User talk:Spencer/Archive 21

Active discussions

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Photo of Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj

I thought about adding that photo to ITN a few days ago, but I noticed that the history of the uploader of the image is a bit spurious. He may have just been a novice and actually took that picture, but it seemed implausible to me. But maybe you disagree; I'm just pointing it out in case you didn't see that when you selected that photo. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Socks at AIV

I hate that template. While I'm not sure Baseball Bugs's report counts as an obvious sock, it says, right in Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, that obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. If you want to bounce it because it was insufficiently obvious, that's fine, but active socks can be reported to AIV.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the vandal had copied in an old decline here. The original decline is here. I can see how talking about it a week later comes out of the blue, but the comment is still valid: socks can be reported at AIV, so long as they are sufficiently obvious.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Amataulic Edit Warring at Dix Township Article

Could you look into an edit war problem in the Dix Township article? Amataulic keeps deleting all references to the book on the Oregon Cemetery Desecration as well as all references to the desecration. I think there is a conflict of interest problem there, but I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know how to proceed. I've mostly stayed on the sidelines, but it is frustrating that our little township's one claim to fame is getting sidelined by someone with an axe to grind. (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Some background if you're interested:
See the Talk:Dix Township, Ford_County, Illinois#Oregon Cemetery Desecration and the associated discussion on my talk page User talk:Amatulic#Orgeon Cemetery Desecration Really Happened. I can also give you background via email of the issues raised in OTRS. For the time being, I have indef semi-protected the article for the reasons given on the talk page as an alternative to whack-a-mole blocking. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note.   Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition:   Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted   Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to   Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example,   Casliber (submissions) and   Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 09:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

23:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandal return and something strange

Came back under the name and reedited the Angelina Ballerina: Next Steps article. I reported to the WP:AIV , but Anna Frodesiak said it wasn't vandalism. I did fix article, I don't think this person is a admin. mich (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for a month. SpencerT♦C 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Vandalism report reverted

Please see my report Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=563463719&oldid=563463602 which has twice been reverted by the subject of the report, thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013


I noticed you declined to block (talk · contribs) on AIV. However, I decided to [ block] this IP as a definite open proxy. Just as an FYI, if you see someone replacing special characters with their URL encodings in that manner, it is likely an open proxy and should be investigated. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Re: Sarah Behrman

please contact me regarding the Sarah Behrman deletion. there was no copyright issues. not sure why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaacovB (talkcontribs) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson....

....I am just processing a request at WP:REFUND, and after having had a look at the deleted article....well, I can not deny promotional intent, and perhaps COI, but a G11 it isn't, imho. Care to look into this? Thanks a million, and sorry for dropping in. Lectonar (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... banned vs. blocked, etc.

Greetings Spencer. I'm aware of the difference between banning & blocking. My edit was a mere slip of the "tongue" due to the rapid succession of vandal edits I was reverting regarding the IPs in question, and which are possibly/probably (I don't believe in coincidences) related to this user, who has been banned. BTW, I only requested page protection for the article (not for my talk page) when a fifth IP started vandalising the page and none of the previous AIVs had yet been attended. Thanks for being out there. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Contesting CMDportal speedy deletion

Dear Spencer,

Thank you for your latest review of the CMDportal article. I believe that this article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it describes an important data, network and analysis provider within fixed income markets, that strives towards making markets more transparent in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It should also be noted that the latest draft of this article is "not substantially identical to the deleted version", which seems to be a relevant criterion for speedily deletion. Moreover, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", because the inclusion of a multitude of relevant, independent, third party sources shows the significance and "notability" of the company within its industry. Finally, the content has been substantially revised so as to be more neutral.

If these explanations are not satisfactory or if any further clarifications are required, please let me know.

Thank you,

FilipeCMD (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Hi Filipe.
I didn't tag the article because it was identical to the deleted version; I tagged it under criteria a7, because the article "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I don't see anything in the article that indicates that the entity CMDportal is notable. Is this the largest "data, network and analysis provider within fixed income markets"? If the sentence "CMDportal is the largest X in Y countries for Z industry" in the article, that would be an example statement of notability that would prevent this from being speedily deleted under a7, the criteria I tagged it with. Nonetheless, this might still not meet notability criteria (such as if it was not cited with a reliable source and could be deleted under other processes without substantial improvement. In the article, there are quite a few references, which is what I am assuming you are calling a "multitude of relevant, independent, third party sources". A lot of these third party sources mention "Capital Market Daily" as the organization they mention; this is not "CMDportal" ([1]). Or if they do, like this, it's just a passing mention at the end of the article. And other ones don't appear to mention CMD or CMDportal at all, as far as I can tell ([2], [3]). SpencerT♦C 00:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Spencer,

Thank you for clarifying these points. Regarding the issue of notability, I was wondering if the addition of a heading about competition that would describe how CMDportal competes with Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters in the provision of fixed income and money market data would be sufficient to "indicate that the entity CMDportal is notable". I notice that this was the path chosen by Dealogic, another financial data provider.

Regarding your other concern, CMDportal and Capital Market Daily are the same. Indeed, if you access CMDportal's official website you will find at the bottom of the page the copyright as Capital Markets Daily. Would it be helpful if I were to add a reference to the fact that the company is also known under this simpler name?

Thank you very much,

FilipeCMD (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Oh, that isn't clear that both entities are the same. In the article, it said "CMDportal is a part of Capital Market Daily" and thus I thought it was a subsegment of the company. Adding information about how CMD is important in this industry is helpful; simply listing companies it competes with I wouldn't think is an assertion of notability (but would be useful information nonetheless). Dealogic isn't a great example of an article in this case. Let's look at another article about a financial information provider, S&P Capital IQ. A statement like "Capital IQ grew very rapidly to become one of the leading providers of software, data and analytics to the financial services community. In 2002 Capital IQ announced its 100th customer; in 2011 prior to being folded into McGraw-Hill Financial, CIQ press releases described having more than 4,200 customers and more than 5,000 employees." is a clear assertion of notability. Same with "Capital IQ serves more than 4,200 clients, including investment banks, investment management firms, private equity firms, universities, consultants, and corporations." For more information, see Wikipedia:Org#Primary_criteria for different ways to assert notability. I'll remove the speedy tag, and I think you're definitely headed in the right direction.
Also, you may potentially have a conflict of interest (just looking at your username); please take a look at this guide since it may be of interest. Best, SpencerT♦C 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Spencer,

Thank you very much for the clarifications and for removing the speedy tag.

I have updated the website to state that CMDportal and Capital Market Daily are the same company, to include client and interaction references similar to the ones you mention for Capital IQ, with references to sources. I have also included a reference to competitors as mentioned earlier. I hope this is satisfactory. If there is any other issue regarding these issues, please do let me know.

Although I believe I have addressed you concerns about this page, in line with your previous comment, I would like to post some sort of request for editing or reviewing this article in order to make sure that the article fully complies with the terms of Wikipedia. However, after looking around I couldn't find the "Request Edit" template that does this. If you have any suggestion, please let me know.

Thanks again for your help.

Best, FilipeCMD (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

There's no real template that I can think of that asks for a reviewer to come and look at an article. You may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance for someone to come take a look, or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies.
Also, if you are affiliated with CMD, it is strongly suggested that you propose suggested edits on the article talk page (Talk:CMDportal), and then place the text {{edit request}} at the top of the section to have a neutral editor make the edit to the article for you (see Template:Request_edit/COIinstructions#For_submitters for more info). Another possibility is to create a copy of the article at User:FilipeCMD/CMDportal, making it clear that you are using that as how you would like the page to be changed. (For example, another user did that here. SpencerT♦C 21:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Spencer,

Thank you very much for all your help with this and for your suggestions regarding future edit requests. I'll make sure to keep them in mind next time I want to edit this page. Best,

FilipeCMD (talk) 09:00, 29July 2013 (GMT)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's   Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,   Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by   Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by   Piotrus (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Proud to see a fellow Christian

Hey Spencer,

I just read your profile and I proud to see another Christian on here. I am proud of my faith in Jesus. (: It's always a pleasure to meet other Christians.

-Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Spencer, I was wrongly banned.

Dear Spencer,

I was recently banned for vandalism on Wikipedia. However, I was not rightly banned. The previous warning on my page was given by someone who classified my edits as vandalism when they are really not. I am trying to learn the ropes here on Wikipedia and so some of my edits were wrongly done, but not intentionally vicious. Even another moderator, Lugia, told him to back off (see Indiana edits) as my edits were not vandalism. I should not have been banned. The process for appealing a false ban was too complex to figure out so I figured I would just wait until the banned time was up to talk to you about this. You can also see the comments on Sjo's page where he relents and lets me continue editing after he was corrected by Lugia. Please check into the vandalism accusations before banning people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


Recently, I got in trouble for deleting information on the creationism page that was considerably biased. I sent this message to the person who threatened to ban me for vandalism. What are your thoughts?

Please read Wikipedia's above link. Calling creationism pseudoscience is NOT a neutral point of view, but instead extremely biased. It has not been proven to be pseudoscience, but in fact several books have been written to show how science actually supports creationism.

If you truly support the guidelines of Wikipedia, you will see that using biased sources and inaccurate data is not keeping with the neutral purpose of Wikipedia. What I am doing is helping Wikipedia hold true to it's purpose, and should not be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that those other editors write what they want to write on the page and that's okay, but I'm confined to the talk page when I wish to add or delete information from the page because I believe Creationism. If I provide a source I should be able to put information on the page. It's only fair. Even if it's controversial. All I want is a balanced viewpoint on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013


Hi, just a note to apologise for venting at you last Saturday; it had been one of those frustrating weeks at Wikipedia dealing with the passive-aggressive policy wonks and I reacted in an overly-sensitive and completely unacceptable way to your comment. I hope you'll accept my explanation, and I reiterate that you had actually done nothing in particular to deserve that, apart from being the first person I crossed while in completely the wrong frame of mind to interact with any other editor. Keri (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013


Hi Spencer,

Please email me to advise what items are not suitable on the page I listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaine Duthie (talkcontribs) 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Progressive Field

Please quit reverting my edits.My information is correct. I called the Cleveland Indians Front Office, and they confirmed that my information on the ballpark capacity is correct!!!!! (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. If I were in your shoes as editor, I would have done the same thing. No harm, no foul! After all remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and in doing so it is all of our responsibilities to make sure that the information that it contains is 100% accurate!!!!!!! (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

EXL Logo Outdated

Hello Spencer,

Hoping you can help me with this minor change I have been trying to get resolved for some time now. My name is Dan and I am in charge of the online marketing for EXL ( I would really appreciate your help updating the EXL logo that you had uploaded for us in the past. The old logo is at and has become out dated over the years. Our new logo that we would like displayed on the page can be found on The name for this file should be EXL_Logo.png. I would really appreciate if you can help us with this update. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with this as well.

Drbeadle (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC) drbeadle 10:45, 21 August 2013


Hi Spencer. Can you grant rollback to my alternative account, Jianhui68? I have rollback rights on this account. Though I rarely use that account, but I still use it for testing purposes and also on public computers. So please grant rollback on my other account. Thanks.

By the way, since you hired MiszaBot III to archive your talk page, can you help me to hire ClueBot III to archive my talk page by each month? I'm not sure how to do so. If you can help me, then I'll be grateful to you. Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


I have set up MiszaBot III to archive my talk page. I wanted it to archive the messages for now to August 2013, but it created a new page called User:Jianhui67/Archive (monthname) (year) to archive the messages. Will you help me for that to change it to the way I want? Also be quick because it is going to archive your message on 27 August 2013. Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Re: edit

Sorry about that. I only saw the "undo" message in the edit summary and didn't check if they had edited it further. Forgot that was an option. I'll be sure to check the edit box more from now on. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please change this article to reflect facts you guys

Hello. There is an article that is being created by some haters of an organization called The Weather Space. The article is the naming of Winter Storms. The Weather Channel did not start naming these storms first. In 2005-2006 there is documented history of the organization and the person behind the first to name these Winter Storm Systems in the United States. His name is Kevin Martin You can see a link here [4]

the article is here [5]

This must be fixed to Kevin Martin as being the first and Ontario Weather Service. Lets keep accuracy onboard this website, please. "TWC" was not the first to do this in 2011, Ontario Weather Service did this much earlier and it made Statewide news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 05:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Spencer/Archive 21".