User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 8

Just A Question

Hello, I made an edit to capacitance (I'm 173.26.201.202) and you reverted it. I don't even disagree with the action, but I also don't know the reasons for it. And since I'm new I thought it would be good to ask so my future edits could be more useful.

Thank you, --ThorFreyaSaturn (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pegleg

Pegleg may not be a disambiguation page in its current form, but neither is it an article in its current form. Its got a dictionary definition, a list of articles in two categories people and railroads, and no references. What is it? --Bejnar (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a stub. The lede is a bit more than a dicdef, but I grant you, not by very much. There is no point trying to turn this into a dab page when the only meaningful entry is going to be a redlink which could only contain the material that is already in the article. SpinningSpark 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by only meaningful entry is going to be a redlink? I didn't catch your drift. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your modified text reads;

Pegleg often refers to an artificial limb of carved wood fitted to the remaining stump of a human leg Pegleg (prosthesis), and hence, may refer to:

Pegleg (prosthesis) does not exist. None of the other articles linked on the page need a disambiguation from pegleg (prosthesis), that is, their title is not "pegleg". This leaves no valid entries for a dab page, not counting the redlink, which are not normally acceptable as dab entries either. SpinningSpark 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

If you would like to review Sentence spacing and provide comments, I would be happy to do the same for your Distributed element filter peer review. Sadly, I know very little about the subject matter (of the latter article). However, I might be able to help in matters of style, prose, content, and design—especially from the viewpoint of the average reader. Airborne84 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about it if I can find the time, but it's not really my kind of article. I suggest you approach someone else in the meantime. SpinningSpark 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm really just looking for help in "tightening the prose" now. That's the last major comment outstanding. If you can't get to it, OK. Airborne84 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The dab finder is here and in the Toolbox in the upper right corner of the PR. I will reply there on the rest. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the lede does seem better now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I'll give it a look int he next 48 hours. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Scheduling

I'd no sooner try to schedule any Wikipedia editors than I'd try to herd cats. I just think it's pointless documenting trivia when the bulk of the article is unreferenced. If no one else in the entire history of the article thinks it's his job to find any references, bed*mmd if I'm going to spend any time on it either when I can spend it reverting vandals and getting into pointless talk page battles that have nothing to do with growing the encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing gets done one little piece at a time. It is always worthwile adding a reference. You are out of order criticising me for doing so, even if you believe it is an unimportant part of the article. I had already said on the article talk page that I had no objection to the passage being removed, so why was it necessary to get bitey with me afterwards?

You said on my talk page that "I'd no sooner try to schedule any Wikipedia editors than I'd try to herd cats" but on the article talk page you had previously responded to me with "Dig up something on PC oscilloscopes, or how sweep works, or *anything* - the article needs that much more than a side-trip down a dead-end". That reads to me as if you are exactly trying to "herd cats". SpinningSpark 07:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I log on every day so i can pick quarrels with anonymous people. And I gave you marching orders on what you had to do next. And we're all such capable researchers that the article has gone unreferenced for 3 years. right. good thing the process is perfect, being carried out by perfect people.that makes all the tags and observations on the generally poor quality of electrical article un-necessary. Praise Jimbo! --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter

Just wanted to express my awe and admiration regarding this page. --catslash (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)