User talk:Spinningspark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Murphy's law[edit]

I appreciate you may have a difference of opinion but simply removing information that other people have put on a wiki, when accurate, isn't exactly in the spirit of the site.

The Fortean Times Book of Strange Deaths should be included as an example. I suggest you read it, then please consider revising.

The Mathematical explanation of Murphys law is pretty weak, anyone familiar with large numbers (or prime numbers like yourself) knows this is a blanket statement and not totally accurate. We should not be feeding information that's not quite the truth. Please consider revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about the two edits you made to Murphy's law. I suggest you read our verifiability policy before making any more edits (or complaints). Both your edits were uncited and revereting them is not against the spirit of the site, quite the opposite. Any editor is entitled to remove uncited material and I had good reasons for reverting both edits.
I do not need to read the Fortean Times book if the statement in your edit is correct. The book is not explicitly discussing Murphy's law. It is therefore your opinion that the examples are about Murphy's law, not Wikipedia's opinion. Wikipedia is supposed not to have opinions of its own. You especially cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, that the book is funnier than Bloch's book.
Your other edit is even more problematic. You inserted your uncited opinion into cited text giving the false impression that what you are saying can be found in the source. Even worse than that, you edited a direct quotation. That might be what De Morgan should have said, but it is not he did say. One minor point, we do not give any indication within the article of the editing process or who is making the edits as your word "EDIT:" does. If the statements can be found in reliable sources then it can be said with Wikipedia's voice, or at least attributed to the source, if it cannot be so found, then it does not belong on Wikipedia at all.
I appreciate that Murphy's law is "not totally accurate", in fact you could have omitted the word "totally", and I would be surprised if that needs pointing out to anyone. It is not really a law, it is just an epigram. If no one has explicitly said that in sources because they think it obvious, then there is no need for Wikipedia to state the obvious either. SpinningSpark 09:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The merge of the content of Greater Romania (political concept) into the article Greater Romania[edit]

Hello! Immediately after you gave the verdict the Afd discussion, some editors started modifying Greater Romania article, without any a priori discussion on the talk page. Is that right? Shouldn't a consensus be reached first between the participants of the Afd discussion in order to decide how the merge should effectively be done? Avpop (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that per se, editors are entitled to be bold. It might have been better to discuss first, but there is not requirement to do so. However, the actions on that page are currently developing in to an edit war. The result of that is likely to be that the page gets locked. Is that what you want to happen? SpinningSpark 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I contested User:Fakirbakir's additions on the talk page, but he does not follow the dispute resolution process and reinserts the removed elements despite not having a consensus. Avpop (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is reasonable for you to demand that all changes to the article are discussed first. I find this reversion particularly problematic with the edit summary "too many undiscussed changes". If you have a good reason for reverting that is one thing, but not simply because it is too difficult for you to take in at once. A solid, policy-based reason should be given. If you want to complain about the behaviour of another editor then it is usual to provide diffs of the perceived problematic behaviour rather than expect me to work it out for myself from the history. In any case, I will speak to Fakirbakir on their talk page, but I think you would all be better off discussing the issues than fretting over whose version of the page should be the status quo in the meantime. SpinningSpark 12:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"Does not follow the dispute resolution process" ???? Who deleted sourced text, repeatedly? I can tell you it was not me.Anonimu created an excellent merge (It is far more logical than my previous trying), but User:Avpop did not like it. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It is irrrelevant whether or not the passage was sourced (unless it was deleted for being unsourced), it is irrelevant whose version is better, and it is irrelevant who is right. Edit warring is not permitted. Period. Blocks will start being handed out for those that continue to do it. SpinningSpark 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The article of "Greater Romania (political concept)" was my idea. I got plenty of accusations that my page was rubbish. I became worried about its future. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Grahamatwp's section[edit]

Was wondering why you are reverting my edits rather than modifying them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamatwp (talkcontribs) 10:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not modified them because they cannot easily be modified into something useful. Completely replaced with something else perhaps, but not modified. I suggest that you use a good textbook as a basis for your future electronics edits rather than rely on your own limited understanding. SpinningSpark 11:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are not considering the level of knowledge in my edits are not reflecting my understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamatwp (talkcontribs) 12:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

updated command base page[edit]

SO I updated the operation for common base.

If you disagree I suggest you improve it, but I think it's important to have a simple explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamatwp (talkcontribs) 12:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Geology and Genesis[edit]

Well, the insistence that Genesis 1-11 are truth is not so much "ignorance" in the usual sense as "willful ignorance". (I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a myth, and Genesis 12-50 to be a legend, based partly on non-written narratives of reality and partly on changes in oral transmission.) However, as you say, using the geological terms for the antediluvian lineage shows that the editor didn't notice the inconsistency. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I was using the Genesis narrative as genealogical data. Ancient genealogical data contains a combination of historically valid information and of myth or legend, but it should reflect accurately what is in the sources of mixed validity. It follows a different standard of reliability of sources than does Wikipedia. Wikipedia should accurately report what reliable secondary sources have said about myths, legends, and beliefs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you post this to try and change my opinion (sorry, you're out of luck on that one) or to inform me of Wikipedia policy (thanks, but I already know)? SpinningSpark 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Neither. I think that we agree that treating the Genesis narrative as fact is WP:FRINGE. I was stating the opinion that belief in the Genesis narrative as fact is not "ignorance" in the usual sense but "willful ignorance". I was also agreeing with your apparent amusement that the use of geological terms for colors associated with the implausible ages of the patriarchs is weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Date changers![edit]

Hi, we exchanged info some time ago and you told me to contact you if I came across a serial date changer again. Well I think I have! - This user and another with a similar IP address have recently begun to make changes such as those made to e.g. Staatsgalerie Stuttgart. Regards Denisarona (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The 87.113 IP seems to have stopped after you warned them. I have blocked the 87.112 IP temp and protected the article. I can't see any sign of this being any more widespread even after looking at the entire IP range, but I will do a range block if it becomes necessary. Keep me informed if you see any more of this. SpinningSpark 23:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action. I keep a look-out as usual. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, have just chanced upon another date changer - User:Smokestack Basilisk. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that comment, I am attempting to standardize date formats in articles where there is already a defined format that should be used. Smokestack Basilisk (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I would suggest that you explain what you are doing in your edit summaries. It is always good practice to leave an edit summary. It prevents your edit being misunderstood and it allows editors to decide from their watchlists whether they want to bother to click on your edit. By the way, I'm not sure that you should be updating the date in the "use date format" template. The datestamp is a record of when the date format was first established. SpinningSpark 12:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
IGNORE - I'm wrong. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Any opinion on this page?[edit]

As you are active in deleting unnecessary pages, I got this issue for you, Doc PenPen B. Takipsilim. This page is pretty hard to decide, it has content and sources, though they are badly constructed. What can be done about it? It is made by the person himself, because the username is similar to the page title. OccultZone (Talk) 07:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I sent it to AFD. Let the community decide. It definitely does not qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria so it can't be dealt with by administrator action. SpinningSpark 07:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Author recently blanked the page. So I added a prod tag.[1] I would've ignored it, but I don't know if blanking can be ignored, at least when the page is newly created. OccultZone (Talk) 08:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Port (circuit theory), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attenuator and Resistance (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) 08:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two-port network 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:
  • with two ''pairs'' of terminals to connect to external circuits. Two terminals constitute a [[port (circuit theory|port]] if the currents applied to them satisfy the essential requirement known as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedi talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox[edit]

Hi Spinningspark. Thanks for yours. Greenlips is my account, however, my wife is a graphic artist and helped me figure out the formatting issues. It's one account, one user - me. My wife helps me with the stuff she's good at. She's not posting or editing, only trying to help me understand some of the lingo used by Wiki. Thanks. GreenLips (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fine, if you can live with that user name, so can I. SpinningSpark 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


You should not give up on uploading SVG source too soon. As for the actual creation of SVG file, all of my diagrammatic maps (yes, I'm showing off my own works. Boo if you want) are written entirely in XML editor. I just load the SVG file to my browser in the same time and refresh it every time I made some major modification in XML editor and need a preview. This is a lot safer than just using Inkscape. Even for geographical map, I only use Inkscape to create the irregular path and then copy and paste the path data into the separate XML editor. (Besides, the build-in "XML editor" of Inkscape is very buggy too). I hate SVG file saved by Inkscape for tons of useless "Sodipodi" remnant attributes. There is also a long list of major bugs of Inkscape not yet resolved for year which really tarnishes its reliability. All in all, your file:Mechanical filter resonator modes.svg falls into my "diagrammatic" category and I wouldn't find any difficulty to write it in XML editor from scratch. It may just take some more time but a lot safer and smaller. As for my latest revision of this SVG, there is still room to make the code more compact like sharing the linear gradient definitions, objects and CSS classes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia User Page[edit]

Hi SpinningSpark.

As per your suggestion I have requested the change in user name. Also you have deleted the my user page on the basis of promotion. Kindly allow me to use that as my user page. If you think it is being used for promotion please suggest me which part is looking like a promotion, I will get it edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcbapc (talkcontribs) 12:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Shailesh Patel at APC: basically, all of it was promotion. You are allowed to declare that you work for, or are associated with a company. In fact, we appreciate editors with a conflict of interest declaring their affiliations. You may even include a link to the company website. However, extensive information about a company or its products is not permitted at all. Your userspace is provided for the purpose of helping to build the encyclopaedia and that should be the focus of information on the page. We are quite relaxed about what people include and the space is not rigidly policed, but promotion is one thing that will not be tolerated. SpinningSpark 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Actually I have taken reference from this user page For avoiding advertisement I didn't give any reference. Can I use that content as a wiki page?

@Shailesh Patel at APC: You don't need to ping me on my own user talk page, there is an automatic alert. In fact, in my particular case, I watchlist all the pages I comment on (at least for a while) so you only need to ping me in a converstation I have not been taking part in. Also, please learn how to use indents.
Do you mean that you want to turn the information that was on your user page into a Wikipedia article? The answer is only if your company meets out notability guidelines, in particular WP:NCORP. As a COI editor you should not directly create such an article in any case. Please use the Articles for creation process. By the way, you would be ill-advised to take random articles as a template. Wikipedia has millions of articles and not all have been reviewed. Our very best articles are listed at WP:Featured articles and have all been through extensive reviews. If you are going to copy anything, copy something from there, you will note that there are only a total of four articles on companies. SpinningSpark 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Here's one:[2]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another one:[3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that was just now causing a mess. Does this guy have a history of IP-hopping, or can we assume that there won't be more of this while the block lasts? Unlike you, I prefer to get a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: He's IP hopping big time over a huge range. I've reprotected the ref desks as a temporary measure. I've done quite a few range blocks as well but they are ineffective. I'm thinking we need to nail this one with an edit filter. SpinningSpark 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I guessed, but I wanted to check. Thanks for the response! By the way, you have to add your signature and the link to my userpage in the same edit; the edit to fix {{ping:Nyttend}} didn't trigger the notification. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for re-protecting. It was quiet for a couple of days, and then the guy really went berserk today, well beyond his typical M.O. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
When the protection was on a few days ago, the guy (assuming it's the same one) was seemingly hijacking IP addresses from literally all over the map, as with this guy. His technique was to create a series of updates, each with a different IP, then use his newly-created ID to revert those updates, thus achieving confirmation so he could edit the semi'd pages. It looks like whatever he's doing, he's figured out a way to connect as any random IP he wants to. A lot of them seem to emanate from Venezuela, but that could just be one item in his collection of tricks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Carllica4 is obviously another sock. Same pattern, and also vandalized the ref desk. Katie R (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, again using and then reverting random IP's around the world in order to get autoconfirmed. This revival of a four-year-old account is an opportunity for checkusers to maybe figure out who that guy really is and put a stop to its activities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to check the log for June 7, 2010 around 13:31, and see if there are any other sleepers from when that user ID was created. I think I used to know how to do that, but I don't recall now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
When you've remembered, then you can let me know what the results were. SpinningSpark 16:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oy! Too much work, at least for now. But thanks for letting me know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

On Microelectromechanical systems[edit]

You really wasted your time. That top section is an overkill and will be deleted by someone else in the future, if not sooner. I'm not wasting my time reverting it. -Good Luck meatclerk (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It won't be deleted, maybe rewritten, but not deleted. See MOS:LEAD, the lead "should define the topic" and the article name should be displayed in bold. The paragraph you deleted was doing both of those. Your edit summary gave no indication why you had removed it. You were apparently addressing disambiguation issues so as far as I knew you had removed it accidentally. SpinningSpark 10:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Moyu" Guy[edit]

Ok, so I guess that i shall not edit the article at all. Believe me though, the article is pretty misleading to many. If I am a Moyu guy, why would I mention fangshi/dayan's name? Also, moyu is a legit company and does not violae any patents until now! At least the 13x13x13 can be mentioned, forget the v-cube bias.

Zhao/ My misleading username :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMoyuGuy (talkcontribs) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello again.

Sorry if I vandalised the Rubik's cube article.

Now, I want you to understand that I am not associated with moyu in any way. All I wanted to do was update the content and avoid bias. My mistake probably was the link, (I'm new, I am not an expert) but there are videos on youtube with multiple thousand views, forums and other information that a 13x13x13 exists and does not violate patent laws.

Now, if you don't believe that I am not moyu, why don't you see easy-to-spot text like 6x6x6 (V-CUBE 6)? Isn't that promotional? why couldn't it be called 6x6x6, what was the need to mention the company? And on the article, it says that the record was broken by a Shengshou 6x6x6, which is, of course, a copy that has violated V-CUBE patents. Also, cube which are said to be 'illegal' and 'Chinese' are not confirmed illegal by government, there is still controversy. And even for the 4x4 and 5x5 cubes, there are many other companies legally producing them, even V-CUBES. But why say 'Rubik's Revenge' and 'Professor Cube'? Thats promoting the viewers to buy Rubik's brand, they'll think it is the only brand, same for the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7.

the moyu 13x13x13 is not 'non-licensed'. it is legal. there is pretty clear proof, and cube expert Tony Fisher himself agrees. So, I will show you various links and you can choose an appropriate one. It should at least be mentioned, along with the brand. (IF NOT THEN WHY IS V-CUBES MENTIONED, THEY INVENTED THE 6x6, 7x7, AND SO ON. YJ/MOYU INVENTED 13x13x13, IT IS EVEN PATENTED, BUT NOT MENTIONED?)

And this part:- Non-licensed physical cubes as large as 11×11×11 based on the V-Cube are commercially available to the mass-market circa 2011 in China; these represent about the limit of practicality for the purpose of "speed-solving" competitively (as the cubes become increasingly ungainly and solve-times increase exponentially). These cubes are illegal (even in China) due to the fact that they violate Panagiotis Verdes' patents; however some countries do not enforce patent law strictly, leading to their general availability. In addition, Chinese companies have produced 3×3×3 cubes with variations on the original mechanism that, while legally controversial,[citation needed] are generally considered to be superior for competitive speedcubing. This has NO sources.

Illegal brand shengshou has produced a working 10x10x10, so this needs to be edited:- Due to additional complexities inherent in manufacturing even-number-layered cubes, all cubes 93 or larger (as of 2012) have an odd number of layers.

So if by any chance you changed your mind, let me know and I will provide you with reliable links and the article will be edited.

TheMoyuGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMoyuGuy (talkcontribs) 12:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear to me that you do not have the faintest idea what a reliable source actually is, regardless of whether you are associated with Moyu or not. Of the three sources you put forward on the Rubik's cube talk page, one is a forum, one is a Youtube video (presumably from the manufacturer as it features an incomplete product), and the third is a chinese site featuring the same video as Youtube but with the addition of soft porn ads. None of them count as reliable and most of them are probably not independent. As for your comments about V-cube, that is totally irrelevant to whether your material should be allowed; other shit exists.
Anyway, as I said on the talk page, I am not going to service your edit requests as I am now involved. I will leave that to other editors. SpinningSpark 13:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You've been on fire at the help desk, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Microelectromechanical systems[edit]

Would you be able to provide me some sort of guideline reference that justifies this edit? As far as I have seen, redirects in hatnotes that point to a disambiguation page, given that the redirect to the page matches the redirect to the disambiguation page with "(disambiguation)" in its title, are fine and also reduces confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can point to one: WP:2R. Your edit is pointing to a double redirect > MEMS (disambiguation) > Mems (disambiguation) > Mems. You can retarget the hatnote to Mems (disambiguation) or retarget MEMS (disambiguation) to Mems, but it can't stay how you left it. SpinningSpark 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have self-reverted. SpinningSpark 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

List of EDA Companies[edit]

Hello there,

I am writing you because I see you are one of the last contributors to the article mentioned in the title (

I see that quite a few of the companies that work on the field are missing. Who decide which are the ones that deserve to appear and which don't?

Among the companies that may be on the list:

Thanks for any light you can shed


Luca Paltrinieri79.155.121.178 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There are various criteria we use to construct lists but the most common is that entries must be notable according to Wikipedia's definition of that, and that is the criterion used in this list (I have just removed a few entries that don't meet the criterion). The most common way of establishing notability in lists is to link the entry to its already existing article on Wikipedia. It is possible to demonstrate notability by citing sources showing that the subject meets WP:42, but it is far preferable to create the article first and put the cites there instead, even if it is only a stub. As an unregistered user, you will not be able to start new pages, please see WP:AFC for how to proceed. SpinningSpark 17:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and follow up[edit]

First, thank you for your helpful reply at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_June_9#How_close_is_the_Wikipedia.2FWikidata_to_the_semantic_wiki_capability.3F. Since this thread was archived, let me elaborate a bit more. In addition to be being an active article creator, I have another hat - a Wikipedia researcher. I am planning to carry out a research project that would try to investigate gender inequality worldwide using Wikipedia biographies through time and space. Simply put, I want to create nice graphs (which we could host at Commons and which could improve numerous Wikipedia articles, up to and including the country-specific series of 100+ articles on gender inequality in country x), as well as tables, about the disparity between our biographies of men and female by year by ethnicity/nationality. I have already designed a working spreadsheet at [4] to illustrate what can be done. To finish this project, however, I need to extract data from Wikipedia, and I simply lack the skills to do that. Do you know where, or whom I could ask to extract such data for me, preferably in the form of the csv file formatted as in the sample spreadsheet linked? (If you reply here, please echo me - thanks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: a good place to start might be Wikipedia:Bot requests. A lot of the guys there are able to access the database or have their own copies they can manipulate. Failing that, someone at WP:VPT might be able to help. SpinningSpark 15:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"vacuum tube" head section[edit]

I have reintroduced, taking into account later edits, my changes in the vacuum tube head sections, which you had reverted some weeks ago. Now, my version may have been not perfect (consider also that I am not an English mother-tongue speaker), but I changed many things and I can't see why you rejected it en-bloc, with just a vague explanation. If you find something wrong in my version, before reverting it completely, please consider every single point.

I think that my edit improved the introduction in several ways:

1- clarifying in the first sentence that vacuum tubes are "various devices" and not "a device": a diode and a triode are based on the same principle but have completely different purposes, not to mention a cathodic ray tube.

2- ordering the paragraphs explaining first the common principle, then the various devices.

3- mentioning the names, with links to the respective articles, of the most important tubes: pentode was one of the most used tubes and isn't mentioned, triode is mentioned only in the last sentence, far form where its structure is explained, in an earlier paragraph.

4- A better historical section: I explained when they where mostly used, and when and how they were abandoned. This may be obvious to you, since your page says that you are in your fifties, but may be not obvious to younger readers.

Tcp-ip (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, discussion is meant to come before restoring a revert in the WP:BRD cycle and after consensus has been achieved for it. You have yet again inserted the false information that thermionic valve is synonymous with vacuum tube. It is not; valve in British English is synonymous with tube, but thermionic valve is a particular kind of vacuum tube. It is quite irritating to have that inserted right after I spent some effort disambiguating those terms and more than irritating to have it defiantly reinserted. Anyway, I have removed the offending part and left the rest of your edit intact. SpinningSpark 09:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan John Beale[edit]

You left a message about my removal of Person Data table on Beale's page. It was not working. I put in one that did.

I am John's son-in-law and we were alerted to the fact that someone had started a stub about John. Whoever did it knew less than I did.

Please email me at <e-mail redacted> with further issues.

I have no understanding of what capacity you are acting in. If all of this chat is being paraded in front of the world, I want to put a stop to that.

GefLiz (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)GefLiz

(talk page stalker) @GefLiz: I have restored the Persondata template. The purpose of the template is to provide basic metadata for the person, and all of Wikipedia's biographies have it. It's not supposed to appear on the article itself, which is why you believe it's not working. As for "acting in capacity", we're all editors here collaborating on an encyclopedia; SpinningSpark is experienced with Wikipedia's policies and has explained their reversion adequately on your talk page. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you telling to do things "immediately"?[edit]

As explained in my other response, I am a family member of John Beale's. I am trying to fix the mess created by the page's creator - whoever that was.

Surely, you don't have the vested involvement to tell me what to do to the page?

I am hoping that you are not some kind of police patrol who is going to reverse my improvements after all the efforts I have put into working out how this works.

Thank you for your vigilance, but please find out out WHY changes are being made before telling me to reverse them! Rest assured that I am previewing everything before saving and that I'm only inching along as I learn.

Email me your response - don't use these pages: <e-mail redacted>

GefLiz (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)GefLiz

(talk page stalker) @GerLiz: please read WP:COI NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 05:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

image for Hamish Peacock[edit]

I would greatly appreciate it if you could find a photo for Hamish Peacock as i do not understand the copyright policy. I understand if you can not do this but it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks NickGibson3900 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think I have any access to photographs of him? SpinningSpark 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry didn't think of that i'll ask someone who might. NickGibson3900 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request.[edit]

Hello SpinningSpark, as I'm sure you are aware I've been trying to help people fix their signatures so they can be seen in all browsers. Yours currently does not appear when I view it from my BlackBerry mobile device because the <font> tags you are using are dropped, presumably because they are deprecated and obsolete. If you are interested and willing to updating your signature to use more up-to-date HTML code, I suggest replacing:

'''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark</font>]]'''


[[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]]

which will result in a 141 character long signature (18 characters shorter) with an appearance of: SpinningSpark
compared to your existing 159 character long signature of: SpinningSpark
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm more surprised that they're already dropping support of <font> tags or that Blackberry is still around. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • SuperHamster, it is touchy at best and I had to get a hacked update to the browser to make it keep working (it is an old Curve 9330). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ....[edit]

For slapping me about the head. I have screen-dumped my Star.

GefLiz (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)GefLiz

You have mail[edit]

You got mail. Check your inbox please. Thanks LorChat 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BNA access email[edit]

Hey Spinngingsparks, just wanted to remind you that I sent an email 5 days ago detailing how to get access to BNA through The Wikipedia Library, please make sure to follow those instructions and complete the Google Form. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just pinging to remind you to fill out the Google Form. Please fill it out ASAP so we can issue the account, Sadads (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in Internet Cafe[edit]

I thought that post was a troll post and ignored it. If the post is correct, then the original poster was snooping. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but I answered it in good faith anyway. SpinningSpark 15:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the AjoChhand Machine page[edit]

We are not professional editors, so mistake can happen. We joined only two days back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talkcontribs) 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@MasaComp: who are "we". Accounts on Wikipedia are not permitted to be shared. SpinningSpark 01:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh my god, you are policing like anything with a "word", I take back, its "I", happy?--MasaComp (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@MasaComp: partly. Your account name looks like the name of an organisation. Because these can appear to be shared accounts they are not permitted, see WP:ISU. If it is not the name of an organisation then my apologies. If it is, you should should request a username change before making any further edits. SpinningSpark 02:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not name of an organization. Masa is a Japanese name, I am a senior scientist, does not work for a company, this is an individual account opened only two days back to create two pages because several scientist colleagues told us that we should tell our 10 years old research story to common people. Thats why I came here, and that was a true mistake. I will not change my name but the way I have been abused by Wikipedia editors and humiliated for all day today, I feel that this is not a place for an honest scientist, this is better place for "hoax" people. Check AjoChhand Machine and Frequency Fractal pages created by me. I am just waiting, as soon as the issue about these two pages settles, I would terminate the account and never ever create any page in Wikipedia. This place is not for us, it is easy to publish a paper in Nature, no editor has patience to listen, just abuse and abuse, even editors abuse in personal email, when we revert back they do policing. So do not worry, I will settle the issue in the two pages, one page that you have listed for deletion and another Robert, I am just fed up, waiting to terminate the account forever.--MasaComp (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AjoChhand Machine[edit]

I think you inadvertently whacked my !vote when you reverted. Could you take a look? Happy to restore it myself if that's easier.


Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have stepped away; I'll take a shot at restoring things. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Fixed, I think. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That might have been my error, but I believe it is a bug that occassionally crops up on busy talk pages. SpinningSpark 09:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding MasaComp[edit]

Hello. I noticed the warning you gave on MasaComp's[5] talk page. I agree his behavior is getting out of hand and that the warning was appropriate. If the user does continue to cause trouble I think it would be best to let another admin do the block given your involvement in a content dispute.

I was considering taking action myself but I am involved in the same dispute. Chillum 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD multi[edit]

Thanks for contacting. It seems there is a conflict between the guidelines. I'll try to clarify it. Thanks again! Running the bot afterwards it's not a big deal. -- Yobot (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny edit summary[edit]

I got a kick out of your edit summary at TPL.

clarify the relevance of Magioladitis

This has already been debated and was a Speedy Accept... Magioladitis is not relevant.  :) Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WWII veterans[edit]

Hey, thanks for your work on the WWII veterans page. Czolgolz (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Dynamo[edit]

"December 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm Spinningspark. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dynamo without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!" SpinningSpark 20:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Administrator, Thanks for responding to the action that I took on the Dynamo section. Apologies, it was not a mistake, I just forgot to fill the edit summary text field. I should say that according to current development in theoretical engineering, especially as mine relates, the commutation-dynamo complex idea is still pending under private sector license for engineering and manufacturing. Such release as of the content is thaumaturgical, illegitimate, and incredible and ridiculous. I think that we should respect and protect the work and idea of hardworking scientists as us in the scientific discipline. For no reason should just that dynamo-commutator section be published, publicized, and popularized. It should be secretive to a group of or an individual scientist and engineer.

Sincerely, Aransfak (Aransiola Fako-_-de). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aransfak (talkcontribs) 21:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Verde School. With all due respect, I believe it would have been -- and would still be -- more appropriate to extend comment. We don't generally close an AfD as no consensus, without giving at least one such extension (and quite often two). I would ask that you consider re-opening to allow further input. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was watching that AfD, though I did not participate. It seems that a significant discussion took place. Chillum 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't see that ever going anywhere other than no consensus and would thus be pointless to keep open. In particular, whether or not Blue Ribbon amounts to notability seems to be a fundamental disagreement amongst those taking part and that is not going to get settled in a single AfD. You are free to nominate it again, but I suspect that you won't because you know that no consensus is pretty much inevitable. You would be better off taking the issue to a policy discussion and getting the Blue Ribbon issue (and perhaps some wider schools notability issues) settled first. SpinningSpark 18:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) It was right in the midst of a significant discussion -- check the entries in the past 24 hours. And mistaken assertions, which were the basis of some !votes, were being corrected, as you can see. And at least one editor (me) was asking for more input before !voting. And it's the fact that there was no consensus seen that suggests that leaving it open longer, especially as the discussion was hot and ongoing, may have led to a clearer expression of community consensus. It's precisely where we don't see consensus, and have yet to extend time for consideration, that we typically afford the community that time. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Spinning -- I honestly can see this going somewhere other than no consensus, thus it makes good sense to keep open. This was anything but an open-and-shut conclusion. It wasn't even afforded one extension -- which as I said is odd in a no-consensus close. The asserted "facts" were shown to be incorrect -- future !voters would be aware of that, while !voters till now were either misled themselves or may have misled others. The key is the AfD itself -- not any meta issues being discussed as part of the AfD. Relists are cheap. I rarely see you at a school AfD, but please take a look at past ones to see how they close ... it's awfully odd not to afford the community the opportunity to have even a single extension under circumstances such as this. All I'm asking for is, under the circumstances outlined above, that you re-open it for discussion. Even if you were correct in your crystal balling as to how it would end up after an extension, which of course you may not be, there is no harm in such an extension. Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. SpinningSpark 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
True. But that same guideline says "The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted."
Your only real reason seems to be your crystal-ball assertion that you "can't see that ever going anywhere other than no consensus". Which is a typical SNOW reason for delete or keep. But not for failing to re-list for an initial additional week. When the AfD is in the midst of an ongoing vibrant discussion. And the asserted "facts" at the beginning of the week are shown mid-AfD to contain errors.
Other editors who !voted in the AfD may have views as to whether it would be reasonable for you to allow another week for community input in the AfD (a first relist extension) -- User:JaconaFrere, User:David Eppstein, User:MelanieN, User:Why should I have a User Name?, User:DGG, User:Kudpung, User:Niteshift36, User:Milowent, and User:Scottywong. I assume even David, for whom I have respect, and who clearly wants the close you gave, would be pro-process enough to allow further input (but I could be wrong, of course). Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I would have been happier with a keep close, but the sense of the discussion at the time of closure was clearly no consensus — roughly equal numbers of editors on both sides, both sides well enough grounded in policy and precedent, and no sign of opinions shifting as the discussion progressed. Allowing a larger number of editors to weigh in by relisting would have been a reasonable choice, but I don't think a mandatory choice, and I don't think it would have been likely to raise any different arguments, just more votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@DE -- don't you agree that as the AfD progressed there were assertions, voiced as the basis for !votes, that turned out not to be quite accurate? And that as the AfD progressed, we had movement towards greater accuracy? And even a new argument and rebuttal (yours) within the past 24 hours (re the local media). And that robust conversation was ongoing? And that you can't crystal ball what the new arguments and facts and !votes might look like in a second week, inasmuch as the asserted facts kept on changing (and, as we all know, it is not uncommon for a second week of votes to provide greater clarity; certainly, with the state of that AfD, there was no settled state of the discussion). Don't disappoint me here DE ... And, of course, I hadn't even yet !voted, as I was waiting for you to provide more evidence for your position as I had indicated ... that's how in-flux I viewed that discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think there is consensus at this point., or is likely to be. All the usual arguments on each side have been expressed. We might conceivably be more likely to get consensus in another 6 months or so The disagreements go very far back, and have been quite bitter at times, In an impasse on a issue which has been very unsettled in the past, usually it's best to go slowly. (Personally, I do not much care whether we consider junior high schools keep unless... or consider them delete unless... , as long as it's consistent. What I do want to avoid is debating each one of them. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I initially approached this AfD with the intention of closing it. After I read through it, I felt strongly that it should be redirected, but felt that closing it as a redirect would be too close to a supervote at that point, as the arguments on each side were not strong. The only policy-based keep vote in the entire discussion (in my opinion) was MelanieN's, as she actually talks about GNG and tries to produce sources to show that the school is notable. The rest of the keep votes were, frankly, useless to me as a closing admin (no offense), as they were mostly personal opinions not grounded in policy whatsoever (and in DGG's case, he explicitly admits that he thinks policy should be ignored for this article). The redirect votes were mostly centered around saying that the school isn't notable, but not really expanding on why the school isn't notable or why the sources don't show notability. So, instead of closing the AfD, I decided to cast one last vote as a rebuttal to MelanieN's vote. Apparently, my argument was not convincing enough to sway the AfD. I think No Consensus is a valid result for this AfD, and I think relisting would have been inappropriate. However, I think that a further discussion that focuses specifically on the sources in this article (whether it's at another AfD or not) would result in a more clear consensus on the notability of the school. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 00:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, let it go. No Consensus was a fair close for this article. Longer discussion was not likely to yield any other consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the close was appropriate. Articles about mainstream schools whether elementary, middle, or high schools, are rarely toxic and IMO don't need to take up a lot of discussion time. Spinningspark and Scottywong have made valid comments here and as there were no  !votes for outright deletion, a 'no consensus' close which defaults to keep is reasonable. DGG and I who have collaborated well for years on issues over the notability of educational establishements, do not appear to share the same opinion for Blue Ribbon Schools. However, as a non-American, I am not fully aware of the status of such schools in the USA, hence my cautionary 'redirect' vote, knowing that outright deletion would almost certainly not be the outcome - the contents of a redirect are blanked rather than the page being deleted, thus allowing its easy reinstatement at a later stage if necessary.
If anything, the status of Blue Ribbon as an automatic qualifier for notability needs to be debated as a single issue and its result reported in an appropriate place, which ironically would probably be OUTCOMES. However, the many debates over school notability in general have never ended in a consensus - which reverts to the tacit practice as documented at OUTCOMES.
An AfD nominator who is aware of policy, guidelines, and practice through tacit consensus, generally assumes that the close will be 'delete', that's why we have AfD. Opening an AfD where the closure is almost certainly to be something other than deletion is, IMHO, is a waste of users' time, and such articles can be dealt with uncontroversially by other means. AfD is not the place to go about getting guidelines or established practice changed, as over 1,000 redirected schools will demonstrate. This particular article wasn't even a borderline 'delete'.
The bottom line is, Epeefleche, as DGG states, that we achieve some consistency - which in fact apart from the Blue Ribbon issue, we already have, and that passionate AfD nominators are made aware of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Katherine E Tuley[edit]

Harpers Mgazine:

Good Housekeeping Magazine:

Ohio Paper stating Mrs. Tuley raised 3,000 (in 1890) for school children to be clothed

Kate Field's Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this is connected with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine E. Tuley. What are you requesting? SpinningSpark 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by[edit]

Obvious attack and vandalism seen here [6] please block. NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 04:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That is over a month old and the IP has no previous history of vandalism. Actually it is not even really vandalism. While that sort of content is not welcome, it is more WP:EDITORIALIZING than vandalism. It certainly does not warrant a block. I have given them a mild warning, but even that is hardly worthwile as it may never be seen by the person who made the edit. The normal place for reporting vandalism is at WP:AIV. However, they will expect the vandal to have been given multiple warnings, including a final warning, and to be currently actively editing before they will block. I see that you are a Twinkle user; you can add user warnings through Twinkle. SpinningSpark 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Participate in discussion about Media Viewer follow-up study[edit]

I'm contacting you because of your involvement in the Media Viewer RfC. I understand that this is a bit awkward since the RfC has closed with consensus, but I have been tasked with helping the Multimedia team run a study to gather more feedback about Media Viewer preferences. I think the the write-up for the study could use your feedback. Would you take some time to review the study and share your thoughts on the talk page? Please feel free to invite others to participate as well. Thank you! --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Georg Ohm[edit]

Please see Talk:Georg Ohm#References -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Spinningspark.

Where I work (at Bell Canada), we use DIT all the time to mean Development Integration testing. Please also see:

It might well mean that, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an acronym finder. Our disambiguation pages are only for finding articles on Wikipedia. If there isn't an article on development integration testing then it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page. See WP:DABNOT SpinningSpark 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For you effort to improve my edits, your feedback, for the time you spend in improving Wikipedia pages. Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email[edit]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Linear response[edit]

If you wouldn't mind, what's your definition of linear response in relation to linear filters as opposed to physics and mathematics? (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A linear response in relation to linear filters is one that meets the condition for linearity. In particular, it must be an additive function. I am not sure I fully understand what the linear response article is on about, but it definitely does not correspond to this definition. It has "approx equal" in the definition just for a start. There is nothing approximate about linearity; either something is or it isn't. SpinningSpark 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I would have to propose either the creation of a Linear response article/disambiguation page or the deletion of that redirect if the term linear response is not in correspondence with the linear response function of quantum mechanics. (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Do what you like with the linear response redirect, but I don't think the linear filter article needs another wikilink. It already links to linearity which is the only relevant link here. SpinningSpark 15:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back about do what you like. You should check the incoming links by clicking on "what links here" to check what purpose it is serving in other articles first before considering retargeting it or making it a dab page. SpinningSpark 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sheree Dawn Music[edit]

I don't know what "watchlisted" means.. sounds made up.... that is my name Mr. Spinning Head...........

sorry.... I'm trying to start over here thank you so very much for the communique... do I just make up a name?

@Sheree Dawn Music: that's fine if it's your real name. I thought it was probably the name of a music promoter or company. Sorry for the mistake. SpinningSpark 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my err; however I partially undid your undo as the ref fix was still needed. I must be thinking of a different abacus!? speednat (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

portal business and economics[edit]

I added a new article to the selected articles of Portal:Business_and_economics. Can u see it? I think there's a problem, but I'm not sure.Lbertolotti (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to increase the number of "max=" parameter. I have done it for you. SpinningSpark 22:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
See if the P:BEP is better now.Lbertolotti (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You can check it yourself by repeatedly clicking the "view new selections (purge)" link. Eventually, all the selections should come up randomly, including the new ones. SpinningSpark 16:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I was refereting to if u liked the page layout. Can u put the "Things you can do" between selected economy and topics? Doesn't make sense to put it at the bottom of the page. (compare to other portals)Lbertolotti (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion. Why don't you discuss it on the project's talk page? By the way, we use indentation on talk pages when replying. SpinningSpark 19:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Portal_talk:Business_and_economics#Page_layout Lbertolotti (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Congo (region)[edit]

Hi! Regarding your comment on the AfD page: “The article is more comparable to, say, Eastern Europe, or Southeast Asia.” The article definitely not, however, there might be some comparable topic. The problem is that while there is some informal usage comparable to “Eastern Europe” it is not very well established, there is no literature about this usage (there are only these articles on “culture areas”, but they do not reflect common usage, but a not widely known specific theory how to divide Africa into “culture areas”, we cannot assume identity of these theories of “specific Congolese forms of agriculture” and the common every-day usage). “Nevertheless, there are some common threads running through its history and culture” Yes, for Eastern Europe there are a lot of these narratives, but for Congo there aren’t. The are some not well-known theories on “culture areas” and I could not find anything else. What is the worth of the current article? Why should it be kept? There isn’t any reliable information in it and there is no known way how to fix that. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Verification, creds, links[edit]

Books and anthologies I have written or edited:

Reviews or comments on my work:

Interviews of me or by me:

Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers:

Examples of poems online:

I teach in these two writing venues, one an annual conference, the other an MFA program:

Other things I have written that appear on Web:

Lmccullough (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

McCullough meatpuppets[edit]

Hello. Rather than blocking the meatpuppets coming in to !vote "Keep" McCullough, may I suggest we not WP:BITE and simply welcome them. These are intelligent people, interested in literature and poetry. WP needs more of such people and I'd hope we can recruit them as editors. If they are not interesting in further contributions, they simply will not edit. Accordingly, blocking them serves no purpose. So, I ask that you unblock them as a gesture of good faith. In return, I shall post welcome messages on their talk pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If any of them request unblocking themselves I will consider it, but not otherwise. I did not block them as meatpuppets, I blocked them as sockpuppets of McCullough on strong circumstastantial and stylistic evidence under WP:DUCK. I at least want to hear them state that they are not McCullough. SpinningSpark 10:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd think the stylistic similarity comes from the fact that one puppet was simply copying the format and language of the previous postings. This was not a sophisticated keep campaign, just an enthusiastic one. We need tempered enthusiasm on WP. In any case I will ask them to declare themselves. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your help at the Help Page. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Veda Scott[edit]

I would like to request to userfy the article. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that and the draft is at User:Miss X-Factor/Veda Scott. You already had a draft at that location. Not sure what you wanted done with that, I moved it out the way to User:Miss X-Factor/Lindsey Kerecz for now. If you wanted it deleted instead just let me know. SpinningSpark 16:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete User:Miss X-Factor/Lindsey Kerecz it was the original draft before I and other editiors added information to the page. Also, thanks for doing what I requested. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Where is and when will my article appear?[edit]

Thanks for your help Spinning Spark. I submitted the article before I registered as Zinfandelorganic and definitely do remember clicking on the save button when the article disappeared off the screen. When I realised that I could register under a user name I tried to re submitt under Zinfandelorganic. The system assumed that I wanted to edit the oriinal and put up a warning saying my edit may not be valid. Sorry to be so inadequate about all this. If I don't hear from you again I will try resubmitting. Thanks for your patience. Cheers Judy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinfandelorganic (talkcontribs) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zinfandelorganic: Unregistered editors are not allowed to create new pages and the attempt would have failed. Not sure I understand the process you went through after registering. Did you use your browser back button to get back to the editing screen? If so that may well have caused a conflict. In any event. the bottom line is that your edit has never been saved and you will have to start over. SpinningSpark 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Establishing consensus for new or yet-to-be-created templates[edit]

Where would I go about establishing consensus for new or yet-to-be-created templates? I tried to find a general discussion page for templates, but I couldn't find one. Esszet (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well for a start you could have left an edit summary explaining why you had added the template. Your lack of edit summaries almost led me to revert your edits to the page entirely. You removed material without explanation. I am guessing that you removed templates that are not so relevant to that page, but appear on some more relevant list(s). That's what I'm guessing (and I'll assume good faith that you checked that they are listed somewhere), but I don't know and could just as easily taken it to be vandalism and reverted.
You could also start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages (and possibly link to it from the Village Pump to get more input). However, I think there are some aspects of the template you have created that are highly questionable (I would not have removed it otherwise) and would oppose its inclusion in the list, especially as it has not been discussed anywhere beforehand. SpinningSpark 17:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit at Write-only memory (engineering)[edit]

Hi. A little while ago I edited the references section of Write-only memory (engineering). This was because I felt that the columns were excessively cramped, and didn't actually save space. I didn't remove the columns entirely, but just made them wider. Please could you clarify in what way this was "Not an improvement"? Also, why was your reversion tagged "rollback: VANDAL"? Thanks, User:GKFXtalk 17:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit did not make the columns wider. It specifies a fixed 2-column layout. This may be wider, narrower, or just the same depending on the size of window and font of the user's browser. On a narrow window the columns will be excessively cramped. The setting you changed it from was 22em. This will adjust the number of columns to suite the window. The column width can be made wider if necessary, but setting a fixed number of columns is not an improvement.
I don't know why you think the edit is tagged "rollback: VANDAL". I'm not seeing that in the history, it is just a normal "undo". SpinningSpark 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point. What do you suggest as an optimal setting? As for the vandal tag, I see it in bright red at User:GKFXtalk 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no optimal setting really. It depends on the material. I think 22em is right when the refs are in the form of shortened refs but in this case I am happy to compromise with something wider—anything less than 30em.
Are you using Twinkle by any chance? If so, is this what you are seeing? The three rollback links across the top are not tags. They are Twinkle links to that allow you to roll back an edit or edits. They will appear above the most recent edit on any page. SpinningSpark 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, OK. I'll just leave it alone. And yes, I recently got Twinkle, and didn't know it did that. Sorry! User:GKFXtalk 20:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why was Lord KraVen Page Deleted?[edit]

Hello how are you? Can you please explain to me why you found it necessary to delete recording artist, Lord KraVen's wiki page? BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Because that was the consensus at the deletion debate. SpinningSpark 01:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Can the page be recreated? I think it could have used a bit more reference links from what I reviewed. I myself was going to add more reference links to support the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWalker2014 (talkcontribs) 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The basic issue is not that there are insufficient references (although that might be true as well). The issue is that notability of the subject was not established. New references will make no difference if they do not contain evidence of notability under either the general guidelines or those for musicians. If the article is recreated and is essentially the same as the one deleted in the AfD debate then my reaction would probably be to summarily delete it without discussion and salt the name to prevent recreation in the future. SpinningSpark 08:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of Onomastics[edit]

Hi, concerning your close of this AfD, I was surprised that you went for "keep" and not "merge". As far as I see, the consensus was more for the latter. Could you perhaps have a second look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Journals are always very difficult. They are not very newsworthy, little is written about them, and it is very hard to judge notability. I am inclined to apply standards to closing a debate on a journal that I would not apply elsewhere. To my mind, those arguing for "merge" failed to make a convincing policy based argument as to why the material would be acceptable in another article but not be acceptable in this article. Against that, there was credible evidence of notability presented, some of it by the "merge" camp themselves, even though they still thought it did not meet GNG. This was a difficult close, but I think scientific journals should be given the benefit of the doubt, when there is doubt, that wouldn't be extended to, say, a rock musician in highly publicized field where notability, if it exists, is easily established. SpinningSpark 13:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't feel that a "keep" closure reflects the consensus correctly. Your reasoning above sounds like a "supervote" to me... --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's always a "supervote" if you don't agree with the result. Calling "supervote" betrays that you are thinking of AfDs in terms of voting. That is not the case. Closers are supposed to assess the arguments, not the votes. SpinningSpark 16:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely true. However, I think that we do call it a "supervote" in case the close goes against a well-argued, policy-based consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spinningspark, I understand your reasoning, and I thank you for your difficult service of helping us Wikipedians resolve difficult issues, but I also want to point out that Randykitty has been a very level headed guy in this discussion, and his words mean what they mean. (He and I started out on opposite sides of this argument too.) They do not betray anything else. I think you do him a disservice to dismiss what he says by such a generalization as 'It's always a "supervote" if you don't agree with the result.' I agree with Randykitty to the extent that, in difficult cases in which some level of judgement is needed, consensus should rule. You may be dead right in your handling of this case strictly by policy (in fact, I would certainly bow to your interpretation of policy issues), and I am content with Keep or Merge. I am also grateful for your attitude toward academic journals. Very grateful. They do need special consideration, especially humanities journals. I just needed to point out that there is more than one way to interpret what Randykitty had to say - that if subjective judgement is needed, then consensus should rule. Overruling a consensus in a case where it clearly comes down to judgement would, in my opinion, be inappropriate - a supervote. (This is my understanding of Randykitty's comments.) If it is a question of policy, however, I have no problem with your decision. But I think there is room for wise minds to disagree on that issue, though we are both going to accept and work with your decision. Thank you again. Making judgements like this will always leave someone unhappy, and you must surely get your fill of complaints every time you decide something like this. We'll hash this out. Dcs002 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spinningspark, I just read your comments in your decision to Keep after the last AfD, and I want to thank you for your explanation. I understand now that consensus dictates policy, and not the reverse. (Just like in languages - usage dictates meaning, and grammar and definitions can only explain usage, not dictate it. I can understand that.) I have been greatly frustrated by this issue since I began participating in these AfD discussions, and no one has explained it to me like that, in a way I can understand. Your explanation has truly helped me understand why these discussions have been so frustrating for me until now. Dcs002 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you be my mentor please[edit]

Please. I have done so many violations on it that I need help fixing my mistakes. People are kinda worried because I'm not suppose to create categories. Maybe you could speak on my behalf. I'm wondering if you what categories are suitable to create and not suitable to create. I'm not banned yet you see; I just can't create categories I do have some mental health issues. Please Venustar84 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Absurdity: 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea[edit]

The idea that the article "covers more ground now" is absurd, as are claims about "reliable sources". What reliable sources were shown that justify forking already existing content? "Covers more ground now" is nonsense. Recent minor additions during the deletion discussion were made, but these only essentially copied content from War in Donbass and its sub-articles in a way that is not at all acceptable. This article was only ever about Crimea, as one will know if one read previous discussions. Perhaps I might accept a "no consensus" closure, but the idea that consensus was in favour of keeping this article is absolutely and entirely absurd. I ask that overturn your closure and allow the discussion to continue, relisting it, so that consensus in either direction can develop further. RGloucester 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You admit that the article contains material on the war in Donbass? Then it is unarguable that it now contains more material than on Crimea. The history of how it got to that state or how poor it is is largely irrelevant. As for sources, Sayerslle in particular repeatedly presented sources to back up his position. Now, I have not made an assessment of the reliability or relevance of those sources, that's not my job. It's the job of those opposing his position, but as far as I can see in the debate the sources he put forward went largely unchallenged. Closes are grounded in policy based arguments, not counting votes, and in my assessment the keep side had the better policy based arguments. SpinningSpark 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The "keep" side had no policy-based arguments, zero. I don't care about votes. Forking content, i.e. copying existing content in WP:COATRACK fashion is not acceptable under policy. His sources had nothing to do with whether the content should be forked. They merely provided various facts and claims about supposed Russian interference. But these themselves do not make an article, because they refer to interference "in" a particular conflict. That content was already written ages ago, and has existed at War in Donbass since that article was created. Copying it to a fork is unacceptable in every possible way. In fact, it is essentially a WP:POV FORK, because, as the forking guideline says, it merely copies content from one article to another to address the matter in a less neutral way. The reason his sources were not "addressed" is because they had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at all, because no one with intelligence was contesting facts about what Russia is or isn't doing. Regardless, this is not my ultimate concern. My concern is that you have closed this debate as "consensus to keep" when there clearly was no consensus either way, and also when closure as "keep" is in contravention of policy. Once again, I will politely ask to you to relist the discussion, and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind. This is an important and controversial discussion, and deserves its due time to reach a proper consensus. If, after the relisting time, you still think there is consensus to keep, fine. But to say that this discussion at this moment reached any kind of consensus is absolutely absurd. RGloucester 22:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I won't relist. The debate had high participation and was highly polarized. Holding it open is unlikely to bring anything new to the table or change anyone's mind. SpinningSpark 23:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Then I shall draft a deletion review on the subject. Good night. RGloucester 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. 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. RGloucester 01:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD canvassing[edit]

Good morning, SpinningSpark. WP:CANVASSING states the following:

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

"However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

"Appropriate notification

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

  • "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
  • "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
  • "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion . . . .
  • "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • "Editors known for expertise in the field"

User:Masem is an administrator who was intimately involved in the writing of the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSPORTS, as well as the commentary of WP:GNG. I solicited his opinion because I believe with good reason that NSPORTS and GNG are being routinely misapplied in the very specific scenario epitomized by the Chalmers Tschappat AfD. Given Masem is an "editor known for expertise in this field," your characterization of my invitation to him to participate in the AfD as inappropriate "canvassing" is incorrect. I would be grateful if you would revise your AfD closing commentary to reflect our actual canvassing policy. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you knew already what Masem's opinion was going to be here. That is not seeking "expert opinion". It is an attempt to bolster a particular position in a debate. Masem's view of the meaning of the guidelines carries no more weight than anyone else's. Seeking expert opinion would be something like asking a rocket scientist to comment on a rocket article. As far as I know Masem has no particular expertise on 1920s American football. SpinningSpark 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting position to take, SS. I think my interpretation is equally valid. What I was seeking was to open a discussion which has been repeatedly ignored in NSPORTS notability AfD discussions. Moreover, I never cast an !vote in this AfD discussion for the exact reason that I was trying to draw editors who had expertise, background and understanding into it. I personally took no !vote position to be bolstered. What I was seeking was to clarify this narrow intersection of the notability guidelines; your arguably premature closing in an evenly divided 3-3 !vote provides no clarity and precludes further discussion on point in the context of this AfD. Is that what you intended? Because as things stand, we have inconsistently enforced guidelines, and your close effectively endorsed one side of that debate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Trying to get guidelines clarified through an individual AfD is inappropriate and unlikely to result in anything useful. My close said as much and there is not really anything to add to that. The proper place is policy discussion pages. However you cut it, explicitly inviting Masem to the debate on an individual basis, and no one else, was a dubious action at best. SpinningSpark 12:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I really hate to belabor the point, SS, because you are clearly disregarding my explicit question above and below: There was no clear !vote consensus in this AfD. You closed this as a clear "keep" in the face of a 3-3 !vote, but provided no rationale for that close. That could be construed as a "super vote." If you provide a rationale for your close, either here or at the AfD, I will let this go. I don't believe that's an unreasonable request under the circumstances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SpinningSpark, I also ask the following of you: Are you specifically endorsing the "keep" policy position in this AfD? My count of the !vote at the time of your close was 3 "deletes" (including the nominator) and 3 "keeps", with no clear !majority, which would seem to be an endorsement by the closing administrator of the "keep" position as the stronger consensus policy position. Is that what you intended? If so, I think you need to say that in the absence of an !majority. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    To explicitly answer your question, I think it is perfectly plain from my close of keep that I am endorsing the policy position of the keep camp and clarification beyond that is really not necessary. My reading of the guidelines is that notability can be established via an SNG. This is explicitly stated in WP:N prominently in the lead: a topic is presumed notable if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" (my emphasis). That does not eliminate the need for sources. An article cannot be written without sources and WP:V is still a core requirement. However, under SNG there is a lesser requirement for in-depth coverage than GNG requires. It is only required to meet WP:V. If that were not so and GNG would have to be met anyway then having the SNG at all would be pointless; all we would need would be the GNG. I know there is a counter-view to this that GNG is the be all and end all of notability, and my close recognized that, but that is not what policy actually says. You made a great deal of the word "presumed" in the guidelines arguing that it means just this counter-view, but look how it is used in the lead of WP:N. It is not only applied to the SNG, but GNG also and to WP:NOT to boot. It cannot possibly be meant that if challenged then it must be shown that GNG must be met since GNG is also challengeable under this. Look where the wikilink of that phrase leads. It cannot be the case that SNG is rebuttable with GNG if GNG itself is also rebuttable. Frankly, I cannot think how either could ever be rebutted in policy except through IAR. That's my final word here and I'm hoping you meant it when you said you "will let this go". SpinningSpark 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Problems of Onomastics[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Problems of Onomastics. 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chalmers Tschappat[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chalmers Tschappat. 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. MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference to the Diode Logic discussion[edit]

At your suggestion I went to the p–n diode article. It looks very good but it lacks a correct graphic of the Diode law and an interpretation that shows how that relates to an electrical engineer’s needs without solving the equation for every point of interest. The only voltage-current graph is a standard one used to show basic regions of the diode. It changes voltage scale from positive to negative and the forward half is a gross simplification and suggests illusionary properties such as a “knee” and straight line over simplifications. It does not represent Shockley’s equation.

I think I see how to try to stimulate some corrections of the Diode Logic article without doing it directly. Someone might want to keep watch over me, I hope in a helpful way. I hope to add a short section to the p-n diode article providing an interpretation of Shockley’s equation in a form that an electrical engineer can readily use including mostly a graph of the equation with its variations and various properties that can be interpreted from that graph. If that works out then I hope to place a citation in the Diode Logic article directing the reader to the p-n diode material. This should at least alert the reader that a diode is not a switch.

You might want to read what I wrote, [is wrong with the Diode Logic Article] to Wtshymanski. Hopefully it is irreverent with my new plan if you are looking at my work you should atleast know why I am doing it. I appreciate your guidance and help.Thingmaker (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dreaming of diode logic[edit]

Basic assumptions:

1. Logic circuits use series and parallel connected switches to perform AND and OR logic functions like insulated gate FET logic.

2. OR is achieved by parallel switches. AND is achieved by series switches.

3. Diodes are switches.

Diode OR[edit]

“The explicit diode OR gate is simple.” The diodes are connected in parallel as OR should be. They are connected to a resistor returning to logical 0 or ground. If diode A OR B has an input of 1 their switch is on and the output is driven to a logical 1. If A and B have inputs of 0 or ground their switches are OFF and the resistor provides a logical 0 output.

Diode AND[edit]

“The diode AND gate is so odd, exotic and absurd. An AND gate is implemented with series switches but diode switches cannot switch if they are connected in series. This is a puzzlement!

” It is (an) interesting fact that many years later (later than1960 or 1986) I continued to not understand what the basic idea behind diode AND was. I perfectly knew the circuit but I didn't understand it... ...three months ago (now 15 January 2011)), during the laboratory exercises with my students on Digital circuits, I began realizing the great idea behind these legendary diode circuits.
However, to obtain AND instead of OR function according to De Morgan's laws, the input and output logical variables are inverted:
Y = NOT (NOT (X1) OR NOT (X2)) = NOT (NOT (X1 AND X2)) = X1 AND X2,
where X1 and X2 are the two input logical variables; Y is the output variable.

Therefore, the diode AND logic gate is a modified diode OR logic gate: the diode AND gate is actually a diode OR gate with inverted inputs and output.”

Stated in simple terms an AND is a negative OR. (Logic designers know and use this fact and the fact that an OR is a negative AND every day.) This requires that the input and output signals and the OR circuit must be inverted.

To realize the basic idea, the diodes are reverse connected (to invert the input)… To invert the output R1 is connected to a logical 1 (Vcc). When inputs A AND B are 1’s they are both OFF and R1 provides a logical 1 output. If A or B is 0 they will turn ON causing a 0 on the output.

Input logical ones When all the input voltages are high, they "neutralize" the biasing supply voltage +V. The voltage drops across the diodes are zero and these diode switches are open. R1 provides a 1 output.

Input logical zero If some inputs are 0 the diode switch is closed and the output is 0.

What is wrong with this Diode Logic[edit]

1. Diodes are not switches. They are nonlinear impedances that conduct more easily in the forward direction than the reverse. Even if you simplify the diode to have zero voltage drop with unlimited current in the forward direction and zero current in the reverse they are not switches.

2. The idea that parallel switches form OR’s and serial switches form AND’s is not quite true. CMOS FET logic used parallel devices to drive the output in one direction and serial devices to drive it in the opposite. This is taking advantage of the fact that a positive AND is a negative OR and vice versa. AND’s can be formed with parallel switches or devices just as can OR’s. Both AND and OR logic circuits can be implemented with both series and parallel devices. Diodes and resistors are not switches. Diodes and resistors cannot perform logic functions as series components but can perform them as parallel components.

3. Diode AND and OR logic circuits are both simple and easily understood. They work from the same theory but just upside down. Only because of the misconception that only series switches can form AND’s did the author not understand it. Nearly any person with a basic understanding of electronics and PN diodes can readily understand how they work. Only a person with very little or no knowledge of electronics would carefully read this article. An experienced person is likely to skim over it missing its flaws. The person hoping to learn will find it misleading and confusing, misleading because it is greatly flawed and confusing because the AND discussion is confusing.

4. The theory seems to depend on R1 returning to ground or the 0 level for the OR and +V (equal to the 1 level) to make the diode “switches” turn OFF. The theory seems to require that the diodes have no current flowing through them to form the AND function. In practice this would seldom happen since the logic gate must drive some load such as the inverter in a DTL circuit. Here R1 and the inverter input resistor will form an equivalent resistance that returns to an equivalent voltage usually outside the 1 or 0 level. Quite often one or more diodes will continue to conduct current in either condition. The diodes do not necessarily stop conducting and definitely do not “switch” OFF.


I don’t want any harm to come to anyone. I believe the author of the article is probably doing a valuable service in his university. I also don’t want harm to come to any person who reads this article with the expectation of learning something they don’t know. The latter can be achieved by removing the article whether it is replaced or not.

I would suggest:

1. To protect everyone, all my discussions on this subject should be deleted. I am thinking of deleting all my previous ones anyway.

2. Remove the Diode Logic article on the basis that it is original work which Wikipedia does not encourage (even though many articles have that problem at least to some extent.) Also it does not conform to conventional theory. The author on his original Talk page expressed concern that this might be the decision so he recognized that possibility. This would cause no embarrassment to anyone.

3. There is probably no need to replace the article since it is better covered in the DTL article, except that article was written by the same author but with a little less confusion, only a little. It could be replaced. The addition I wrote was directed too much toward teaching because I felt I had to overcome the mistakes of the original article. The discussion of the diode properties could be greatly simplified or removed if the original article is not there. The rest of my writing could be simplified for the same reason. I don’t care who writes a replacement if there is one but it should be written using conventional knowledge and theory if at all.Thingmaker (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your basic point is here, or why you are posting to me instead of the article talk page, but a few of responses;
  1. Deletion is not the answer, that's not the way Wikipedia works. Incremental improvement is better.
  2. I don't need lessons in basic electronics thank you. I know it already
  3. There are applications of diode logic divorced from DTL. These were in use before the invention of the transistor and still are. See [7] for instance.
SpinningSpark 23:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. I am not trying to give you lessons. I am only trying to point you to the problem so you might give it some consideration. I am trying to find someone that understands and I thought you might be that person. I am not suggesting that diode logic only is used in DTL. I did suggest that diode logic is not very useful by itself. It certainly is not used for extensive logic without amplification of some sort. I am certainly not trying to eliminate an article on diode logic. If someone feels it is needed then it should exist but hopefully one that is logical. All I ask is that you read the article as it is. If you don't find anything wrong then consider my comments above. If you still think it is an accurate explanation then I will have no choice but to give up. I am right!Thingmaker (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding, when you recommended to "remove the Diode Logic article" I naturally thought you wanted the page deleted. I don't dispute that there are problems with the article. I am happy for you to go about fixing them, you don't need my permission. The only reason you were reverted is that you created an alternative version of the article instead of overwriting it. I would suggest you do it a section at a time so other editors can easily follow what you are doing and you don't get another knee-jerk revert like happened last time. By the way, you do realise that Circuit dreamer has been community banned from editing electronics articles? He has made far worse messes than the one on this page. I wouldn't worry too much about scrapping any of his material, and in any case there is only one page for each subject which belongs to all of us, not just the editor who initially created it. SpinningSpark 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I have finally found someone that understands. My only intention was to fix the article. There are so many errors in the electronics circuit articles and there seems to be a lot of policing concerning text etc. but few who understand electronics. I am glad there is at least you. I am sorry I bothered you with this but I could find no one else that could understand. I will try to "fix" the Diode Logic article in pieces but it is all intermixed with the same flaw that it might be a challenge. Our discussions on other pages of electronics were, I hope only discussions. I am certain we both just want the articles to be as good as possible. I believe I am slowly learning the rules. Thank you again!Thingmaker (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Negative resistance rewrite[edit]

I rewrote and expanded Negative resistance; I think it really needed it. I believe you have done a lot of good work with that article in the past, defending it against various fringe edits, and I'd value your opinion of this version, if you have time to look at it. FYI, in a few respects it differs from viewpoints you have advocated on the Talk page, but we can discuss that. --ChetvornoTALK 02:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DL or DRL[edit]

I offered some thoughts for you on this subject on the Diode Logic Talk page [[8]]. I would really like an authoritative opinion if there is one.Thingmaker (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks on dab pages.[edit]

Sorry about the redlink on the Sérgio Rodrigues page. I didn't know about that rule. I actually pitched a related question on the Help Desk page this morning and just got an answer. The primary Portuguese Wikipedia article for pt:Sérgio Rodrigues corresponds to the author I wanted to add to the list. The architect Sérgio Rodrigues is also on the Portugues Wikipedia listed under pt:Sérgio Rodrigues (designer). The swimmer doesn't appear in the Portuguese Wiki. The Help Desk advice I got was to use a template to link to the Sérgio Rodrigues article in the Portuguese Wikipedia until an English page is created. This is how the template appears: Sérgio Rodrigues (author) (pt). As you can see this would still show a redlink on the disambiguation page, but it would also be accompanied by a link to a full article. Is this approach okay? If not, what is the best way to get the extra information about this other Sérgio Rodrigues onto the disambiguation page? I'm trying to resolve the inconsistency I discovered when I originally linked to the Sérgio Rodrigues dismbiguation page from the 2014 São Paulo Prize for Literature page. Thanks, Vojen (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Entries should only be on disambiguation pages if we have an article about, or at least one that discusses, the subject of the entry. That is, every entry should have one blue link to another (English) Wikipedia page. However, another editor has now fixed the entry and restored it. SpinningSpark 22:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)