Jump to content

User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Why did you delete MonoGame

Reason A7 is not an acceptable reason to remove MonoGame from Wikipedia. This project is of great significance to the independent game industry. It is currently the only supported XNA platform that targets (and successfully deploys) big 3 mobile markets and desktops. You have obviously abused your rights as an editor of Wikipedia. I would like to know who is in charge of the editors at Wikipedia.

Plus there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizorb which uses monogame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallyeviljake (talk • contribs) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the page for MonoGame immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallyeviljake (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to ceate a collapsible math section

I am thinking of adding to the Miller effect article. There is a bit of math, which I think ought to be there for those who are interested, but I also think it is a distraction for most. So, I was wondering if there is a way to collapse the math into a single line such "math details" so that it is out of sight unless an interested person clinks on the link.Constant314 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You can do it like this;
Some stuff you might not want to see
SpinningSpark 16:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please place "The Shadow Cabinet" in my user space?

Can you please place "Two Tales of One Tomorrow", "The Shadow Cabinet", "Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album)‎" and "In Concert (Cornerstone album)" in my user space? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done SpinningSpark 18:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rubik's cube?

No need to be rude. Dylarooo (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to Reverted good faith edits by Dylarooo (talk): That is not a reliable source, and actually explains nothing.? Don't see how that is rude, and is actually true. SpinningSpark 00:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion un?controversial

Hallo Spinningspark,

I don't agree that deletion of Marie-Ève Pelletier (disambiguation) is uncontroversial.

There are three persons of that name, therefore a disambiguation page is in order.

Please restore some form of disambig page, which BTW should be pointed at, right at the top of the tennis player's article.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one of those has an article so no dab page is needed. Dabs are used to distinguish Wikipedia articles, not any possible use of the term, see WP:DABNOT. WP:CSD#G6 states (in part) that uncontroversial maintenance includes "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles." This was a perfectly legitimate G6 deletion. SpinningSpark 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Kim Douglas Wiggins

You are removing several images that I have uploaded for the Kim Douglas Wiggins article. I would like to know what I should choose to be able to use his paintings in his article where he retains the copyright of the image. He doesn't want people downloading and using his paintings in published works. I am sure there are a ton of copyrighted sculptures and paintings on Wikipedia, just how should I upload them for use only on Wikipedia?

These paintings are critical in the article for Kim Wiggins as they show samples of his work.

Thanks! Juliana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.16.66 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. SpinningSpark 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

MediEvil (1998 video game)

This was an article in its own right, edited by many others besides its creator too, which currently has no replacement (also, all the creator did is separate the content into its own article, not write it themselves, AFAIK). By the way, this is also why I see no point in G5. -- Mentifisto 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing any substantial contributions by other editors (routine stuff and copyedits only) and since the material was split from MediEvil it can easily be restored there from that article's history. But I won't object to you undeleting it if that is what you want. SpinningSpark 09:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Delta function (disambiguation)

Hello Spinningspark. I recently swapped Delta function (disambiguation) and Delta function, per a request at WP:RM/TR. It seemed to me that this move was technical after the result of a related RfD discussion]. Now I see that you had already speedied one of these articles on April 15, and after that somebody recreated it. If I get some sleep maybe I'll add a note to Talk:Delta function to explain to people why the new system is better, and why they should leave it be. Otherwise confusion might continue. In the meantime, please let me know if you disagree with any of this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please undo that move. Besides creating a false history which makes me look an idiot who doesn't know policy, it has moved the true history of the delta function page. At the time I deleted delta function (disambiguation), it was a newly created unnecessary dab with delta function pointing to the primary topic with a hatnote. SpinningSpark 08:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record, some of the history over last two days:
By all means return the page back into a dab page if you wish (although I agree with David Eppstein that the Dirac delta function is the primary topic) but the history move needs to be undone in either case. The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 14#Delta function (disambiguation) occured prior to all these changes and is not really relevant. God, what a mess. SpinningSpark 09:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your analysis. Luckily, everything that was done can be undone. It sounds like a move discussion is best. Do you think that one should be created at Talk:Dirac delta function? If you agree, I will notify all the previous participants, and leave a note at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you should first undo the move that you made as the situation will become irretrievably tangled while people are editing over the top of the moved article. There is a case for a discussion on whether the page should be a dab or redirect to primary topic which can be initiated after the move is undone. Whether or not anything needs moving will fall out naturally from that discussion; it would not be helpful to start the discussion as a move proposal without first deciding what we want the page to be. But as I say, the first thing to do is get the history back with the active page before it gets any messier. SpinningSpark 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since it seems you understand all these issues, why don't you take the lead? You can go ahead and undo anything I did. It probably isn't necessary to have two admins in the middle of this. Be aware that the 'active page' is probably Dirac delta function. It would take quite some gymnastics to get all the revisions which used to be part of that article all back onto one page. Old revisions that are sitting in the history of a redirect are not lost, so long as the redirect isn't deleted. Maybe a note could be made on some talk page as to where the old revisions are. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough I did notice that the page had (disambiguation) in the title: perhaps you did not notice that I gave a reason for contesting the PROD. I also noticed that the PROD rationale given was inadequate and that there was an active discussion about the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics‎#April disambiguation pages. and that there was at least one more potential target for the search term. Now, what on earth is going on here? Deltahedron (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please undo your deletion of delta function (disambiguation)? It had three real dab entries, all different from each other (the Dirac delta, Kronecker delta, and Ramanujan delta aka modular discriminant). This is too much to handle well with a hatnote. I don't have a strong opinion on whether delta function should be the dab (as EdJohnson wanted) or the primary topic (Dirac delta) with a hatnote to the dab, but the dab really is needed. I also don't see how to justify your deletion as a speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the deletion. There is no point in delta function gathering links intended for Dirac delta function while we discuss the best outcome for these pages. If a decision is made that Dirac delta function is not the primary topic of delta function, incoming links can be fixed at that time. There is no deadline. bd2412 T 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Will you please at least stop repeatedly deleting the disambiguation material? It is perfectly reasonable to have it, somewhere, but now it has been deleted many times at several locations, by you. There is generally not a huge problem with attribution for such material, either, since it is both minimal and functional. Please restore it. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it alone now. I was going to revert Dirac delta function to a hatnote dab (two targets is not too many]] but it was changed to point to the dab page while I was deleting it. I'm ok with how it is now. SpinningSpark 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at the math project seems to suggest that there are other potential candidate for listing on a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that, as noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#‎Delta function, a quick Google search yields 320,000 results for Dirac AND "Delta function", compared to 78,800 results for Kronecker AND "Delta function"; Google Books results yield 109,000 results for Dirac AND "Delta function", compared to 20,100 results for Kronecker AND "Delta function". In terms of Wikipedia primacy, last month Dirac delta function got 26741 hits, compared to Kronecker delta getting 6870 hits, and (just for the heck of it) Modular discriminant getting 115 hits. This is far and away enough for Dirac delta function to meet the WP:PRIMARY criteria of being a more substantial use than all other meanings combined. bd2412 T 00:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That was pretty much my take on it as well, and in fact the changes I made put the position back to Dirac delta function as the primary topic. SpinningSpark 07:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

North Louisiana History

Hi, I don't disagree with your closure at all, "no consensus" was the only possible way to go, I think. I'm surprised that you see me placing that tag as disagreeing with you. To me, "no consensus" also means that notability has not been established without doubt, because if it had been, the proper decision would have been "keep". So I almost always place a notability tag on articles after a "no consensus" close and don't see this as disruptive, just as a sign that the article can use more/better sources to establish notability without any doubt, so that yet another AfD is not needed. In this particular case, there have been two "no consensus" AfDs, so more and better sources would be good to avoid yet another contentious debate. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The general principle at AfD is to close a no consensus debate as if it were a keep. The main point of AFD is to settle the question of notability of a page. This one has been decided, if you don't like it you can take it to DRV or nominate it again. It simply is not right to keep a page tagged after the issue has been debated. It was not even tagged before it went to AfD. By the way, I don't recall using the word "disruptive" to you. I don't consider your action to have been disruptive. SpinningSpark 13:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
If you think that "the issue has been decided", then I'm afraid that I do disagree with your closure. If that is what you think, you should have closed "keep". If it's notable, it should have an article. "No consensus" definitely does not mean the same thing as keep, nor "as if it were a keep". "No consensus" does default to "keep", exactly because we want to give an article the benefit of the doubt. A doubt expressed by a notability tag (which doesn't say "this article isn't notable", but may not be notable. An admin should follow his/her own judgment of all the arguments brought forward in an AfD. Apparently you didn't. If you stick with "no consensus", then notability has not been established beyond doubt and a tag is justified. If the tag is not justified, then you should revisit your closure and change it to "keep". I'm fine with either closure (I still have to go to DRV for the first time), but I will contest any removal of the notability tag if you stick with "no consensus". (PS: I never said you used the word disruptive, I did). --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what I am doing, but please delete my article

Hello, I don't know how to edit wikipedia, I need to request a page to be deleted. I am a musician but a completely, not at all notable internet musician. However, a while ago, a fan of my music made me a wikipedia page. but seriously I don't deserve one, and it's pretty badly written. Now it's very outdated and the little information in it isn't even accurate. I don't want to register for wikipedia or anything, but can I request here that it get submitted for deletion? It's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikmis

Thank you so much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.170.180.85 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have put a speedy deletion tag on it and someone will look at it shortly. I am not really willing to delete it without someone else looking first. SpinningSpark 11:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Interac_(Japan) Editor Request

Would you mind having a look at my editor request? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Interac_.28Japan.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29Taurus669 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please just be patient until a volunteer attends to your request. SpinningSpark 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waveguide filter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Printed circuit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Many thanks for reviewing Yarrell! It's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank You ...

Hi,

First of all, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on Wikipedia.

If I am not wrong, you must be a microwave engineer. I am also working on microwave filter design, especially in the area of "microwave filter design using coupled resonator theory", which I think is some what generalized compared to the conventional filter design using transmission line theory.

If you are inserted, please go through the below links for my own clip-art as well as notes I wrote for myself on microwave analog filter design: http://openclipart.org/user-cliparts/zinka http://zinka.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/microwave-analog-filter-design-e28093-i.pdf

Once again, thank you very much for sharing all those beautiful diagrams. I hope to use them for my class notes in the future.

With best regards, zinka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.50.230 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Do feel free to use the material. Don't forget to credit per the requirements of the licence. SpinningSpark 07:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

some questions

Hi SpinningSpark, maybe you remember me as main author of some articles out of the range of capacitors. I see that you are busy in some projects in electronics and I am sure, you can answer some questions I have:

  • - WikiProject Electronics/Members, can everybody write his nickname into this list?
  • - WikiProject Electronics/Articles, what is the reason that the most capacitor article like Ceramic capacitor, Film capacitor, Electrolytic capacitor, Electric double-layer capacitor, Types of capacitor etc. are not inserted in the article list? Is the reason that the author has to add the “Template:Electron” to the talk page?
  • - WikiProject Electronics/Task list, is it possible, that this project is sleeping since 6 years? Should not be given to the archive all contributions older than 5 years?

Greatings and thanks for helping, --Elcap (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Yes, anyone can join any wikiproject, there are no requirements. (2) Probably because no one has ever bothered to put them within scope. Go ahead and do it yourself, and feel free to give them an assesment at the same time. (3) This is not a very well maintained project. Thank you for volunteering to take on this much needed task. SpinningSpark 15:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks very much for your close of Talk:No worries/GA2, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could leave a note here updating the nominator? — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you consider softening the wording a bit. Detestable is over the top and at the moment it reads like a supervote more than a reasoned close. AIRcorn (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I will strike the word "detestable" as you find is so objectionable, but I am not otherwise inclined to modify the closing summary. There is nothing in there that is not a representation of what was said in the debate, except my view that it should be closed immediately - which is pretty much a statement of the obvious as I closed it. SpinningSpark 05:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that, detestable seemed like an odd way to feel about a pretty innocuous reassessment. The concern I had with the close (ignoring the fact that it was an individual reassessment) is that it doesn't address the criteria, instead relying on a technicality that made no difference in the end. It is also odd describing it as unconstructive, when in fact it lead to some constructive improvements. Anyway the right result was reached so I guess that is the main concern. I just hope nerdfighter is not put off too much from the whole experience as although probably misguided, it was a good faith nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It was an individual assessment? Community reassessment was requested here and an unusually large number of editors took part. But I now see that community assessments are supposed to be in a different location (doesn't make a lot of sense why that should be so). SpinningSpark 08:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Danish Bacon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Danish Crown
Flitch of bacon custom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Norse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Neanderthal Sugar

I thought I'd seen that face somewhere before! Thanks for doing that additional review. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Waveguide filter

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13

...has posted some instructions at User talk:Writ Keeper. If you feel so inclined. (I pinged you, but perhaps you aren't using that feature? Or maybe you have another reason for not doing it yet, in which case feel free to get rid of this message.) Cheers! Ignatzmice•talk 17:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not ignoring, just working on an article. SpinningSpark 18:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Pinging self to test POBOD. 89.241.19.234 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ping. Ignatzsock•talk 18:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor's request for help

You are quite right. Steeletrap opened the thread at the suggestion of another editor who has sought to mediate and mentor. I hope you will close the discussion. Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This was my first experience with editors help. Interesting. I've read up on it and posted a "moved to" notice on the thread. (And mea culpa for giving into the temptation to defend myself!) Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Electric double-layer capacitor or Supercapacitor

Hi Spinningspark, first thanks for helping some days ago. May be I am a little bit bothersome but I have amother problem.

After more than half a year composing for a new edition of the article Electric double-layer capacitor I am now close for inserting my draft. But I have a problem and I hope you can help me.

Finishing my German article “Doppelschichtkondensator” 1 ½ year ago the admins asked me to rewrite this article to the new term “Superkondensator” because an EDLC is only a part of the family of electrochemical capacitors. That is the reason I now have written my new draft tailored for the term “Supercapacitor” instead of EDLC, see User:Elcap/Supercapacitor.

Inserting the new text means, that the article should be moved from EDLC to Supercapacitor. The reasons and arguments for moving you can find on the talk page User talk:Elcap/Supercapacitor.

Please have a look inside my draft. Do you would support moving the text? If yes, please help me to do it in a correct way. Greetings--Elcap (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should first open a discussion on the article talk page and advertise the discussion at the article's Wikiprojects. Twice before the move of the article to Supercapacitor has been reverted by different editors, so it is not uncontroversial. There is not a clear-cut case under WP:COMMONNAME for this move, but that does not mean there is not a case at all. You should be able to make the move yourself without admin help as there is only one edit on the current redirect page, but if not you can make a request at WP:RM. It really has to be a move rather than copy and paste in order to keep the edit history with the article.
It might be better instead to leave Electric double-layer capacitor where it is and have a new Supercapacitor article. The latter can include a summary of the former and link to it with the {{main}} template. This at least avoids any arguments over the article name and makes clear that the terms are not synonyms. SpinningSpark 10:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I have started the discussion you suggest to me. But to leave the existing EDLC article is not an idea I can follow. If you have a look into my draft you can see, that it is nearly impossible to write three single articles to describe the new members of the family of electrochemical capacitors. In no case double-layer and pseudocapacitance exist alone, even the older double-layer capacitors do have a little amount of pseudocapacitance. And the pseudocapacitors and hybrid capacitors do have a lot of double-layer capacitance. Additional the supercapacitors are industrial products and the manufacturers normally do not publish their construction details so it is not possible to split the discrete caps to 100 % as a member of family one or two or three. --Elcap (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I would put a link to that discussion on the article talk page (and the Energy Wikiproject talk page). If the editors who originally reverted the move to Supercapacitor are still watching the article you don't want a new move to come as a surprise to them. SpinningSpark 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my English seems so bad, that you don't understand me. In the English Wiki it is the first time I am asking for moving from EDLC to Supercaps. And the new draft User:Elcap/Supercapacitor is a complete new written article including the newest research results in double-layer and pseudocapacitance.
But sleeping one night about your proposal to leave the EDLC article and create a new article supercaps it seems to be for me the easiest way. Deleting all what not belong to double-layer the rest EDLC article gets very short, but the links to the new article can make the situation clear. Greetings from Germany --Elcap (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I had not meant to suggest that you had previously attempted this move, but that others have. See the move log. I think you have made the right decision to start a new article. SpinningSpark 11:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

NY 167

Sorry, finals kept me busy, graduating. ;) - Put my responses up, also I support your above comment.Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 04:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of MonoGame

You have deleted the MonoGame page which was done in error.

You cited A7 - irrelevance - as a cause for deletion yet this is not the case. You can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos2d which is a similar game framework, and yet that is not deleted.

I can't open an arbitration complaint against you, so you have clear power over everything you want to delete. There is no oversight to you, no controlling body, nothing but chaos in the guise of pretend peer review.

Nonetheless you have deleted content from other users of Wikipedia with no provable cause. You were reckless in your quick judgement of MonoGame just as you were reckless in our dealings. For whatever personal cause that we do not enjoy eachother's existence, it should not affect MonoGame. Please restore that page and all of the work that others have put into making it complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallyeviljake (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


I am one of the contributors to the MonoGame page. It is a page for a code library which is similar in content and structure to many others already here on Wikipedia. The content was similar to the content on monogame.codeplex.com and monogame.net because myself and the MonoGame team wrote it. Let me know what we can do to have the page restored and what corrections need to be made. Tspilman (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I will restore it and send it to WP:AfD. You can make your case for keeping it there. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are usually discounted for the reasons explained in that link. What you need to do to guarantee retention is add reliable sources to the article. See WP:42. SpinningSpark 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slotted line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attenuator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

PRISM programming system

Why did you delete this link that I added? It is not necessary for an article to exist for you to link to it, and there is a very good reason for that: to encourage the most knowledgeable users on a given subject to create the article for that subject. I created the link hoping that someone who knew a bit more than I do would create the article. This is standard wiki practice. Which, if recent experience is anything to go by, seems to be becoming increasingly neglected on the modern English Wikipedia.

Removing the link has another deleterious effect, namely of presenting an incomplete view of the available software packages named PRISM. Part of the reason for adding the entry was to draw attention to the fact that there are two separate probabilistic software packages, both called PRISM. Removing the entry returns the list to a misleading state, where a reader is in danger of being misled (as I initially was) into thinking that both of these software packages are the same.

-78.149.247.168 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because there is no article about that subject on Wikipedia. You seem not to understand what disambiguation pages are for, please read WP:DABNOT. They are there solely to guide readers to the article they are looking for. We put the absolute minimum information on disambiguation pages to achieve that. They therefore do not include subjects for which we have no article. Your point about redlinks is valid for articles (but only if the subject is notable and could have an article in accordance with WP:N some time in the future) but not for dab pages. SpinningSpark 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ask

That is what is going to happen, if you eat to much Danish bacon, you get tired an sleepy and fat
That's me, third from the left SpinningSpark

I saw you on the list of the editor’s help, Editors willing to assist. I think this is a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It is about the article Michelangelo. I told to the other editor and I am telling you I am not exactly I wrote a treatise at the university about Michelangelo. I also have a degree in Art History, and I am pretty sure that Michelangelo’s private life is not correct. The problem is that I cannot communicate, he reverted a lot of stuff that usually is not reverted by others and then he goes on editing. He thinks my English is poor, my references not good enough, and he doesn’t seems to want to discuss things either. I need help. Warrington (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)alias Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) (Drmies knows me as Warrington...)

Johnbod does not strike me as an unreasonable person. I think you should continue to discuss issues on the article talk page. If you really cannot come to a consensus some form of dispute resolution may be appropriate, but you are nowhere near that stage yet. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for page numbers of citations, this is common practice and allows another editor to quickly check whether the source does, in fact, verify what is claimed. Your qualifications to write about this subject are irrelevant on Wikipedia, suitability for inclusion is judged by the referenced sources, not by the editor. We are grateful that you are applying your skills to improving articles, but challenged material still needs to be properly sourced before reinserting, that's our WP:BURDEN policy. Relying on a single source can be dubious, especially when describing something as subjective as a person's character - multiple sources saying the same thing would be more convincing. SpinningSpark 06:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I will find page numbers and everything. But it is not only from books that I got this information, but also from lectures (an oral presentation intended to present information or teach people about a particular subject, for example by a university teacher) and also in art classes. And what am I going to do whit that? This is the tricky part. Also this was not only about references, but about a lot of Michelangelo’s works, I collected them everywhere all over the Wikipedia and commons to cover up the ones not shown, he reverted that to. Since last night I was spending my time adding this collection of his works in every language on Wikipedia, and not one got rid of it, only the English article. About J, everybody is telling me that he is not unreasonable, but he was just a little bit unreasonable, otherwise I could have managed all alone, without asking anyone. But hopefully it will change. Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. Best regards. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is not possible to find the information in reliable sources then it does not belong in Wikipedia. Sorry, but that's the way it is. However, if you learned it at university then it probably is sourcable somewhere. It is irrelevant what happens on other language versions and most of them have far fewer editors, and less developed articles, than en:wikipedia. I agree that it would have been better to clean up your edits rather than wholesale deletion, but sometimes there is just so much wrong with a post that it can't be allowed to stand but the reviewing editor cannot find the energy to improve it themselves. Try improving the article just a little bit at a time and advertise possibly controversial edits beforehand on the talk page. SpinningSpark 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you about understanding it. Sure it is. I mean it is possible to find refs. Some of the other Wikis are quite OK, and have even more information on Michelangelo, surprisingly good pages, actually[8]Michelangelo, and still it was all right to ad it. I don’t know, sometimes when editing Wikipedia I feel that it is not much valued. It is a sad thing. I mean people try to contribute, and behind every name is an individual, who actually is trying to do something good. And still are so much conflicts and disagreements. Sometimes I feel that maybe I should write books instead… And then I can cite myself... :)

Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

You are surely starving by now, all this talking about Hafspajen (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Flux (disambiguation)

I appreciate how you want to keep the text on disambiguation pages minimal. For Flux (software company) on Flux (disambiguation), there's still the potential for confusion as Flux the software company also has a software product called Flux, which can be confusing with the Flux (software) entry on the disambiguation page.

How about this instead? Flux (software company), which develops workflow software

I think that provides the right amount of disambiguation without being too wordy or too confusing with the other Fluxes.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluxdave (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Related terms can be indented, one under the other, which I have now done. SpinningSpark 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't right. Flux (software company) does not develop Flux (software). It does have a product called Flux, but that Flux product does not have a Wikipedia page.

I suggest Flux (software company) be un-indented to read like so: Flux (software company), which develops workflow software

This minimal wording would differentiate it from Flux (software), which is VRML/X3D software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluxdave (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Via fence

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of WP:WikiProject Bacon, thanks very much for your quality improvements towards getting Danish Bacon to Good Article quality status. Much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cease Fire Magazine

Dear Spark

Why did you delete the entry for Cease Fire Magazine, which I went to for this first time this AM.

Thanks

Regards -- Cliff

CRK-Wenonah (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because a deletion debate decided it should be deleted. The discussion was kept open for three weeks (two weeks longer than necessary) without anyone defending its inclusion. SpinningSpark 20:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Morse Code

Howdy Spark! This edit, to which you refer, was actually SQGibbon, not I. Usually I'd be more than happy to take credit for one of his edits and the two of us have worked together on a number of articles, but I don't think Morse Code is one of them. Mistaken talk target? Stalwart111 06:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Stalwart111 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The real SQGibbon here (not that imposter Stalwart111!), I have responded on the Morse code talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. Spark: understand your note - makes sense! Stalwart111 05:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I help?

I see you testing {{DYK tools}}. The template looks good, are you having any particular trouble where perhaps I may be able to help? My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope so. The toolbox needs to be surrounded by noinclude tags when it transcludes on to the review page so that it does not further transclude on to the T:TDYK page (which it uselessly will multiple times without noinclude). I'm taking a meal break now - over to you. SpinningSpark 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The noinclude tags won't work, you need to use an #ifeq conditional switch that compares the {{NAMESPACE}} and only allows it to transclude when it matches the namespace(s) that you designate. Something exactly like: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|{{DYK tools}}|}} will work. Similar syntax can be used to ensure that the selected tool automatically evaluates the page where it is appended instead of requiring a parameter for naming the page, if that presents itself as a problem for you. Also, to avoid the confusion that may erupt by adding the potentially long condition into {{NewDYKnomination}}, it is probably best added into {{DYK tools}}; to be honest I'd consider adding {{DYK tools}} into {{DYKC}} which is already inside {{NewDYKnomination}} making it unnecessary to modify {{NewDYKnomination}} at all. I say this for the flack I caught simply for adding {{DYKC}} when I did add that template. By the way, {{DYKC}} has live examples of the conditional switch which is what precludes its transclision on any DYK pages. Feel free to inquire my assistance any time you find yourself perplexed when the template doesn't do what you are trying to ask it to do. I've been there a time or two. My76Strat (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK Toolbox

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For coming up with an improvement to the DYK process, and then following through on its implementation, I award Spinning Spark this barnstar. The Interior (Talk) 21:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Via fence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at TAFI talk

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Date changing

You recently left a welcome message and a "warning" note on User talk:Rob in part ridge spar row's page. This systematic changing of date formats is similar to that of User talk:Kestrel man hoovers in the dark - Could this be sock puppetry? Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not call that exactly recent. I have blocked User:Rob in part ridge spar row who has carried on for a long time after being warned and showing no sign of communicating. User:Kestrel man hoovers in the dark is a much older account. I don't know if this is sockpuppetry, but if it is it looks like Kestrel is the master account. There is a suspicious similarity of behaviour and account naming. You can request a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. Kestrel has now been warned, if they carry on, let me know. By the way, please do not use such immoderate language when warning editors - it can only harm your case. SpinningSpark 12:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the fast response and action. I've come across the following "date changers" who I think are probably connected: User talk:Kipperfield, User talk:Muck Donald's O'Greedy and User talk:Here·ford·who·leg·rain. With regard to the notice, sorry. I found this warning notice on one of the talk pages from 2008! I won't use it in future. The regular template warning for date changing doesn't allow more than 1 variation, unlike, for example, the vandalism template which has 4 levels. Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about levelled warnings. None of these editors seem inclined to communicate so there is no point repeatedly warning them. Just report to me if they continue after the first warning. SpinningSpark 13:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jordaanlied

Tweaks made; thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination of President of India and Capital punishment

This articles are good article nominees.It would be of great help if you review the articles.Thanks a lot! Suri 100 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing too soon, edit conflict

I was trying to comment on the AfD that you closed prematurely. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please revert the early closure. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been open since the 9th May, that is, for 13 days. How is that a premature close? SpinningSpark 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to put in my two cents to keep (see my edit summary). Why did you place it on hold, rather than close it outright? Bearian (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting anywhere, so do what thou wilt. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it would not be right to allow comments to be added after a close. If you were bringing some new factual material to the debate then I might consider it, but the news article you linked has already been raised and debated in the discussion. I will not reopen it just because you did not get a chance to voice your opinion. SpinningSpark 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
O.K., I can live with that. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown

Due to the current situation regarding AfD's that now banned user Qworty participated in, many editors are going over his contributions and checking for errors. I believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown, an AfD you closed as delete, may have suffered from his undue influence, and the AfD could have easily closed as no consensus when his rhetoric is taken into account. With that said, I would like to request that a copy of this article be temporarily restored to User:Rosencomet/David Jay Brown for a short period of time so that other editors may attempt to review and improve it. Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please first open a debate on this article at a public page such as WP:DRV. SpinningSpark 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why? We just want to review the article and see if it can be salvaged. In other words, this is a simple request for a copy of a deleted article that will only exist in userspace for a short period of time. Why does this require a debate? Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, would you be amenable to sending me a copy of the deleted material via e-mail or restoring it to an article incubator subpage? We're not asking for deletion review, so I don't know why you have brought that up. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to restore an article about a fringe crackpot masquerading as a scientist even to the incubator unless it is for the purposes of a community discussion. But I will e-mail you a copy if you ping me your e-mail. SpinningSpark 22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
See, that's quite interesting. First of all, I don't know who this guy is; I've never heard of him, I obviously never read the article, and the only reason I'm involved here is because I'm reviewing Qworty's edits and I found this particular discussion and close to be problematic. Should it even matter if the guy is a fringe crackpot masquerading as a scientist? We've got plenty of articles on them. Further, if you had such strong feelings about this guy, why did you close it as delete? You can e-mail me here. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I closed it as delete on the consensus of policy based arguments. I pretty much discounted Qworty's rantings, along with anyone else not presenting a policy based argument as I clearly stated stated in the close. Why you think that is problematic I am not really sure, and I have no idea why you think I have strong feelings on this article. Even if I had, I am completely baffled why you think that should have led to a close other than delete. I also clearly stated in the close that Wikipedia can have articles on fringe crackpots masquerading as scientists. What I was trying to say to you above was not that the fringe cannot have articles, but that this article presents the subject as a normal scientist when he most certainly is not. I am not even sure he is a scientist at all, no qualifications are claimed for him, even in his own books. In any case, that was not the fundamental reason for deletion. You said it youself "I've never heard of him" - he is completely non-notable. He's cited a couple of times by Sheldrake, who is a notable crackpot and does have an article, but that's about it. The entire article on David Jay Brown was cited to works by David Jay Brown. Nobody can even think about rescuing this article without first having reliable independent sources. If you actually have some I will happily userfy the article for you to work on, but not otherwise. I cannot send you an attachment by e-mail unless you first give me your e-mail address. SpinningSpark 08:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know; it sounds like you have a personal problem with either this author or the subject material he writes about. None of that should be relevant. Would you feel more comfortable if he was just called an author and/or a journalist? I see no reason to present him as a "scientist", if that's your issue; on the other hand, there's no reason not to include his degree or the research he's participated in as part of a complete biographical article. He's certainly published enough books, some by notable presses like Crossing Press, New Falcon Press, and Palgrave Macmillan, and he's been published in notable magazines and appeared on notable television shows. Here's a short bio and a bibliography:

<content removed>

Rosencomet (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that, my talk page is not an appropriate page for posting proto-articles, this is not WP:AFC. If you want the article userfied, please first indicate what sources you have for an improved article. This is the only issue of relevance; making unsavoury insinuations about my motivations is not relevant and will get you exactly zero cooperation. His own publications were appropriately considered in the AfD and my closing remarks. If your point is that I did not properly consider this issue, then take it to DRV because I do not agree and will not be restoring the article on the basis that he has published. SpinningSpark 07:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if you think I was insinuating anything. I thought your characterization "fringe crackpots masquerading as scientists" pretty clearly expressed a subjective judgement at best. "crackpot" is a personal insult, and "masquerading as scientists" seems to me to be an accusation of dishonesty and fraud. I have read some of his books and heard him speak publicly; I do not believe David Jay Brown is any of those things. Besides his science fiction writing, his books are mostly collections of interviews with interesting people known for their non-mainstream thinking. I regard him as a published journalist and author, and I have never heard him claim to be a scientist. I think he is notable as such. I would never claim he is a notable research scientist, although his degree and experience with Rupert Sheldrake do show that he at least has some formal experience in some of the fields he writes about, and in the fields of the people he interviews. Again, no offense meant.Rosencomet (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted without reservation, and you are of course right that I have an opinion on the subject. Having an opinion does not exclude one from closing an AfD. If it did, nothing would ever get closed. You are presenting an argument to me that published=notable. This argument was presented at the AfD but the participants did not agree it was valid. Furthermore, it has no basis in policy, and is even counter to policy. I spent a long time before closing this looking into whether it could be established that the subject met the requirements of WP:PROF on the basis of his own publications alone. Hence my closing reference to h-index. It is not at all necessary for a closer to have to do this, and if I simply wished to close according to my own feelings I would certainly not have bothered. The only issue worth discussing here is does the subject have WP:42 sources. If you don't have any, this discussion is over. SpinningSpark 15:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have recreated the article from scratch, as I consider Brown's career to be notable per WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

David Jay Brown

Please see the following article in Salon. It appears that editor "qworty," who has instigated the deletion of several pages and committed some vandalism on others, has some sort of feud going with the neopagan community.

Doing a quick bibliography check, I found three books available at Wikipedia (not counting self-published Kindle editions), at least one of which, _Conversations on the Edge of the Apocolpse_, was published by Palgrave MacMillan, a division of St. Martin's Press (a mainstream publisher by any reasonable definition).

I think you should consider taking appropriate action with regard to Qworty, who appears to be conducting a feud against competing authors.

Also see: http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/anonymous-revenge-editing-on-wikipedia-the-case-of-robert-clark-young-aka-qworty/

And, within Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-20/In_the_media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Qworty is already banned from Wikipedia and his account blocked. What further action are you looking for from me? SpinningSpark 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, two or three of his books are published by Crossing Press, an imprint of Ten Speed Press, which is owned by Random House (operating as part of their Crown Publishing Division). Rosencomet (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

To 198.228.xxx.xxx

Hello, I have a few comments about your behaviour on the Talk:Geology of North America. You really need to stop this constant harping that the article must be deleted/gutted. It is not constructive. If you really think the article should be deleted then take it to WP:AFD (hint: this will also give you your desired result of keeping it off DYK since articles cannot go on the front page while they are subject to a deletion discussion). Talk page discussions are supposed to be conducted in a collegial atmosphere with a view to improving the article. Your attitude is anything but collegial. You are making the page an unpleasant place for other editors to work. You clearly have enough knowledge to make improvements to the article, please do so or else take the deletion issue to a more appropriate venue. SpinningSpark 10:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was working with the other editors, and we had decided upon a rewrite based upon an ouline from DNAG, when all of a sudden you come by and say all IP complaints are not legite and the article is ready for the main page. A little confusion how you decided I have the knowledge to rewrite the article, but not to critique it, and how it is ready for the main page when even you notice the Greenland issue. In its current state there are too many issues, section after section badly written and badly sourced and plagiarized out of context, for it to he edited here and there. It requires the entire rewrite with an outline that was agreed upon. Until then, and while you and Tobias push for the main page, the article should be gutted to a bare bones article containing just the agreed upon outline with links to component articles. So, take your defense to the article page, defend the renaming of the Interior Plains, the North American Cordillera all you want, but this is a content dispute, and it does belong on the article talk page, not in user talk space, where probably the agreement to dissect Greenland occurred. -198.228.216.155 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not about the article, it is about your behaviour towards other editors. Implying incompetence [9], insulting [10], using edit summaries to make sarky points [11][12], using provacative section headings [13]. If you don't want to improve the article yourself then fine, but this unfriendly attitude to those who are working on it is certainly not going to help get it better. If anything it will drive good faith editors away because they will not want to work in such a poisoned atmosphere. Your reply here is all part of the same syndrome - you demand that I take my "defense to the article page, defend the renaming of the Interior Plains, the North American Cordillera all you want" as if I were even proposing those things. That is both a straw man argument and turning what should be simple and straightforward content correction into a personal attack. This has to stop and it has to stop now. I advise you to continue to monitor this page as it is the only means I have to communicate with you without bringing more unneeded baggage to article talk pages. SpinningSpark 21:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly not interested in the article. Nothing going on here. -68.107.136.227 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It is on my watchlist now though. SpinningSpark 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You did approve the DYK nomination, but there have been issues after that, including unrelated ones that would affect the article, like tagging. I already addressed them in the DYK nompage already. Hopefully, you can resolve these issues or have someone else interested to do so. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of chronometers on HMS Beagle know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on June 17, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 17, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Earnshaw's Marine Chronometer No.509

The large number of chronometers carried by HMS Beagle, an Admiralty survey ship, were vital to her three missions, which included charting the coasts of South America and Australia. Chronometers were formerly essential to mariners for the accurate determination of longitude. Beagle's second voyage (1831–36) established a chain of linked reference points of known longitude encircling the globe for the first time. Beagle required large numbers of chronometers so that they could be compared with each other for accuracy and some would inevitably break down on such a long voyage. The expensive chronometers included some by famous makers such as John Arnold who coined this use of the term chronometer, Edward Dent who designed Big Ben, and Thomas Earnshaw who invented the spring detent escapement. Some of these chronometers were still in use on Royal Navy ships in the modern era, at least one went down with a battleship in the First World War. However, only two have survived to the present time, including one in the British Museum (pictured).

DYK nomination of Slotted line

Hello! Your submission of Slotted line at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Lavie (Request to reverse April 1, 2013 AfD)

Hello Spinningspark. I am writing about the Lisa Lavie AfD (here) in which you deleted the 2009-2013 article without comment; WP:DRV#Instructions instructs that I contact the closing admin. The AfD participants' comments include five "Delete" comments, versus three comments of "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" and "leaning towards keep." Some comments were that the 2009-2013 article had so much "fluff" that it obscured the subject's notability; nominator and some editors' comments said there was inadequate notability; I strongly believe the former perception is what led to the April 1 deletion. After the deletion, I asked each participant for more specific explanation on a "mini-RFC" on my talk page, but I received only general comments, such as about writing style and reference overload (discussion here). On June 2, I uploaded a new "made-from-scratch" version (here) which deals with the participants' criticisms and establishes notability. The improvements reflected in the June 2 article are listed in the "Changes" list (Wikipedia talk here); various events establishing notability are in "Table N," and the factual errors that caused or contributed to the April 1 deletion are listed in "Table E." Unfortunately, admin RHaworth speedy-deleted the June 2 article under G4 even though G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." I truly appreciate the time admins spend, and I ask for your careful consideration, and hopefully to reverse your Delete decision. Of course, if you have constructive advice as to how to resolve this situation, please communicate it to me. RCraig09 (talk)

Sorry for the slow reply. If the new article (as you claim) is substantially different from the one I deleted then the deleting admin is RHaworth, not me, and it is with him you should take this up. SpinningSpark 01:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think RCraig09 has misconstrued the response he already received from RHaworth, who told him that DRV was appropriate in this case. I don't think he understands that RHaworth indicated he should go directly to DRV of the speedy as his next step, rather than contesting the initial AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just asked RHaworth for clarification. RCraig09 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Slotted line

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lower limbs venous ultrasonography

Wondered if I could ask for more time for review on behalf of Doc Elisa - I think she may be away.....I posted some suggestions on her talkpage some days ago and there's been no response. Can an editor change the contents round in the contents box? If yes, how do you access it? Thank you Iztwoz (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More time is not a problem, but please leave a note on the review page saying what is happening. You did not explain what you want to change in the table of contents, but WP:TOC might have the answer you need. SpinningSpark 02:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

Hi, I'm sending this to Bwilkins, Kww, and Spinningspark. I've just seen Nathan's explanation of why he reacted as he did. I was shocked when I saw his response to Spinningspark, but given his circumstances it's completely understandable that he'd be operating on a short fuse. Would one of you reconsider his unblock request? If editing in a coffee shop is the only time things feel normal, a week is a long time to lose that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations.

  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lisa Lavie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lisa Lavie. 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. RCraig09 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For one of the most succinct and eloquent defences of the VisualEditor I've yet seen :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vitold Belevitch

Out of curiosity, what did you have against the infobox? Your edit summary was cut off:

Reverted good faith edits by Disavian (talk): Changing citation style of only one entry is inconsistent and in any case goes against WP:CITEVAR. Infoboxes are not essential and th...

Sorry you didn't like my edits. Disavian (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the change of citation style than the infobox. It means that any future expansion of the article either needs to conform to the new system or else leave the article inconsistent. This is a problem if the article is subsequently sent for review, at GA or FA for instance, where the inconsistency will be picked up and I object to be being forced to use someone elses choice of style. It would not be so bad if you were intending to take the article somewhere (major expansion or FA) but that is not the case here as far as I can see.
I am not a great fan of infoxes and in this particular case it added nothing material to the article. Infoboxes tend to attract uncited disinformation and frequently subtleties are better explained in the text. Many edit wars have been fought over what nationality should be put in an infobox and Belevitch is a less than straightforward case. Is he Belgian? Or maybe Russian? His mother was Polish. He was born in Finland (or was it Russia?). It is far better to explain these things in full in prose (with a suitable cite) than fret over whnich of these should be in the infobox. SpinningSpark 20:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wooden Leg

Ho Spinning Spark. The GA review has just been posted for your article: Talk:Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer/GA1. Best wishes, -- User:Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI issue

With regard to this posting you did, I'm not seeing that a WP:COI issue definitely exists, as you seems to state (but perhaps I misunderstand). Could you help me a bit on this point?

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The COI was self declared in the request for assistance. SpinningSpark 02:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I missed that, obviously. I appreciate your pointing it out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
You're a very helpful and attentive administrator. - Sidelight12 Talk 11:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Carbonaceous

I don't see the purpose of having a whole article for a definition of the adjective of carbon. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We can link to the Wiktionary definition of carbonaceous in a dab page. Adabow (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at User talk:BD2412#Carbonaceous. Please make your comments there, or else move the whole discussion to the article talk page. Otherwise the discussion becomes fractured. SpinningSpark 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark/Archive_14&oldid=1146688645"