User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Protection of William Shatner‎

The protection you applied to William Shatner‎ will not stop the user from readding the BLP material as he is autoconfirmed. GB fan 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just realised that myself and fully protected the article while you were writing. SpinningSpark 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the latest comments by Petershatner do you think removing the protection would be appropriate?[1][2] GB fan 17:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's probably ok, but I'm inclined to let it run till tomorrow at least to give him a chance to calm down and take it all in. I really don't want to have to block him and leaving the article protected removes the temptation. SpinningSpark 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Its OK either way, I am involved so it is up to you, just thought it might be a good idea. GB fan 19:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help Desk - Youtube Thread

Hi Spinningspark, the user actually did say what article it was, just above your comment - Psychopathy in the workplace. Just thought you might want to re-word your reply. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you help with something?

I mean that literally - I noticed that you've done a lot of work on Nothing, and (perhaps despite this), I was wondering if you could help build an article on the rather abstract concept of Something. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, are you working on something somewhere? My work on nothing was a kind of penance for a bad mistake I made early on involving that article (it nearly derailed my RFA). It was really a one-off, but I guess I could do something useful with something. Most of my contribution to nothing was based on Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Doing that again will, of course, weight the article to Western thinkers (something still apparent in the nothing article). We also need to watch out that Russell's sometimes idiosyncratic views do not poke through unattributed. But ff that's the kind of help you want, just let me know. SpinningSpark 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert

If you need it, I can give billions of reference about this. Please revert your revert and I will be happy to write a page about materials if necessary. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what dab pages are for, see MOS:DAB. They should never contain encyclopaedic information and thus never require references. Their only purpose is to direct the reader to the article they are looking for. As such, only the bare minimum of text necessary to distinguish the required article is needed on the page.

By all means write an article, but before doing so the disambiguation page should be moved to material (disambiguation). When you have an article ready you will need to place {{Db-move}} on the page to get an admin to delete it so a move can take place. SpinningSpark 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. For the moment, I changed again the definition at the top because to say that a material is a single substance is wrong. For example the steel is a material formed mainly by two substances (carbon and iron). I will create the page "Material" as soon as possible. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So steel is not a substance by your thinking? SpinningSpark 08:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding referencing...

Hello,

I have completed a short assignment and have used your information on Stethoscopes as research material. Thank you.

May I have your surname and first initial for correct APA v6.0 referencing style? I wish to credit you properly.

I will understand if you don't wish to do this and I wanted to first ask before simply using the article name as the reference.

Kind regards,

Dan Gamble Mambogambo (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mambogambo: Hi Dan, you need to be aware that it is a breach of etiquette on this site to ask editors to reveal their real-life identities. Please see Citing Wikipedia for the correct forms to cite Wikipedia articles. SpinningSpark 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello SpinningSpark, I'm writing to you because you originally responded to a help desk query I had earlier. This is related but not entirely the same issue, but it is regarding the same article. I can't help but feel that certain experienced editors are being very combative as to my edits regarding a controversial article. My edits, which I feel are legitimate, are being reverted multiple times. I feel that some parts of my edits are definitely positive instead of controversial, but the whole edits are being reverted. When I discuss my edits at the talk page, I can't help but feel that these editors are ignoring a significant amount of my arguments. However, they band together to quote WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, even for this controversial article, almost nobody apparently cares enough about the subject to comment about these issues; I posted queries on three message boards and only one editor responded. The few regular editors of the article, are often against me. In that case, I'll never achieve their idea of consensus. I'm really not sure how to proceed. I'm sure you'll be able to find out which article I'm talking about, but I'm not sure if you should intervene on that talk page yet. I was hoping to discuss my actions with you here, if possible, instead of you contacting the other editors. Thank you very much for your time. starship.paint ~ regal 14:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not really possible to give an opinion without seeing the discussion in question, but in general, if nobody agrees with you, then you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong. As an aside, posting "queries on three message boards" will probably be viewed as forum shopping and asking me as well just makes that worse. One way of getting more editors involved to help reach a consensus is to open a Request for comment. SpinningSpark 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's the link. Talk:Justin Bieber, see the last two discussions (last is more important) and the corresponding edits leading to discussion at Justin Bieber. RE: Forum shopping -> I posted on 3 message boards almost simultaneously linking and directing them to contribute the Bieber talk page discussion, so I don't think that's guilty?

As an aside I've previously contributed to an RfC on Bieber before. Many people weighed in and a majority of them did not object to a majority of content I added. The RfC was closed as "no consensus to not include", but I found that some content was removed anyway after the RfC due to no "consensus to include". Another editor virtually declined to participate in the RfC, yet was displeased with the results and went ahead after the RfC to remove even more content. Therefore I've lost quite a bit of faith in (not the actual RfC process) but the "post-RfC" follow-up. starship.paint ~ regal 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not very inclined to get involved in this, but a 15-point RfC and you expected it to come to a firm conclusion? Try something a little more specific next time. SpinningSpark 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let's not talk about the RfC stuff, there's clearly too much history. Would you be willing to instead focus on the most recent edits to the article instead? From the "stable" state of SNUGGUM's edit to the present state? That's less than 10 edits. Then the only relevant talk page discussion is Talk:Justin Bieber#Toronto assault. Thank you. starship.paint ~ regal 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As I say, I am not going to get involved in this, and looking at those edits I don't think there is any need for outside help, only rational editor discussion is needed. There is certainly no call for administrator action; I don't see any evidence that you are being bullied. If you insist on having my opinion, your insertion of the sentence "this charge was dropped on September 8 when evidence could not prove Bieber was the assailant" was the cause of the latest round of reversions. That is massively POV, implying as it does that Wikipedia thinks Bieber really did carry out the assault, just that it couldn't be proved in court. That is completely unacceptable and was quite rightly reverted. Other minor issues may have got caught up in that but removing negative POV in BLP articles must be a priority for us and the article did finally settle down to a version with the same information in a more neutral form. SpinningSpark 07:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the sentence you brought up might have had POV. I had already stopped advocating for its insertion. Instead, in my last edit, the sentence I added was On September 8, Toronto dropped an assault charge against Bieber originally brought up in January 29 for an incident with a limousine driver in December 2013. I really doubt that there is POV here. In any case, thanks for your time, SpinningSpark. starship.paint ~ regal 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the specific edits you explicitly brought to my attention and asked me to comment on. As I have said, I am not going to get involved in the dispute so it is useless to keep coming back at me. You asked for a comment, you got it, sorry if you don't like it but this discussion is now ended. SpinningSpark 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding DangerousPanda's block of Barney the barney barney. I briefly mentioned your close of the John Mutton AfD. Because it's ANI, I think I'm required to give you a formal notice that I mentioned you, in case you wish to comment. The thread is What started it all. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oppenheimer pole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Augusta. 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) 09:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnet

There is an edit conflict developing on Electromagnet between another editor and I. If you have time, I wonder if you would mind taking a look at Talk:Electromagnet#The term "ferromagnetic" in the introduction and if you are inclined, giving your opinion. I wouldn't ask, but I posted requests for opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and haven't gotten anyone yet. Is there anyplace else I can go to get physics-knowledgeable outside editors? Thanks, Chetvorno^TALK 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Impedance analogy, Spinningspark.

Unfortunately Talain has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

None of these ISBNs seem to resolve and I'm in general not qualified to determine if this is a hoax or other bs.

To reply, leave a comment on Talain's talk page. — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Impedance analogy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Impedance analogy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RLC circuit

Reverting is not your tool to stop my edits until you approve of them. If you believe one specific part of the edits is wrong then you edit those out.87.254.66.250 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not for me to unpick your edits a piece at a time either. Your edits amount to a change to your personal preference for formatting. They are adding nothing substantive to the article. Wikipedia is not losing anything by reverting them. Instead of starting a war, go to the article talk page and make your case for the changes. If you can get anyone to agree that the article ought to be changed then we can make the changes. Until then MOS:MATH says we should stick to the status quo ante. SpinningSpark 00:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Placed this one as GA on Hold. Quite minor issues really, shouldn't be too hard to address. Great work overall!! Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indoor-outdoor thermometer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indoor-outdoor thermometer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Images for Impedance analogy

Just curious, how come you put the local copies thingies on the images you made? — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, how come you don't want File:Impedance analogy resistor.svg moved to Wikimedia Commons ??? — Cirt (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark/Why I don't upload to Commons. SpinningSpark 16:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood, no worries! — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Impedance analogy

The article Impedance analogy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Impedance analogy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indoor-outdoor thermometer

The article Indoor-outdoor thermometer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indoor-outdoor thermometer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Hi SpinningSpark,

Can you review my pending changes on the "Carl Freer" Wikipedia page? I am a clear, concise writer. I am well educated. And this page, and several other pages, have issues related to grammar, word choice, editorializing, and misrepresentations.

I will be glad to contribute to Wikipedia. In return, I ask only that you review my edits fairly as your time permits. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.24.242.94.114 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not my area of interest. SpinningSpark 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

The article Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem adding to Rubik's Cube page

Hi Spinningspark, sorry to bother you, not sure whether you are the person to ask. When trying to add to the talk on Rubik's Cube, I get an error about

The following link has triggered a protection filter: google.com ... =bv.68911936,d.c2E

and I cannot save the page. This is not a link in my edit, but seems to be contained in one of the comments under talk, Semi-protected edit request (II) on 15 June 2014. Never had this before (but I have limited Wiki experience). Any suggestion what to do about this? Many thanks.

Randinfogen (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You are triggering the spam blacklist. I'm not really sure why, at a quick look I can't find the line you are triggering in the regex. However, I would question the suitability of the video in any case. It is clearly a prototype (no stickers) and probably the manufacturer's video. There is no indication that the uploader has permission and it is probably a copyright violation. As such, we shouldn't link to it. SpinningSpark 12:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems that somebody else added a link to the talk page which is now blacklisted. It's the link under 3. found here. I am not questioning the blacklisting at all. I am just wondering what to do if other people can no longer add to the talk page because the existing blacklisting blocks page saves. Perhaps the blacklisted link from that other post can simply be removed, or stored in a way that does not block the page. Thanks for your help! Randinfogen (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to edit the whole page? If so, try editing just the relevant section, or start a new section. SpinningSpark 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the problem thread to the archive. SpinningSpark 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! No time now, but there is that recent result on the optimal 26 quarter-turn solution, and I think it might be nice to have a couple of comments about beginner solutions. Randinfogen (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foster's reactance theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foster's reactance theorem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

The article Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foster's reactance theorem

The article Foster's reactance theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foster's reactance theorem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for indulging my comments on that review. :) I had one remaining question (really a clarification of a comment), but that can be answered at your leisure. the article certainly meets the GA criteria and I have no issue passing it with that question outstanding. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit of Japanese in New York City

I revised "Creg Robinson" to "Greg Robinson" in the citations to Japanese in New York City entry. The author's name for the articles cited in this entry is Greg Robinson. It is easy to check this. However, you undid my revisions so that it reads "Creg Robinson." I think it would be helpful to readers of this entry if the author's name is listed correctly. I would appreciate it if you could correct this. Thanks. Gordonap (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gordonap. I don't dispute that you have the correct name, but that's not why I reverted you. Your edit introduced multiple citation errors (follow the link and scroll down to the article to see what I mean). After reverting you I corrected the author name in this edit. The name in the ref ids is really of no consequence, it is just there to let the software know which ref is being reused. It is never visible to the encyclopaedia user. You can change it if you want, but please note that spaces are not allowed in ref ids unless the id is enclosed in quotes. If you do change it, please use the preview button before saving your edit to make sure you have the result you intended. SpinningSpark 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidance for Draft:Jeju_black_cattle?

Hello, saw your good work on the equivalent pig article, thought you might have advice/interest in this AFC draft that just popped up: Draft:Jeju_black_cattle. Take care, MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: You are not supposed to fail articles for a lack of inline citations. To quote the reviewing instructions "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material". The article has a ton of good quality scholarly references. It is not the role of AFC reviewers to get the article perfect. The purpose of AFC is only to check that the material is not a copyvio, POV, advertising, non-notable or otherwise a heap of crap. I have removed the duplicate posting which was your other objection and fixed some other cosmetic stuff, so you should have no problem passing the article now, should you? SpinningSpark 19:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark left you a message on Wikipedia

Hi there. I just received a message that you had removed one or more external links I added to the page Elastomer, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. These are great technical articles that go in great detail about elastomers, so I am a bit puzzled. For future reference, I'd appreciate if you can let me know what was inappropriate about them so I am more careful when adding references or information sources.

Best regards,— Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieBM (talk • contribs)

Well first of all they are to the site of a commercial company. That is always a bad sign. There are also multiple instances of them across multiple articles all to the same company. That is usually an indication that someone is trying to spam us. Your account has done pretty much nothing except add external links, another sign of a spammer. Secondly, many of the links I removed were placed in the references section or the see also section. Both of those are inappropriate; they are not referencing any fact in the article and see also is not supposed to be used for external links. The most appropriate place for such links is the external links section but even there I would probably still remove them. See our external links guideline, especially the first point of links normally to be avoided - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." In other words, we want Wikipedia articles to be expanded in preference to pointing readers to other sites. SpinningSpark 22:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Let me ask you, I see for example this link http://www.customadvanced.com/common-properties-of-rubber-elastomers.html under Elastomer. It is a commercial site. What would the difference be? or this one http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/liquid-injection-molding under Liquid Injection Molding. That is also a commercial site.

I would really appreciate the feedback since my intent is not to spam Wikipedia in anyway. As a matter of fact, I am one of the most loyal followers, reason I make sure I financially support it year after year. I am a true believer of what you do here. and that is the reason I take the time to add good content (or for what at least I believe to be excellent content)

Awaiting your response — Preceding JackieBM comment added by JackieBM (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackie, learn to sign your posts. I could make a career out of sifting through Wikipedia removing all inappropriate links. It would be a full time job. I don't do it because I have better things to do here. I guess you are asking why I didn't remove those other links – simple answer, I didn't look at them, I was only looking at your links. You came to my attention because you posted links in an article on my watchlist. The first link I would definitely remove (and probably will now you have brought it to my attention), any page that has a big "request a quote" button is a big no-no. It fails ELNO #5. The second one is a bit more borderline, but still probably does not belong, the site is a directory rather than selling something themselves, but nevertheless, the information is placed there to attract customers to companies in their directory. It still fails ELNO #1 if the same information could be written in the article. The default position is not to have external links. They should only be inserted if there is a positive reason for having them. SpinningSpark 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain. In that case, let me ask you another question before I make another mistake. I noticed in the Injection Molding section, there is a reference by Thomasnet.com It says (1) Liquid Injection Molding and it takes you to a commercial page where it has a button "Find Suppliers" and also an advertisement banner on the right (It says advertisement on top). Is that ok because it is a reference [1] inside the article posted in wikipedia?— Preceding JackieBM comment added by JackieBM (talk

I'm not sure which article you are talking about there. Perhaps you can give a link to it. Yes, references do have different rules. If that is where the information genuinely came from that is what should be cited. However, I might question the reliability of such sources, depending on exactly what information was being verified by the source. In any case book sources and published scholarly papers are much to be preferred for technical information if at all possible. Advertising does not entirely rule out a site for the purpose of either external links or references, but it is often a bad sign. The plastics industry is well established and there is a huge body of material written about it. It should not be difficult to find a book source for any technical fact that needs citing. Google books is a good place to search for sources, many publishers allow google to show a preview of the book. SpinningSpark 14:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackie, the correct way to sign your posts is with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) SpinningSpark 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injection_molding_of_liquid_silicone_rubber If you scroll all the way down to reference, you will see the [1] and the link to the article. Thanks! JackieBM (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's ok as a reference, but as I said, a better (more reliable) source could easily be found. The very first result on google books [3] gives a similar list of machines. SpinningSpark 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark for taking the time to teach me the ropes. I will try not to make anymore mistakes, but please go easy on me while I learn. I will carefully read the content and post the articles as a reference if they make sense. For your edification, the articles I added were written by some of the best engineers in the industry. These articles are not scrapped. Each one of them takes over a week to write. Hours go into diligently researching and writing every single piece of content. Additionally, there are no "buy now buttons" or "get a quote" buttons. Nor are there any external links or advertisement. If anything, the only thing you will find is a link to a detailed guide on Liquid Silicone Rubber (LSR), the material, the applications, and the process. Something that I can assure you, Wikipedia readers will find extremely useful.

Thank you for your patience and for taking the time out of your personal life to keep Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Now I know that my financial support is going to the right cause! JackieBM (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

dYK

I just created Zombie star and nominated it for DYK. Several articles about the topic just came through my RSS reader today. As the topic includes the word Zombie, it would be perfect for tomorrow, but I realize this is exceptionally late notice, so may not be possible. Anything to be done you think? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging a few other reviewers and admins for wider notice. Carlojoseph14, Hawkeye7, Casliber, Smartse Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Prioryman 7%266%3Dthirteen Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Impedance analogy

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	50,000 edits deserves a hearty "Well done!" and a pat on the back. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

John Tawell - Carol Baxter book

I had added Carol Baxter's account of the "Salt Hill" Murder of Sarah Hart by John Tawell, "The Electric Constable", to the bibliography, but apparently you saw fit to remove it (or to have it removed) suggesting it was a fictional account. Ms Baxter, a criminal historian from Australia, wrote a fully well-researched factual account in this book, and if you have doubts I would suggest you get a copy and read it. I would respectfully request to put the citation I had back in the bibliography.

Thank you.

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseLeiman (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@JesseLeiman:. I have seen the preview of the book in Amazon. It is not written in the style of a factual account. Baxter puts a lot of emotions into the characters that are her own insinuation. You might be right that I am being unfair to describe it as a fictionalized account, but it is not a straight historical factual account either. Anyway, the bibliography section is for a bibliography of sources that have been used in writing the article and this book clearly has not been so used. If you were to expand the article using the book as a source that would be a different matter. We could compromise and have it in a "Further reading" section though. SpinningSpark 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. If you would add it to "Further reading" that would be fine. I know what you mean by Ms Baxter's style - all her books are written like that, but I can vouch for the fact that she researches them and they are meant as factual accounts.

Than you again.

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseLeiman (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your really thorough GA review on Oil shale in Estonia. It was very helpful. Beagel (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

B. S. Daya Sagar

Thanks for detecting and removing this tag mentioning copy-paste yields false-positive. This page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._S._Daya_Sagar still has a couple of issues, one of which is that this page was nominated for deletion. You may help improving the page further and rescue it if your time permits.14.139.157.211 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to help save an article where the debate is being overrun with people canvassed from the outside who are completely clueless about Wikipedia requirments. Maybe the article should be saved, but I'm not going to help. There is plenty of manpower in the army of meatpuppets at the AFD debate to do any necessary work. And if they don't do it or mess it up, I don't really care. SpinningSpark 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Gregg L Greer

Hi SpinningSpark,

Note The Gregg L Greer article was hastily deleted outside of meeting the established criteria and I believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide on the overturn of the original decision and restore the page. I'm requesting a secondary review of the AFD information relevant prior to deletion. The context seemed to be misinterpreted.

RestorePlease: Endorse the original closing decision; or Reverse the deletion, or submit to the appropriate forum for reconsideration.

{{TempUndelete}} Is my request for article while under review for restore. If consensus can not be meet for any reason, on any of the request please advise.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Greeralivetoday: The debate was held open for ten days, substantially longer than the required seven days. Nobody in the debate except you, the creator of the aricle, called for it to be kept. No evidence of notability of the subject was presented in the debate. Thus, the deletion process was properly followed and in my opinion it would be a waste of time to request a deletion review as this will only look at the process followed. It will not allow a renewed debate to take place.

As pointed out in the debate, many of the references are unacceptable on Wikipedia, like about.com and facebook. Most, if not all, of the rest do not even mention the subject so evidence of notability is lacking within the article. If there is something in there, reviewers would have to read every single reference to find it, which makes it very difficult for them. Is there something they missed? If there is, please link to it and I can advise you further from there how to proceed. If not, you will have to wait for the subject to gain some actual notabiity before he can have an article on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 18:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mobility analogy

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Spinningspark. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, I watchlisted this AFD and happened to notice that:

• a) In the closing adjudication lede sentence: "The result was delete. Delete all except [Summit Series (conference) ]]" -- link broken, needs opening bracket -- I would have fixed it but I know regular editors are not supposed to touch the closed out AFD work products.
• b) Result was delete all but two of the articles submitted in joint AFD were not deleted nor any mention of their being judged notable on their individual merits (Jeff Rosenthal, Pete Gross and redirects: Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, Peter R. Gross).

Only mentioning it as I checked my watchlist and in case you may have inadvertently overlooked something. Yours respectfully, Quis separabit? 13:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. There was no mistake, all of the articles are deleted. I moved two unrelated articles back to their original titles as suggested in the debate, which is why they are now showing blue. SpinningSpark 15:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. My apologies. Quis separabit? 15:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Inductors?

Hi, I saw you undid my revision to the article on inductor— and fair enough. But I am confused about the use of the letter L. I understand that it means inductance, but on circuit diagrams I regularly see the letter L next to the symbol for an inductor (in the same way I see the letter C next to capacitors and R next to resistors) and that if there are multiple inductors (or capacitors or resistors) that these get numbered (L1, L2, C1, Q1 for a transistor, etc.). The number has nothing to do with the inductance, it is a way of distinguishing inductors from each other— because the letter L is signifying "here is an inductor." Am I not understanding that correctly? (I do not have an electrical engineering background, though I have built a few simple circuits in my time). Please clarify for me if you would. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 02:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

True enough, but the symbol on a circuit diagram will (usually) be an algebraic variable standing in for an actual number. For instance, one might write 680 Ω next to a resistor, or one might generalise that with the symbol R. That is, the resistance of the component. This can be seen to be so by the fact that the symbols can subsequently be used in an equation, for instance Z=R+jωL. Of course, the silkscreen of a pcb is commonly marked with component references and in that context they are to be seen as part numbers rather than values. But my basic problem with your edit is that it unnecessarily complicated the first sentence of the lead. We should try and make leads as clear and simple as possible. I don't have any fundamental objection to the symbol being mentioned in the article, but it really doesn't have to be in the first sentence. SpinningSpark 09:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I was seeing:

I know DupeDet has been flaky recently, but I'm seeing a fair number of 10+ word sequence matches, more if you look carefully at the contexts of the ones DupeDet does find: [4]. Now, that having been said, it may still be resolvable with normal editing, I'll leave that to your best judgment, of course, but that's what I was looking at. No worries either way. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's convincing enough. SpinningSpark 20:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Aditya Music page

I would like to know the reason for deletion of Aditya Music wiki page and would like to make necessary modifications so that the page meets needed guidelines. The page is linked in multiple Wiki articles. Girishgullapudi (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Girishgullapudi: The article was proposed for deletion with the concern that it "doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines". Articles can only be deleted under this process if the deletion is not challenged. Since you are challenging, I have restored the article. However, please be aware that any editor can initiate a full deletion debate and the article may still end up deleted if not fixed. See WP:42 for a brief summary of the requirements. SpinningSpark 10:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your speedy response Spinning. Will improve the article as per notability guidelines. Girishgullapudi (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Blanca Gómez

Regarding the deletion of Blanca Gómez's blp. Why did you discount my vote on the grounds of failing to "present some kind of rationale why the subject should be kept"? My rationale was, as I stated, that the only thing wrong with the blp was the link rot. If you don't agree with my rationale, or you think that it is insufficient then that is fine, but I would be grateful if you would not state that that I didn't present any. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that there is not anything wrong with an article is not a a policy based rationale, nor does it counter the claim that the subject is not notable. It is merely an example of WP:ILIKEIT which is an argument routinely ignored by closing admins in AFD debates, which I did in this case. I was only doing you a favour by letting you know that for future reference. Use the information however you like. SpinningSpark 01:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Blanca Gomez deletion

Hi,

Just let you know that we would like to remove the page of Blanca Gomez, since 'the community' already decided to delete it with out enough evidence. We can mention a lot of examples in wikipidia that don't have any relevance as a 'notable' journalists. We don't want 'public debates' under her name.

Please let me know if its a procedure to follow .

ThanksBlanquska (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Spark,

I've directed Blanquska here as you seem to be the final authority here by closing the AfD. User(s) (seems to be a shared account) is/are adamantly requesting deletion of the Blanca Gómez AfD discussion (see the page at the bottom, under the discussion, for more) and has blanked the page several times. I don't have the policy on-hand saying why that can't happen but figured you'd be able to sort it out. Deadbeef 04:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User Deadbeef is correct, deletion debates are never deleted. To answer your question, the correct venue to request a deletion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but you will be wasting your time going there, the page won't get deleted. However, to save the embarassment of the subject (something that should be thought about before creating promotional pages for them) we can courtesy blank the debate. I have now done this, but you should note that editors can still access the debate online through the page history. SpinningSpark 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ButN

Please share the copy of the article ButN which I had up on Wikipedia. Adsyvb (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Adsyvb: As I said in my closing remarks, you need to e-mail me first. Attachments cannot be sent through Wikipedia e-mail, so you need to let me know your e-mail address before anything can be sent. Sending me a message is the easiest way to do this and avoids revealing your e-mail address online. SpinningSpark 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I could not find a way to send you message which would be private as I do not want to reveal my email address. Please guide. Adsyvb (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Adsyvb: There is no need to ping me on my own talk page (and I watchlist any page I write to so usually it is not necessary to ping me at all). To e-mail me: while you are on my talk page or user page, go to the tools menu in the sidebar and click "email this user" then follow the instructions. SpinningSpark 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: sent you email. Please check. Thanks. Adsyvb (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Standing wave ratio may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [http://www.radartutorial.eu/03.linetheory/tl06.en.html "Standing Wave Ratio"], radartutorial.eu]</ref> In the words of Gridley <ref>J. H. Gridley, ''Principles of Electrical Transmission Lines in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon - AfD

I would have preferred that you had added a note explaining your analysis of the close, but the case being made for keep was compelling and sets a good precedent for future discussions. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brahim Darghouthi has been accepted

Brahim Darghouthi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SpinningSpark 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for deletion

Hi Spinningspark - you've suggested my article, Aed mac Brian Ó hUiginn, for deletion. Might I also suggest the following? Laurentius of Echternach, Miles de Angulo, Simon of Ireland, Martin Coen, Adrian James Martyn, Laisren of Cloonkerrill, Thomas Cawley, Markus Casey, Tom O'Connor (priest), Frances Moffett, Néide mac Onchú, Mo Lua of Kilmoluagh, Donnchadh Mac an Caoilfhiaclaigh, Margaret Athy, Scandlán Mór. Thanking you, Fergananim (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DLD - Digital Logic Design

No, I don't have access to the book sources. —Swpb^talk 01:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

DLD - Digital Logic Design is a new educational tool to provide assistance in teaching those subject areas mentioned in the article. The references given in the article are related to those subjects which are using some old tools for teaching those subjects. Those tools are either outdated or no longer supported on new platforms. The research paper related to this new tool is under review process in some research journal and, as in most cases, will take around 1-2 year to come in print. I have included this article to provide a resource for the students and teaching community who come to wiki for this purpose and found outdated software links on this prestigious site. Regards majid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmajidn (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Time in [insert country]

Hi SS,

I get the impression from previous deletions of yours that any new editor creating pages like this are Tobias Conradi. But I don't know anything about the history of that user so I'm not sure. Can you glance at Time in Albania and Time in Austria and User:Marcus Az-Absent and confirm? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say I am not that person. Basically I was in the process of creating short articles wherever a template had a red link and this was in the hope of seeing them flourish over time from other editors. I am presuming their original outlook was very different, if not then I assure you this is a co-incidence. Once the deletion notices started coming (after just two), I stopped immediately. --Marcus Az-Absent (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any obvious intersection with either this user or the previously deleted articles. I can't really remember how I got involved with this. You might be better off asking user:Dpmuk who was the blocking admin (although talk page claims he is retired, he is still very much editing). SpinningSpark 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for taking the time to write up a thorough and thoughtful close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi (2nd nomination). That went above and beyond, and I appreciate it.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

FC Tosno

Hello, Spinningspark. I suggest an article FC Tosno be reassessed as it does not look like a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.186.110 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What has that got to do with me? I don't have an interest in football articles and don't usually assess them. Take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment, or else you can assess it yourself if you haven't been a major contributor to it. SpinningSpark 14:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't know - I thought you were responsible for reassessment:) Still thanks for directing me to the appropriate place)Oldstone James (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Analogical models

Hello, please check if Analogical models illustration now is ok. --Krauss (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The image was created by me. I am hardly likely to object to my own image! SpinningSpark 14:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ops, now I see... Good work!! Well, about Ashby's image, see are my answer, I need some help. --Krauss (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

About vector images: can you produce a new one from (inspiration of) my File:Blackbox3D.png, converting to a SVG like File:Blackbox.svg (or updating it!)? There are more work to do at black box article (and Talk:Analogical_models)... --Krauss (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oxygine deleted

Hi, you removed Oxygine again with reason "A7" but it is not true right now. Article was fixed. It is not article about blog or something else. It is article about free open source technology. And it doesn't have any copy pasted text from http://oxygine.org You could see hundred similar acticles on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines My fault that I didn't wait review and moved it from draft directly to articles because I saw warning that review could take very long time. I didn't know that it is forbidden. What I could do now to unlock it? Thank you.

It's not a requirement that you wait for a review, and you haven't broken any rules by posting the article yourself, but you were unwise to do so because a reviewer could have told you what problems the article had. The A7 deletion has nothing to do with copyright, it is deletion of an article that gives no indication of the importance of the subject. But I tell you what I'll do with this one, I'll restore it and send it for a deletion debate where the community can decide. As it stands, it will probably end up being deleted for lack of notability. I recommend that you read WP:42 which gives a simple overview of our requirements for an article. SpinningSpark 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

AfD close

Hi Spinningspark.

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Singapore. I find the outcome of no consensus surprising, given that admin User:slakr had made this comment, with which I would concur. Your close seems to have counted votes rather than giving due weight to policy-based argument. The keep !votes are mostly endorsing a couple of earlier "keeps" which themselves amount to little more than WP:Other stuff exists and WP:ILIKEIT. I would prefer that you self revert and allow another admin to deal with it.

Have a good festive season.Charles (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to revert my close because you DONTLIKEIT. There were arguments from the sources, and potential sources, in the keep camp, as well as them being in the majority, so yes, I did give due weight to policy based argument. Possibly not the way I would have voted personally, but that is not how AFDs are supposed to be closed. SpinningSpark 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Diesel

There's something weird here. If I just click the link on top of the AfD, I only get 3 hits, none of them ever cited. I thought that using the full first names was somehow limiting me, so I changed to "JW Diesel" and got the same result. Right now, I get 39 results for "John W." and 86 for "J W", which are the same results you get, I think... I have no clue what happened there, why I got different results for the same search yesterday and today. Do you?

As an aside, it wouldn't have changed my !vote, as those citation data are way below the level that is normally judged to meet ACADEMIC (several articles with >100 citations, h-index of about 19 or more; lower for low citation fields such as mathematics or humanities, for the latter we often rely more on book reviews and such). --Randykitty (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"John Wallace Diesel" is definitely a poor choice of search term, it will only return results that have "Wallace" actually written in the source (you can check what the source has by clicking on the "cite" link). I get the same result as you for that. I don't understand why you do not get more results for "JW Diesel", I get 86 results. I thought it might be country specific, but I get the same result after trying all the likely country codes. I can only conclude you entered it wrong. The best search term (for Scholar) is "John Diesel" which finds the maximum number of relevant hits with the minimum number of false positives. It returns all the J Diesels and JW Diesels.

It's a pity this was closed before the issue could be bottomed out. It's also a pity that there is not more guidance in WP:PROF on this. As it stands, there is huge room for disagreement and your target of h>=19 amounts to no more than just opinion. Anyway, with an h-index of around 12, Diesel is not so far off that target so I trust we can at least agree he is on the margins of notability. SpinningSpark 08:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's on the margin, given that he published mainly in the 60s. Personally, I actually think that our standards for including academics are too low, the figures I gave above are what is common practice in AfDs for academics. An h of 19 is, in many fields, actually quite mediocre (not in mathematics or humanities, but in high citation fields like physics or life sciences) and by accepting such a large bar we get stuck with a large number of stubs that are difficult to expand, because nobody will ever write about scientists with these citation rates, probably not even an obituary when they pass away. In life sciences, an h about equal to the number of years a scientist has been active after their PhD is about the median. Someone who has been active for 30 years and has an h of 19 is therefore decidedly below the median... But I cannot impose my standards, of course, so I go with the current consensus. There have been previous discussions about this on the talk page of ACADEMIC and in different AfDs, without ever coming to a clear conclusions on what is an acceptable citation rate. As for GS: I just ran the searches again and 39 results for "John W". "John Diesel" gives 59 results. I never use a country-specific site, but always the .com version. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry Nock

The article Henry Nock 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Henry Nock for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Phase angle

The first sentence in this page says "In the context of vectors and phasors, the term phase angle refers to the angular component of the polar coordinate representation." I don't understand the reason for your revert.Brirush (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw your most recent edits, which clarify the article significantly. Thank you!Brirush (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Passed Henry Nock

I've passed Henry Nock as a GA. For some reason Legobot did not post the usual notification, but as far as I can tell I updated Talk:Henry Nock correctly, and Legobot has removed the nomination from GAN, so I think everything is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It also hasn't put the GA template on the article or added the reviewed version link to the talk page. Perhaps you should do it manually. SpinningSpark 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the GA icon, and Legobot promptly added the oldid to the template on the talk page. Not sure what's going on there, but I think it's fixed now; please let me know if not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Capote (garment)

FYI, your reverting of a linked citation to remove an erroneous credit killed the very citation link to support the edit. Therefore, I reverted the deletion and corrected the citation. BTW, I am the one wearing the capote in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I already replied to you on the article talk page. Congratulations on getting into a Wikipedia article, but I don't think that really helps your position :-) SpinningSpark 12:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wasif0909

Thanks for message. I wasn't aware that the same content was at AFD, but I'm not clear what remedial action you are proposing I take. The main user page isn't the appropriate place for a draft article anyway, and you say it exists already in article space. Do you want me to restore the content in a user sandbox? Happy New Year, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sleepwalkers

I'm puzzled by:

(Deletion log); 20:19:40 . . Spinningspark (talk | contribs) deleted page The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe ‎(G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move)

The move is obviously not uncontroversial. Could you explain, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I was servicing a routine G6 request by Roman Spinner asserted to be uncontroversial. I did not look into it too closely, I thought maybe it was a WP:COMMONNAME issue, and it seemed fairly harmless, not requiring a big investigation. It was not "obviously" controversial until you undid Spinner's move. SpinningSpark 11:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite, as I'd already undone one of his moves, and this was noted on the talk page at that point. But, its not a big thing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeung Lai Chuen

I don't see how one keep !vote out of five participants in this AfD makes a consensus to keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Try reading my closing rationale again. SpinningSpark 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeung Lai Chuen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeung Lai Chuen. 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Spinningspark!

Happy New Year!

Spinningspark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble

Greg caffrey (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Spinningspark. The page Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble was deleted. As a new user I'm a little confused about what went wrong and find it hard to cut through all the wiki jargon. I'd like to attempt to improve the article and get it to a point where it can be acceptable to Wikipedia. Perhaps you could send me the original article I posted so that I can amend as necessary and I would welcome any advice you can give as to what I might do, specifically, to make it fit for purpose.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25