This user has opted out of talkbacks

Re: Ayana Jordan DeletionEdit

Hello! I was hoping to have Ayana's page restored and returned to draft space. here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ayana_Jordan I found more news sources that reference her accomplishments. I am sorry for the canvassing clutter on the talk page for her deletion. The community was very upset and I did not know to stop inexperienced editors from commenting. Now I know what canvassing is and I will not let it happen again. Thank you so much for your time. Microglia145 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As requested, the article is now at Draft:Ayana Jordan. I have also templated it under WP:Articles for creation. I strongly recommend that you use that project's review process when the article is ready rather than moving it back to mainspace yourself. On canvassing, Wikipedia:Canvassing explains the acceptable methods of calling for more participation in a discussion. Basically, notifications should be neutral and don't selectively message people or places likely to be sympathetic to one side.
Inexperienced editors, and even completely new editors, are welcome to participate in deletion discussions. There is no need, nor should you try, to stop them. My point in my closing remarks was that it is not usually helpful to specifically ask inexperienced users to participate. Users with a good understanding of guidelines and experience of the AFD process are always able to make stronger arguments. SpinningSpark 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad tasteEdit

Hi, this edit summary is not the slightest bit funny.[1] Graham Beards (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither was the original complaint. SpinningSpark 10:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be. Graham Beards (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Journey to Alpha Centauri (In Real Time)Edit

Your deprod rationale was "per WP:ATD, there are better ways to handle this than deletion." Would you care to expound on what better ways there were? Ravenswing 07:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

re an RfC you closedEdit

The maker of an RfC you closed on 5/22 was revealed and banned on 6/12 for sockpuppetry. On 6/15, S Marshall closed another RfC by the same sock as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it. For proper archival purposes, can a mention of sockpuppetry be added to your close? I'll note, for further context, that the preface of the instant RfC included a misleading claim that a prior Rfc addressed only the state primary pages and did not address the main primary page. Nothing in the prior RfC supports that claim. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You have already made this request on my page once and I have already declined it. Whether or not it was opened in bad faith, the participants acted in good faith and it does not materially affect the close. There is nothing to be gained by revisiting this. SpinningSpark 10:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Sincere apologies. Working through the sock’s multifaceted efforts and 1000s of edits took me for a spin. Feel free to delete this convo. Again, sorry for the repeat request. 12:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Zizinaș RiverEdit

Hi, you unprodded Zizinaș River, writing that the article is referenced. I remember we had a similar conversation last year at Talk:Apa Neagră. Before I prodded the article, I checked the first reference because it's available online: Atlasul cadastrului apelor din România. Partea 1 (in Romanian). Bucharest: Ministerul Mediului. 1992. OCLC 895459847.. The article claims the Zizinaș is a tributary of the Zizin, which is on page 272 of that reference. No tributaries of the Zizin are mentioned. The other reference ("Institutul de Meteorologie și Hidrologie - Rîurile României - București 1971") is probably this one: OCLC 25141267. As you suggested last year, I'll ask at WP:RX whether someone can find the Zizinaș in that book. If not, I'll bring the article to AfD. Markussep Talk 07:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me, that rather than assuming something underhand on the part of the creator, it is more straightforward to assume that they found the names of these rivers in the sources cited. That's what AGF requires us to do in any case. Where do you suppose the editor is getting the information from if it is not those sources. This seems to confirm existence at least; "Sur le bord gauche du deuxième affluent de droite de la vallée du Zizin en amont du confluent avec la vallée du Zizinaș , à 450 m de l ' embouchure:..." SpinningSpark 10:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the editor got most of their information from maps, but I've seen several instances where they mistook the name of a hill or hamlet for that of a nearby river. In this case it might actually be a (small) river, which the book you found confirms. This detailed map shows several small tributaries of the Zizin, but none of them are named. We don't even know whether the Zizinaș is a left or right tributary. Let's see what WP:RX finds. Markussep Talk 15:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I've located the Zizinaș: this index of cadastral sectors of the commune of Tărlungeni says that sector numbers 147, 197, 204, 205 and 206 are named "Zizinaș", and you can see on the attached map that they're all on the northeastern, right-hand side of the main Zizin valley. It's probably the stream that enters the Zizin at 45°35′10″N 25°49′40″E / 45.5862°N 25.8277°E / 45.5862; 25.8277. No news from WP:RX yet. IMO this stream will never meet the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline, so I propose redirecting it to Zizin, and mentioning it there as a right tributary. Do you agree? Markussep Talk 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible approach to me. SpinningSpark 08:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Done, thanks for your help. Markussep Talk 09:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Electric fieldEdit

Hi Spinningspark, thanks for rewriting that statement on the field lines in the Electric field article, I copied it from the electricity#electric field article, it might be good to change it there too. I agree with your reasons and think the new statement is much more informative. Now that I'm done obsessively editing the page, I wanted to ask, if you don't mind, should I have made all those edits in a sand box and pushed it all at once, or was the way I did it the acceptable manner? I have been tending to make many smaller edits, each with its own merit, but I've noticed it does pollute the history a bit. I couldn't find any policy on it, so I wanted to ask a more experienced editor what the etiquette is. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It largely depends on how you prefer to work. I must admit, I always groan when I see a mass of successive edits all by the same editor in my watchlist. But it does have the advantage that editors can examine your changes one at a time and only revert/edit the ones they don't like. Against that, if you make extensive changes all in one edit, then you need to learn not to get upset when the entire thing gets reverted in one hit. Sometimes working that way is unavoidable. I've occassionally worked on articles that are so dreadful I've written a completely new article in userspace and then pasted it over the top of the existing article, ignoring the original material entirely. SpinningSpark 12:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
By the way, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You always need to declare that when you do it or you will get into trouble over licensing. SpinningSpark 12:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
That does sound reasonable, and allowing for individual reversions is the main reason I edit that way. I do see the benefits of creating a new namespace on occasion, though. With this being a fairly major article, I feel as though I did the right thing doing the edits one at a time. Also, while it wouldn't be pleasant to have a large edit reverted in one click, it doesn't take too long to realize there are many ways of looking at a topic and that I will not always hold the majority opinion. Thank you, for the advice and quick response! Footlessmouse (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. I almost got in trouble for that once when merging content, but I thought it was because it was a super-fringe topic that had no reference. I was told I needed to provide attribution similar to that when merging content. I should have extrapolated for copying - I am truly sorry about that. I thought that copying the references were good enough. I do tend to mention it in the edit summary, though, so I will try to go back and see what was directly copied and possibly reword it or undo and give it attribution. Footlessmouse (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
It's easy enough to fix. Do a dummy edit to make the declaration, or else put the declaration on the talk page. SpinningSpark 13:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking CapEdit

Sorry for my mess, I was almost asleep and should have known better. Thanks for the help. - Minor problem today when doing more online searches for this horse. A Google search yielded this with the small "c":

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thinking_cap Thinking cap - Wikipedia Stymie Handicap (1956) Merchants' and Citizens' Handicap (1956). Thinking Cap (1952-1976) was an American Thoroughbred racehorse who successfully ...

I just now changed the name to Thinking Cap (horse), a designation we frequently use to avoid confusion. I changed all the linked pages relative to the horse but there are some remaining. Stretchrunner (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This and thatEdit

Hi Spinning, Please excuse my failure to participate in the FA review for Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom. The article has been picked over so thoroughly in the GA and peer reviews, that there seems little that I could usefully add. The GA review alone is longer than the article itself. The article surely merits FA status.

Your participation would still be appreciated. Proposed FAs sometimes get archived without promoting if the coordinator does not think enough editors have reviewed it, even if no one opposes it. It's happened to me before because it's hard to get people to review technical articles, and the length of this one makes it doubly difficult. You can see from [2] that the coordinator thinks that more reviews are still needed.

It is good to see that there is now a Reciprocity (electrical networks) page. The want of a suitable target for [[reciprocity]] in this context has long been an annoyance. catslash (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Me too. It went on my to do list almost exactly ten years ago [3]. It's like a compost heap, you have to give it time to mature and the best stuff is on the bottom. SpinningSpark 10:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mercury pressure gaugeEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Mercury pressure gauge 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Network synthesisEdit

The article Network synthesis you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Network synthesis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. -- PythonSwarm Talk | Contribs | Global 09:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

BreakTudo (website)Edit

Could you please nominee this article for deletion? It is a detour for the elimination of BreakTudo, decided by community consensus.

I also suggest deleting all related articles (eg BreakTudo Awards) for the same reasons as the discussion (see the 2016 discussion in Pt.wiki). If you pay attention, you will realize that the engagement to maintain articles from the BreakTudo website on Wikipedia is a spam action.

Sorry if I misspelled, but I hope you understand my message. J talk 11:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@JardelW: Why are you asking me to do this? I have had no connection with this article or its deletion discussion. You can nominate it yourself by following the instructions at WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. SpinningSpark 11:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You appear in the BreakTudo article deletion log. I'm sorry. J talk 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that was a routine speedy deletion of a repost of a deleted article. If you think that applies here, you can mark the article with {{db-g4}} being sure to include the location of the original deletion discussion. SpinningSpark 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope I'm doing the right thing. J talk 13:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Mercury pressure gaugeEdit

 On 16 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mercury pressure gauge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mercury pressure gauges as tall as 23 metres (75 ft) have been built to measure very high pressures? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mercury pressure gauge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mercury pressure gauge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

thanksEdit

thanks for the revert Hmains (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Achieser-Zolotarev filterEdit

 On 20 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Achieser-Zolotarev filter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zolotarev polynomials were introduced in 1868, but not applied to Zolotarev filters until 1970? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Achieser-Zolotarev filter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Achieser-Zolotarev filter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Zolotarev polynomialsEdit

 On 20 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zolotarev polynomials, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zolotarev polynomials were introduced in 1868, but not applied to Zolotarev filters until 1970? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zolotarev polynomials), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

AtomosEdit

Hello,

I have a slight interest in the phrase "Atomos" and see that you have taken down the reference to Democritus or Leucippus.

May i ask if there was any particular reason?

Kindest regards,

Mark Carter. A curious soul mark@simchess.com

Doesn't sound like something I have done very recently. Which article was this in? SpinningSpark 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Network synthesisEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Network synthesis 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 Dh.wp -- Dh.wp (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Airborne CigarEdit

Hello, Maury has responded to your comments and is still waiting for a response from you. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

My previous comment on that page "I'm just going to unwatch this page and not respond any further" about covers it. SpinningSpark 13:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pavel SchillingEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pavel Schilling 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 Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pavel SchillingEdit

The article Pavel Schilling 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:Pavel Schilling for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing accessibility featuresEdit

Why are you making the page Baudot code less accessible? How is this article improved by being hostile to the blind? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to remove accessibility features. I'm trying to remove the mess you are making of the tables. Take this to the talk page of the article concerned. It is not a matter of general principle that needs discussing here. SpinningSpark 17:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Spinningspark, And yet, you did remove an accessibility feature. What is your plan for making this table accessible? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, take it to the article talk page. I've explained my reasons for reverting there. SpinningSpark 08:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraphEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth-return telegraph 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 Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No True scotsmanEdit

You, being a wikipedian for ages, are expected to know about out rules WP:NOR/ WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pavel SchillingEdit

The article Pavel Schilling you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Pavel Schilling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraphEdit

The article Earth-return telegraph 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:Earth-return telegraph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Network synthesis/GA1Edit

Hi Spinningspark, I just wanted to let you know that the reviewer for your article is unresponsive and has not made edits since your last interaction, now would be a good time to ask for a second opinion. I believe the article qualifies and agree that a great leap forward is not necessarily biased if reliable sources call it such. Just a suggestion! Footlessmouse (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that one. SpinningSpark 17:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

== October 2020Edit

I changed it to a link because that is more informative and doesn't work with Languages as classifier which you have ommited around a non English lanuage. Machine infernale --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please try to be less pompous.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been studiously polite to you. That was uncalled for. SpinningSpark 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraphEdit

The article Earth-return telegraph you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Earth-return telegraph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That IP-hopping, appendix-title and white-space guy (redux)Edit

He's baaaaack! 101.187.83.6 (talk · contribs) is once again engaged in rapid-fire violations of various style guidelines (in at least 26 articles on 3 Nov. alone that I'm aware of). I've warned them, again, about their #Continuing pattern of disruptive edits. Can you please review whether they're ready for a lengthy block now? (You've previously blocked some aliases, such as 49.195.156.113, 129.94.8.198, and a few others I think.)

Context:

In addition, this IP is almost certainly another sock of Hopelesswiki.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Network synthesisEdit

The article Network synthesis 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:Network synthesis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dh.wp -- Dh.wp (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United KingdomEdit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

In the Military section I masked the last sentence - "CS Monarch was sunk by a German mine off Folkestone." - which has no context and needs further explanation. I believe my copy edit dealt with most of Beard's concerns.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking on this big job. It will be a while before I can go through it all. Are you willing to come back to it to address any issues at a later date? It would be very helpful to me if you would so that the quality of the prose is maintained after any corrections. SpinningSpark 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: You're welcome. I found it a very interesting article. Certainly, I would be happy to help with it at a later date if needed. Just ping me on my Talk Page. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

About titles, honorifics and appeal to popularityEdit

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Spinningspark, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.

scope_creepTalk 11:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Christmas, Spinning!!Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dynamic cascading style sheetsEdit

 

The article Dynamic cascading style sheets has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I'm inviting you to comment on my deletion proposal, since you participated in the discussion of the first deletion proposal. You can find it here.

Anton.bersh (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)