and usually it was more like mid-teens. tommy talk 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. As for the other thing, it is a subjective thing, not worth bothering with. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I didn't leave an edit summary because 1) I was ignorant of them before your message and 2) they were all reversed. Jbird669 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)jbird669

I'm more concerned about you confusing your ideas with science and fact (and verifiability) when editing articles. You should know that 1. We know global warming has happened in the past 40 years; 2. The debate is over 1. how much is caused by humans (although it's believed that humans have had a large impact on its occurance) vs the sun 2. how long this will continue and how rapidly and 3. its impact on the earth's ecosystems (which is already being affected by the way; example, coral reefs are dying at a faster rate now than ever before, for example). tommy talk 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this past summer in the Northeast (Well, PA anyway) we had 1 week of 90+ degree weather and there are scientists with evidence that say we will enter a period of up to 10 years where a cooling trend will occur. This is in stark contrast to some scientist groups (some of which are psychologists, by the way) saying that if we don't have sweeping global warming and energy reform legislation, we will all be dead from GW in 10 years. That's what I was trying to get across. But this is handled in another topic, so I will deal with it there. Jbird669 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)jbird669

Oh No no no no no, do NOT confuse weather with climate. BIG difference. And the death in 10 years is an exaggeration, but if we don't do something SOON, millions will die at some point, I can promise you that. Why? Partially we will run out of spring water, as a result of less melting snow from mountains and an ever increasing population explosion. Mount Kilimanjaro for example, has had a drastic decrease in snow over the past 30 years. Antarctica has had major chunks drop off much bigger than ever before noticed. Polar bears are dying from a lack of food.. Greenland has longer melting seasons. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has continually increased since at least 1969. I can keep going... But to be honest, the population spike and its drastic increase is what really scares me. And as far as many being psychologists... what does that have to do with anything? That they wanna scare you? lol that's laughable, all you need to do is look at the damn graph! tommy talk 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked psychologists weren't qualified to study (or talk with authority about) weather or climate. Jbird669 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think any psychologist studies *meteorology either. I don't know where you got that. tommy talk 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find the article for you. But one of the leading groups coming out for GW legislation is a psychologist organization.Jbird669 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2009 (UTTC)

I found a page that mentions the above article I referred to, but no link to the article itself. But I found another article that has a LOT of graphs. Check it out if you'd like. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf Jbird669 (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll read it when I have more time, but just by glancing through it, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that as the population grows, deforestation increases, meaning less trees. Global warming in the past 40 years is occurring at a VERY rapid rate; the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) has concluded that global warming caused by human activity is "very likely" (90% probability). tommy talk

Interesting Article

This article might interest you. It’s from The New York Times Magazine’s recent School Issue. —  SpikeToronto  23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Like it! Wow oklahoma.... who knew? tommy talk 03:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Sexual orientation change efforts

Hello Tdinatale, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sexual orientation change efforts has been removed. It was removed by The Wordsmith with the following edit summary '(contesting PROD. There is currently a MedCab case that is determining the scope of both of these articles.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with The Wordsmith before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Get the Information in as fast, ignore the "style"

Let the others come in after and make it pretty and formatted. We all have our jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.86.114 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

?????????? I have no idea what you're talking about tommy talk 05:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He’s talking about this edit that you Twinkled onto his anonymous talk page. The comment here underscores tremendously well the sort of attitude that pervades many of the actions of the anons. <sigh> —  SpikeToronto  05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I understand what he's saying.. No, 76.236.86.14, if you're going to edit, do it right; don't half a** it; if you want to help the encyclopedia, help the encyclopedia. We're not here for speed, we're here to do it right. Thank you. tommy talk 05:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that’s why they edit anonymously, so that they can get away with leaving messes for others to clean up. Don’t you sometimes, cleaning up after the anons, feel like the man in the circus with the shovel and broom who follows behind the elephants?!   :)   — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Misclick in watchlist

A misclick, nothing more :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, it's all good. tommy talk 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Her sexual orientation has been irrelevant to her commercial success. She isn't a global phenomenon specifically because she is bisexual. In fact she didn't event discuss it until after she became highly notable as an artist. It is WP:UNDUE weight to specify her sexual orientation in the lead. Its different with lets say Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay man to take public office or Gene Robinson who was the first open gay man to become a bishop. In those situations, their sexual orientation played a large role in their rise to fame. Lady Gaga's sexuality had none, she would still be a superstar if she had never come out. She credits the gay community for her success because a number of gay-owned companies did everything they could to get her on the airways. That is specified in the lead because there was specific efforts involved to made sure she got radio airply, but Gaga has never stated her bisexuality has been the catalyst for her success, and more importantly, neither has any other reliable source. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree per the argument above. Can we agree on having a unique sentence based on her gay fans, bcause we can argue, without them she may or may not have gotten to where she is today. tommy talk 22:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That part is still mentioned in the lead. "She is supportive of the gay community, crediting them for her early mainstream success." I think pretty much covers it without being overly detailed for an introduction. Plus her support/involvement with the gay community is discussed in the Musical Style section of the article; her sexual orientation is also mentioned in that section, as well as the main bio, under The Fame. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood. If you need any help on any other musical artists, let me know! I'd love to help! Cheers, tommy talk 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: E-cigarette paragraph in Cannabis smoking

(→E(Electronic)cigarette: seriously who writes these articles??)

I'm not sure of the basis of your question, since you didn't change the paragraph very much. This same paragraph has been objected to by at least one editor on the basis that it was unreferenced. As will be made clear in the next days on the talk page in debate over more recent deletions from the article, there are special difficulties interfering with providing any references for an article on cannabis smoking. Namely, anyone who admitted publicly (in this case) that they knew how to make a THC-formula for use in e-cigarette cartridges, or offered such for sale, would invite immediate armed attack from the police forces of nations (particularly USA) now collecting cigarette taxes (bribe) in exchange for helping cigarette corporations protect their empire by keeping the masses as ignorant as possible of any alternatives (1)to tobacco, i.e. cannabis, or (2) to the (profitable!) hot-burning overdose cigarette format, i.e. e-cigarettes, one-hitters etc. Meanwhile, the WP Cannabis smoking article has a duty to challenge researchers to clarify the issue and publish findings which can be usable as reference(s) in the article.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

<replied on your talk page>

Melissa d'Arabian

Thanks Tommy. I read it in Food Network Magazine but I don't know how to reference things on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.90 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then this will be a learning experience for both of us! Let me search Wikipedia on how to cite magazines... Tommy talk 17:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

There are four wikiarticles that are your bibles for citations. They are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:REFBEGIN. From WP:CITE#HOW you find that newspapers, journals, magazines, and other periodicals are cited as follows:

Article from Magazine, Newspaper, Journal, etc.:

<ref>Author name. "Article name," Magazine/Newspaper/Journal title. Publisher. Date of publication. Page number.</ref>

<ref>Doe, John. "Jonathan Compas' Greatest Plays," Sports Illustrated. Time Warner, September 30, 2009, p. 26.</ref>

<ref>“Raiders Sign Undrafted G Jonathan Compas,” RaiderBeat.com April 29, 2009. (Retrieved 2009-09-29.)</ref>

And, while we’re on the topic, books are cited as follows:

Book:

<ref>Author name. Book title. Publisher. Date of publication. Page number.</ref>

<ref>Doe, John. The Life Story of Jonathan Compas. Famous Publishers, Inc. 2008. pp. 241-242.</ref>

Note the use of <ref></ref> tags before and after the citation. This causes the citation to appear at the bottom of the wikiarticle you are editing in the references/footnotes/notes section. Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Btw, Tommy, I’ll get back to you on that other stuff later today or tomorrow. I haven’t forgotten you, I am just running very late yesterday and today. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Ah, Spike to save the day. Thanks Spike. Tommy talk 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome with cookies :)

Hello tommy,

thank you for giving me this kind welcome :). And thanks for the handy links. And most of all: Thanks for the tasty virtual cookies :D :).

‒Sternenmeer (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, glad I could help. If you have any questions, just ask me. If I don't have the answer then I will find someone who does! Happy editing Tommy talk 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New Article Posting

Tdinatale:

First, I appreciate in advance for your assistance. I recently wrote a new article, but unfortunately I am having trouble publishing it to the main Wikipedia.

After completing the article, I hit the save button but nothing happens. I imagine there is a process of verification, however, I have not received any notification or feedback from Wikipedia concerning the article.

Please assist.

Thank you,

Kadri123 (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Kadri123

Oh I see what you're saying. What you made is an article on your user page, not a Wikipedia article. Your user page is info you may put about your Wikipedia contributions (and yourself if you'd like). To make a new article, search for what you want to create (be sure it does not already exist), and then under the search, simply click where it says "You may create ____..." Please see WP:CREATE for more details on going about creating it, however the article on your user page looks very nice just by glancing at it! :) Tommy talk 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answer Tommy! I did a quick search and the article does not yet exist, so a quick cut-and-paste from Kadril’s User page to a new article page should do the trick. At first glance, I agree with Tommy, the article looks like it would be a good addition to Wikipedia (WP). There are, however, some problems with its references:

1. The References section should come before the External links section.
2. The footnotes are not formatted properly. It is not permitted to only provide a URL since the reference would fail verification if the link ever went dead. The footnotes must be in the format specified at WP:CITE. Kadril, if you read WP:REFBEGIN, it will tell you how to fix this.
3. References/footnotes/citations are supposed to be from third-party sources. See WP:RS.
4. All of the footnotes may violate WP:SELFPUB. To improve the article, and prevent its deletion as a result of WP:SELFPUB, add some more information to the article where the references/citations that anchor them are from third-party sources (e.g., books, magazines, newspapers, etc.)

Good work! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I was wondering why the Refs were indented.... Thanks for the details Spikey :D Tommy talk 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tdinatale & SpikeToronto:

Tdinatale, Thank you for your prompt help and encouragement. Your explanation really has cleared the issue up for me, and I will make the changes you suggested.

SpikeToronto, Thanks for pointing that out to me and providing the applicable links. Unfortunately, I only read the first portion of the Reference help section.

I appreciate both of you making yourselves available to us newbies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadri123 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). :) Thank you for your contribs! Tommy talk 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey Tommy! As requested, I set up automatic archiving for you. It is set to archive any discussion thread over 45 days old. If you find you want this shorter, just reduce the number. Usually, article talk pages are 45 days, while user talk pages, especially busy ones belonging to Administrators, can be as little as 5 days.

You will notice that as at 11:15PM EDT, the archive box towards the top of the page, below the table of contents, contains no archives. It will not contain any until the archiving bot comes through and creates it first archive. Let’s keep our fingers crossed because I’ve never done this before! I always archive my own talk page manually. — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deism

Tommy, I see you are a deist. I've always wanted to read Thomas Jefferson's Bible, and I wonder if God made the world and doesn't intervene with it (I am a Catholic). It's also interesting to tell people that some of the Founding Fathers were deists; they think it's a lie. Jbird669 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, they were more moderate than modern day republicans and democrats combined too (minus the slavery). Imagine that. Did you know George Washington smoked marijuana/cannabis? I think it's hilarious we waste $10B a year thinking were going to erradicate the cannabis ((& hemp) plant when George Washington himself smoked it and practically promoted its use. hahaha oh the arrogance. Tommy talk 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just legalize it and tax the hell out of it. Can you imagine how much money the government will make with the taxes of marijuana?Jbird669 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And it doesn't even cause cancer! bahaha Tommy talk 17:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done

Yep, first article done. I can say it was definitely a great experience. The more I learn about the way WP works, the more I am impressed by it. The problem I have now - is that I can't stop tinkering with the article. Thanks again for all your help. Kadri123 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Kadri123

No problem. Yes WP is fun :) haha I hate to admit this but I almost prefer WP over facebook haha. Um.. ya check out those links I sent you with that welcome template (with the cookies). They'll help clarify things for you. Happy editing! 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Yeah, sorry 'bout that... I just downloaded Firefox and my script doesn't work well on it. So yeah... ;) --A3RO (mailbox) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. veo que ud. es español (¡muy guapo!;]), ¿habla usted la lingua tambien? Tommy talk 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Actually, I don't speak a word of Spanish; even though I'm half Spanish :D wanna elaborate? ;) --A3RO (mailbox) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya sure, can't do it on here though, but I see you have facebook, and (this isn't obvious enough) my fb name is thomas dinatale (SUNY buffalo). Tommy talk 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I think Wikipedia is a social network; despite popular belief. Anyhoo, I happen to be on Facebook at the moment so why not. :) I'll add you. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont disagree with that, but people read this stuff and its awk. Tommy talk 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yeah; but, I'm pretty open and I've said a lot more details on user pages before lol. :-X ;) --A3RO (mailbox) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OH boyyyyyy Tommy talk 02:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Tags

All of my edits today had them except for the ones I marked minor and edits on talk pages. Should those also have edit tags? Bojangles04 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, always use an edit summary; especially for a current event or controversial article. Thanks, tommytalk2me 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry

Hi Tdinatale. I understand what you said. And i'm so sorry. I promise i won't do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Its okay, we all make mistakes. :) tommytalk2me 04:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being nice. hope we can be friends. love ya! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq (talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Screen reference in cannabis-related articles

For the majority of readers consulting these articles, who are indeed looking for how-to advice on how to use cannabis, the first priority may be to know that a narrower crater, by restricting oxygen entry, controls burning temperature. Smokers who burn cannabis (or tobacco or any herb) hot, destroying THC or other desired ingredient, may smoke greater quantities, maximizing exposure to heat shock, carbon monoxide and other combustion toxins, causing health issues falsely blamed on the herb used, with negative political results for both users and society. This is one of the most important opportunities for Wikimedia to "change the world" (2008 fund-raising slogan). As for whether this is bending the rules WP:Ignore all rules, consider that for over a year until 2008 the Cannabis smoking article had an illustrated guide to how to roll cigarettes right at the top, with the tobacco corp. trade name "Bugler" showing, so the "adversary" has abused WP worse than we ever did.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to promote a certain type of cannabis consumption versus another. We are here to state the facts and let readers make their own opinion. Your use of "screened" bowls is confusing to the average reader and it does not explain anything. However, you are more than welcome to put all that info (not the how-to reference; thats not a reference) in the cannabis consumption article, but to put it in the cannabis article and other cannabis-related articles makes the articles harder to read per MOS. And as far what the cannabis smoking article had or used to have is irrelevant to now. tommytalk2me 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. You might want to also point out that Wikipedia’s rules do not permit the writing of how-to-guides as part of articles. This can be found at WP:NOTHOWTO. It reads:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks.

Hope that helps. — SpikeToronto 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

overkill. keep it simple and to the point. I hate being bothered with overcomplicated details, just keep it to the point. I think I covered that in my response and that's all that matters. thanks, tommytalk2me 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple or not, what you said was that he was welcome to put all the how-to information in the cannabis consumption article, which WP:NOTHOWTO would suggest is not correct. However, and in your favor, sometimes one can make an argument against the application of WP:NOTHOWTO by appealing to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. There is an article that had a safe-sex infobox attached to it for some time until an editor came along and deleted the safe-sex infobox with reference to WP:NOTHOWTO. What s/he had failed to notice was that, on the article’s talk page, a consensus had been reached that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY should trump WP:NOTHOWTO and the safe-sex infobox should be on the page. This is the point: You can often add how-to information to an article page, notwithstanding WP:NOTHOWTO, if you can apply WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CON. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY + WP:IGNORE + WP:CON = putting the info in the cannabis consumption article, if you can build a consensus to support it. You’re on the right track. I just wanted to give you the ammunition (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IGNORE, WP:CON) to support the material’s inclusion in the cannabis consumption article. But, consensus is critical, or someone will just come along and delete it referring to WP:NOTHOWTO. For every editing policy at WP, there is usually a counterpoint. — SpikeToronto 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason I advocate including the wiki-How references in this special case (and a very special one, cannabis) is that certain wikiHow articles provides evidence that certain smoking downdosage equipment options even exist, since there are interested parties (Big 2Wackgo, a trillion-dollar industry worldwide) that don't want anyone, especially children, to know that any downdosage alternative to the entrenched standardized 700-mg. overdose "cigarette" exists, or is notable enough to be taken note of by the google-leading source on the subject, Wikipedia. Thus it does not violate WP:NOTHOWTO, but it does provide readers seeking how-to info info on how to find how-to info, and also confirms the fact that such info exists somewhere, since otherwise after not finding it in WP some especially young readers might abandon the search altogether and settle for rolling a hot burning overdose joint, maybe also with toxic addictive nicotine mixed in as is reported to happen frequently in UK, EU and middle east.

(I have in the past tried entering descriptions of smoking downdosage equipment in WP, but changed over to these wikiHow refs after being reprimanded over WP:NOTHOWTO. I think some of the few editors that erased whole paragraphs about such equipment from WP cannabis- or smoking-related articles-- not necessarily Tom-- did so because they feared the possibility that the oligarchal behemoth could reach down even into the anonymous geekdesks of WP to take imperial revenge on any editors who tolerated such information being presented. An "industry" that casually kills 6 million of its loyal customers each year (American Cancer Society estimate for 2010), what will it do if it figures out you are its enemy? I sympathize with their fears but am encouraged to think WP is actually stronger than this adversary.)

The relevance to cannabis is twofold: (a) that the long arm of the Law funded by $igarette taxe$ has taken the form of a rogue cop confiscating and destroying your $600 vaporizer or treasured handmade one-hitter, or any other safer(than)smoking device, and using it to support charges of illegal cannabis use, thus scaring millions away from possessing such equipment for use with any herb including tobacco; but (b) many inquisitive cigarette addicts may first find out on the WP cannabis article pages about an alternative to cigarettes that meets their personal tobacco use needs, and desert the cigarette format or not take it up, saving ten years and $100,000 medical costs during the last decade of life etc. etc.Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

HI tony heaney here from talktalk magazine, i edited this lady gaga based on fact thatn my magzine fronted in this weeks edition. it is fact based on face and there fore should remain on lady gaga wiki.

tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony2176ire (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome

Tommy- thanks for the warm welcome and the helpful tips. Looks like you're one of the folks who helps keep this site from descending into complete anarchy.

I noticed that a couple references to primary scientific literature I added to the zinc finger article were removed without explanation. I reverted the removals and may need some advice if this turns into an edit war.

Cheers,

               Jeff

ScienceGeekling (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Oh shucks. My contribs are nothing compared to the work of many other wikipedians, but I appreciate that! If you need anything you can ask me here. For starters, I would recommend reading WP:MOS (gives me the most heartache :P) and then WP:CITE. These, on top of the tutorials and the introductory links, will help you understand how it all 'works' here. Happy editing! tommytalk2me 12:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I love your name, "geekling" haha love it. tommytalk2me 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzi

All mixes versions of Lady Gaga's Paparazzi are Masterbeat exclusives, check their website... As for the tools they have been official leaked for a remix competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.222.100 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)