User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 12

SpinningSpark is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

My archives

Infrastructure/ citing mainstream European sources

Dear Spinningspark,

I just came across comments left by Ahora earlier today re: the article on Infrastructure- you seemed to agree with him.

The WPC is one of Europe’s leading think-tanks dedicated to pension investment research.

I don’t see anything misleading, biased or “weasely” (??) in the section of the article on Infrastructure you refer to.

++ I’m not sure Ahora has effectively taken the time to (fully) read the sources in question:

The first source quoted (published jointly in Turkey’s JTW/ and France’s Revue Analyse Financière) clearly mentions “[primary] commodities” (1st and 2nd paragraphs) and energy-related infrastructure assets such as “power generation” and “power grids” (9th and 11th paragraphs).

The second source quoted (Euromoney magazine published in London) mentions specifically “commodity-rich” sovereign institutions (paragraph 14) active in the field of “oil and other commodities”, and, more generally, “energy” and “energy infrastructure”.

Bottom line: The article in question states the (rather mainstream) perspective of a leading European think-tank, backed by refs to mainstream financial (Euromoney, RAF) and poli. sci. (JTW) journals.

Cordially,

BJA

--B.Andersohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Whitespace problem fixed

Now its fixed... again. I a sorry but I am doing many things at the same time. I beg for a little patience and minor edits problem will be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor

Hi SpinningSpark, maybe you remember helping me for better English with “Dielectric absorption”. Now I wrote a new article "film capacitor" and put it under "User:Elcap/Film capacitor". This article is not only a translation from the German Wikipedia article ([[1]]) but have a lot of additional informations especially written in respect of new information. May be I am an expert of capacitors but not of the English language, that is the reason to ask for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Please have a look at my talk page [capacitors] and decide what now will be the best way to make a good English article out of my draft. Thanks for helping. --Elcap (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now. If you would like, I can put it on my list, but I can't promise to get round to it any time soon. You can request a copyedit at WP:GOCE but they also have a long backlog. Alternatively, you can move the article to mainspace and tag it with {{copy edit}} which will attract the attention of someone from GOCE eventually. Spinning Spark 08:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you assist?

I'm hoping you can take this photo [2] which already is on the article for Tim Reynolds, and crop off all the additional space to the right of the speakers behind him on the right. I think this is a better photo of him recently hopefully for the infobox. Please let me know! Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! What a nice job and I appreciate your indulgence! :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Military organization

I made an edit to the page in the headline. This edit should not be undone since it does not involve capitalization. It is a link the the military rank, similiar to the links above and below it. 174.22.11.218 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to move Rubik's cube group to Rubik's Cube group

I'd like to rename the Rubik's cube group article to Rubik's Cube group because Rubik's Cube is the proper name. The move operation won't let me and suggests that I contact an admin.

That'd be you. Thanks, --Olsonist (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That would not be consistent with WP:CAPS, MOS:CAP or the Rubik's cube article. Spinning Spark 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The name of the Rubik's Cube article is Rubik's Cube. Instead, there is a redirect from Rubik's cube. Also, the article uses Rubik's Cube article capitalizes the C as does the OED on my Mac. WP:MOS says don't capitalize unless the title is a proper noun. I guess I'm saying Rubik's Cube is a proper noun. --Olsonist (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it has always been capitalised. I should have checked first. Spinning Spark 08:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Olsonist (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello Sir... Can You unblock me ?. My twenty four hours block period is over... Thanks :) Vithurgod (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not blocked, otherwise you would not be able to post to this page. Spinning Spark 08:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing about Discography Vithurgod (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I never got a barnstar from anyone I'd blocked (or who thought I blocked them.) Huh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For commenting and offering suggestions on Template talk:Welcome, regarding the Teahouse. There is a bit of a dearth of input there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Template talk pages are stupid places to hold discussions. Nobody watches them. Spinning Spark 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. When I first reverted the addition of the link, I urged them to have a discussion on the village pump or a content Rfc linked from Centralized discussion, but I was ignored and as it appeared clear the discussion was proceeding on Template talk:Welcome I thought the least I could do was try to notify anyone who'd expressed an opinion elsewhere. I may add the link to the pump myself shortly, if nothing else is done. Its frustrating; this isn't my project and I'm not involved, but I seem to be doing a lot of the work for their desired changes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Assist

Dear Sir, Please assist me in convincing other editors on the Page Ranina Reddy 's Discography. Everytime there is an edit war Happening and other Editors are just telling, some reason or the other.. Discography is a Table of Songs sung by the Indian Singer and it must find a place in Wikipedia.. Please assist. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I will answer you fully on your own talk page, but basically you should be discussing this with the editors on the talk page first before seeking outside help. Spinning Spark 08:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Spinningspark a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your help at Talk:meridian (geography) HTML2011 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Sikandar Hayat Khan (Punjabi politician)

Dear sir, how do you do. I am a new editor and am assisting with the above article. According to my article watchlist, you made a change and deleted or hid from view some recent revision on this article. Im sorry to bother but possibly this revision might have been made by me and I would be grateful to know what exactly did you change/remove? As that would be helpful for me to learn and avoid any such errata in future. Thank you for your cooperation, yours sinceley, AsadUK200 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

You are not at fault, it is the edit of another user which has been hidden. I would be happy to give you a full explanation if you contact me by e-mail. Spinning Spark 08:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My dear sir, thank you for clarifying that. I hope that if I make a mistake the experienced editors will please let me know, and guide me and I hope to gain from that. Best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

WP:Geonotice

Carried over from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals):

I did not in any sense delete the entry because "I received a message that was irrelevant to me". It was entirely because the message was inappropriate. Whether or not I am interested in going to the Wakefield show is beside the point. It is worth noting though, that the intended target seems to have been the North of England, if it had been accurately limited to that rather than almost as far south as Dieppe, I would never have received it in the first place.
Getting back to the question at hand, that of guidelines, thank you for the link to Wikipedia:Geonotice. While that page does have a section on guidelines, it is almost entirely concerned with the formatting of messages. It says nothing about what is acceptable content which is the thing really at issue. Further, what is being proposed here is guidelines for all site-wide notices, or at least watchlist notices, not just geonotices. Spinning Spark 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is technically impossible to subdivide the UK when creating geonotices. There has been extensive discussions about several notices competing for the UK geonotice space because of this technical limitation, and there is an informal guideline that there should be no more than 2 UK geonotices running at any time. Der yck C. 11:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
What would have happened if the lower limit of latitude had been set north of London? Do we know what percentage of the intended target would be excluded? The answer is of interest for the purpose of writing a guideline. Spinning Spark 12:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About a quarter, I'd imagine, and independently of where you actually are. This is because the geo-location tool, rightly and ethically, uses only public data to determine your location. In the UK, that means it'll return wherever your ISP or network manager is based, rather than where you are, which is often hundreds of miles away from your actual location unless you edit from a major company or educational institution and therefore have fixed IPs. Der yck C. 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we actually know this? We can't write a guideline based on what we imagine. I have been with three different ISPs at this address and also use GPRS. They have all geolocated me to within 10 miles with a whois query. I know that is only anectode, but I struggle to believe the exclusion could be as high as 25%. I note that geonotices in the US regularly use corners that are smaller than the whole UK, so it seems to work for them. Spinning Spark 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess GPRS locates better because they have the phone's signal tower data. Do your ISPs give you fixed IPs? If so they're likely to be more accurate. One notorious example is the Cambridge meetup - it's held in a pub whose IP geolocates to somewhere in Cumbria! I'm not saying sub-UK geolocation never works; I'm just saying it's unreliable. Der yck C. 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept its not going to be perfect. The thing we want is best fit, not too many either wrongly included or wrongly excluded. That can only be acheived with at least some partial data. Notifying the whole of the UK because some pub in Cambridge has been missed is just ludicrous. The pub already knows the info anyway so doesn't need a watchlist notice. As for whether my current ISP is dynamic, I just tried resetting my modem and it reconnected to an IP address that is not even in the same CIDR /2 range! It still geolocates me to better than 10 miles. You have not responded to my point that US geonotices regularly use sub-national coordinates, seemingly without major problems. You said there has been extensive discussion, perhaps you would care to link to some of it. Actually, do it on VPP where everyone else can see it, my talk page is not a suitable venue for thrashing out policy. Spinning Spark 15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The reason I moved the discussion here is that I don't see the technical details as crucial to the proposed guideline. Anyway, the thread "Cambridge meetup 21 May" on the wikimediauk-l archives (subscribers only, but subscription is open and you can gain access to the archives in a few clicks. You really should subscribe if you're in the UK!) has Rich Farmbrough and a few others sharing their experience and technical insight as to why subdividing UK in geo-location doesn't work. Charles Matthews also raised the point that certain "local" events, most notably the London and Cambridge regular meetups, are actually UK-wide events because there are people who travel a few hundred miles to attend them. Der yck C. 17:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re article Sikandar Hayat Khan (Punjabi politician)

Dear Spinningspark Hello. From this article's history, it seems that a User:74.82.68.144 delted a section which you probably reverted and then deleted it again? In principle, although I do not disagree with this action really (as the section seemed to be rather controversial and probably riled up some relatives/family members of the subject of the article who felt indignant about it-see history)no note/rationale was given for this. I wonder if you received some explanation? Ive asked for reasons, on the user talk page and just wanted to let you know. Best wishes, AsadUK200 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

No, I have not received an explanation. Nor did I delete the material. I reverted the IP who deleted the material without explanation. The IP promptly deleted it again. I was waiting to see what was said on the talk page - which is what is supposed to happen next. I have not followed all of the saga on the talk page, but as I understand it, non-notable family members are upset that they are not also mentioned in the article. So the suspicion is that someone has retaliated by removing reference to all family members. If that is the reason behind this unexplained deletion, or no justification at all is forthcoming, then I see no reason why the material should not be put back in. Nobody has a right to be mentioned in the encyclopedia - it is an editorial decision. If you choose to reinstate the deleted material, be sure to say so on the talk page and why you are doing it. Spinning Spark 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Questor Tapes

I would like to add a youtube link on "The Questor Tapes" page. How do I do that without it being removed by a bot program? Other pages, such as 'Overland_train', have youtube links so it is an acceptable site. Kenixkil (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to YouTube are very rarely acceptable, which is why we have a bot removing them. The fact that some have got into articles is beside the point, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The links you tried to put into the article go to a YouTube user page, not a video about The Questor Tapes so this is definitely not acceptable. That user has uploaded some Questor material but it is almost certainly copyright violations so you definitely cannot link to that either. See WP:EL for guidelines on external links. Spinning Spark 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Golding Bird

This is a note to let the main editors of Golding Bird know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 2, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Golding Bird (1814–1854) was a British medical doctor and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. He lectured at Guy's Hospital, and published a popular textbook on science for medical students. He developed an interest in chemistry as a child, and through self-study was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. He later applied this knowledge to medicine and became a great authority on urinary deposits. He was the first to describe oxaluria, a condition which leads to a particular kind of kidney stone. Bird was innovative in the medical use of electricity, designing much of his own equipment. He was instrumental in rescuing medical electrotherapy from quackery and bringing it into the mainstream. He was quick to adopt new instruments of all kinds; he invented the single-cell Daniell cell and made important discoveries in electrometallurgy with it. In 1840 he designed a flexible tube stethoscope, and published the first description of such an instrument. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Questor Tapes (TV series)

Thank you for the reply. But I have this question. Why was the non-active youtube link on the subject line page not removed earlier since it falls within your definition of non-acceptable external links? Kenixkil (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia, it would take many lifetimes before I got round to them all if it was all just down to me. All editors are volunteers and edit those areas that interest them - there is no structured assignment of tasks. Quality is bound to be very patchy. Spinning Spark 02:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arc flas link

I think you should review the other external links on that page. Several are to commercial sites. At least I am an educational site. And who are you to judge my activities as not credible? Randy hurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph02 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you said what article you were talking about. You seem to be referring to external links you inserted in, and I removed from, a bunch of articles over a year ago. At the time, I posted on your talkpage our guidelines for external links. Have you read them? By consensus, the default position on Wikipedia is not to include links unless there is a good reason. The accepted good reasons can be found in the guideline and I would be happy to explain the guidelines further if you wish. It is not my function to check all the links in all our millions of articles; at issue are the links you inserted, and they stand or fall on their own merits - see WP:OTHER. I have checked my posts around the time in question and can find no example of accusing you of not being credible. Please either provide a diff of the post or withdraw the accusation. In any case, such ad hominem arguments carry no weight whatsoever. Spinning Spark 11:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nominal impedance

The article Nominal impedance you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Nominal impedance for things which need to be addressed. GoP_T^C_{N 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)}

infobox

hi, I think having infobox is much better a single picture. why did you remove that infobox? al (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it adds nothing to the article that is not already in the prose. Infoboxes are not a requirement of the MOS - see WP:IBX, but are a matter of editorial judgement. Since this article went all through the FA process without an infobox - and that is a long and arduous process. I think you will find a lot of editors agree with me on the disadvantages of infoboxes. Spinning Spark 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

hi please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.al (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk Request

Thank you for responding to my help desk request. So hard to keep this brief! But I don't want to just send you looking at reams of talk pages and AfD.

There have been a spate recently of deletions of "UFC" MMA events. To give you the conclusion before I get to the details, I think these deletions were improper, though done in good faith and with reasonable rationale by the admins who closed them. In once case, the article was deleted though the admin acknowledged no consensus had been reached, though he provided his rationale for doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_140_(2nd_nomination). In this one, the closing admin actually suggested this be an RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_142, and here is still another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_143. My point is, as I wrote in the ongoing RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_146, (I wasn't aware of the first three RfAs, otherwise I would have argued this there too), is that there ARE notable, secondary major media sources previewing and reviewing these events. WP:SPORTSEVENT seems to allow for events that have secondary coverage beyond results, names, places, etc. All these events do, even though it is treated like a foregone conclusion that they do not. I've cited them in the ongoing RfA, but it hasn't been responded to yet. These notable pieces of prose are already in the article (not put there by me; I've never edited an MMA article) so I assume that those who support deletion don't find the prose notable ENOUGH. And they have a point! The problem is 1)other sporting events, across the board, are allowed to stand and are not subject to AfDs if they contain some secondary sources (As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.)" and 2)WP:EVENT allows articles with secondary sources that provide unique prose beyond just the whats whens and wheres. It doesn't claim that such prose/news needs to be earth-shattering (and to be sure, it's not earth-shattering) but that's how the deletion supporters are interpreting it. And that's fine, but that's not how it's done with almost any other sporting event in Wikipedia. Further complicating the debate is that SPAs and meat puppets who are nominally on my "side" in this debate have descended on the AfDs (these have been noted by the Admins when closing with a delete)and my "side" is being decidedly less civil. This debate is being fleshed out both on the UFC 145 AfD where I linked to above, and on the talk page of WP:MMANOT http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability, where they are moving towards lumping all the UFC events into what would be a garguantuan "2012 in UFC" article, which I am opposed to for the reasons I cited above. I am working on a draft for that talk page as well. If events within UFC have secondary prosaic coverage, then it does not seem to run against the wording of WP:EVENT and it is consistent with most other uncontroversial sporting events on Wikipedia. These UFC articles can be and should improved with that secondary coverage, but the other side of the debate seems to have been "Nope! Not good enough! Delete them all and create an omnibus article!" Thanks for reading all this, I hope it wasn't too incoherent, and please advise. Mreleganza (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just started looking at this, but your post seems very confused. The first AfD you link [3] did not result in a delete as you claim. It was a "no consensus" which under our rules means it defaults to the status quo, ie "keep". You cannot believe both that deletions were "improper" and "done in good faith with a reasonable rationale". If you believe that the deletions really were improper, that is, done against policy or the closing admin improperly ignored consensus then the correct procedure would be WP:DRV. But I don't think you really want to go down that path; you cannot go to DRV just because you do not like the outcome of the AfD. A better approach in that case is to take into account the consensus of the AfDs in future editing. I don't think anyone is arguing for all UFC event articles to be deleted/merged as a matter of principle. As far as I can see even those in favour of deletion accept that an individual event can be notable - but each individual article needs to justify that it is notable beyond its immediate impact, as described in WP:EVENT, on a case-by-case basis.

I think the idea of an umbrella RfC to establish the principles here is a very good idea. In effect this is already happening at [4]. If you choose to use the WP:RfC process, which has the advantage of attracting a wider circle of editors, you should place the template on that same page to avoid splitting the discussion over multiple venues. The template should be followed by a neutral and very brief description of the point you want decided - note that your "brief" post above is anything but brief. You can post your arguments after this, but it is important that the initial statement is brief as that's what will be seen by editors before they come to the page. As well as being carefully neutrally worded, the request must be highly focused on a well defined question - ideally one that can be answered in black and white terms such as support or oppose with no grey areas in between. I strongly suggest, however, that you do not use this process if the question you seek comment on is already being debated, this can only confuse matters further.

If RfC is not appropriate, you can seek wider editor input to the current debate by advertising it at venues which might be interested such as related Wikiprojects, the Village Pump, and affected policy talk pages. In this case as well though, the notice must be scrupulously neutral in wording. Spinning Spark 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I was mistaken about the no-consensus thing, I thought the arbitration summary was saying he was going to break from the usual guideline and deleting it in spite of it being no-consensus. To your point, "You cannot believe both that deletions were "improper" and "done in good faith with a reasonable rationale" I meant, "I think he is misinterpreting guidelines and policies, but I do not believe he is doing so in bad faith, as said guidelines are ambigious and has been subject to very heavy debate." But, we are making progress on the WP:MMANO talk page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreleganza (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AfC - Huw & Tony Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Huw_%26_Tony_Williams - just a point about Rosemary's Sister - originally I included a reference to a website that incorrectly credited another artist (Fairport Convention) with the song. The reference I include for the song is a track list - I can include other references - the main issue with any of this material is refers to the period 1980-2000 and finding anything online is not easy. This is further complicated by the fact that, unlike (e.g.) Ralph McTell, there is no official biography to point to (I note that the reference list on his page almost reads as a summary of the paper-based book). Thank you for the constructive comments.N1geD (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not following you. If you cannot find references then the material does not belong in an encyclopeida article. If you are saying that you can only find book references, then cite the book. Books still count as reliable sources regardless of whether they can be accessed online. Book sources are far and away preferable to random internet sites as far as reliability is concerned. Spinning Spark 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensory appendages

Hi Spinning, Even here in Blighty, antennas is I believe the accepted plural when not discussing the Arthropoda.[5]. Though I found cause to winge about one of them, 204.228.188.31's copy edits to Power dividers and directional couplers were not entirely without merit. Congratulations on Golding Bird incidentally. --catslash (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, as a gbooks search will quickly demonstrate, although a lot of people seem to believe it is. You will find numerous examples (nearly 100,000 hits) of "antennae" in an IEEE Xplore search, which, if anywhere, you would think they would be policing correct terminology. Wiktionary does make the distinction (probably POV insertion by the same zealots who are forever trying to impose it here) but the only source cited is the pocket Oxford English Dictionary. In fact, the online OED does not make a distinction between the two meanings. It actually gives the plural as "antennae" for all cases and describes "antennas" as rare. I might just go over to Wiktionary and stir up a debate there.

Thanks for the praise on Golding Bird. Do you have an FA in the pipeline yet? I'd be glad to help. Spinning Spark 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics page move

You did a page move of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics for archiving purposes. This is completely against convention and it should be undone. Archiving is done with the cut and paste method. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have any strong feelings on this one way or the other, but it certainly can't be described as "against convention", unless there is a specific Wikiproject Electronics guideline I am not aware of. WP:ARCHIVE describes it as a valid method, and WP:TALK does not say anything on methods other than refer to WP:ARCHIVE. The previous archive was done that way. In my opinion it is advantageous to keep the history associated with the text to which it relates, but I am not going to fight with you over it. Spinning Spark 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By convention means how it is done and does not mean "this is how it we tell you how it is done". The archiving bots use cut and past, and bot operation is always per guidelines, policy or convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving bots have to cope with fast moving pages where archiving the whole page is not practical. But as I say, I am not going to fight you about it. Spinning Spark 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy

Dear Spinning Spark User Bbb23 has agreed to enter details in Singer Ranina Reddy s Wikipedia Page. You can see the Talk Page. Hence I am adding the Details of the Table... Thanks for the Help. Vithurgod (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That would not be advisable. He asked you to wait 24 hours to give other editors a chance to comment. Consensus is not just one person. Spinning Spark 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@Spinning Spark... Ok Sir. I will wait.. I have provided references as he wanted... Thanks. Vithurgod (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Spinning Spark.. I have Self Reverted the Edit... I will wait for Conscensus . Will provide the Links that BBbb23 wants. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@@ Spinning Spark... I have provided References for the songs and the user BBb23 hasnt responded !!! Can we arrive at an conscensus ?. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I have removed the links to sources you placed on the talk page. The second one has a link to a reported attack site (on the big green "play button"). I only found out when my security software automatically disconnected me from the site. You can view the Norton Safe Web report. Since both links go to the same site, I have removed them both from the page. They cannot possibly be allowed on Wikipedia unless they are cleaned up and I for one am not prepared to go back to periodically test them. In any case, it appears to allow illegal downloads which was one of the objections to previous sources, which is what I was looking at when I got disconnected. Spinning Spark 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your original question, I suggest that you post on the talk page the table exactly as you intend to add it to the article. It is not clear from your post there exactly what you want to add. I would leave it for at least a week before you assume there are no objections, or else contact the editors directly who have previously objected. Spinning Spark 09:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@@spinning Spark... Ok. I will add the Table that I wanted to add. No one there is responding.. And I shall provide my explanations there Vithurgod (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Vithurgod, but I got caught up in other things, and although I noticed when you added the links (now removed), I then forgot to go back and look at them. I do keep the Reddy article on my watchlist, so you don't have to let me know when you put something on the Talk page. However, IF I fail to respond within a day or so, feel free to alert me on my own Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar correction?!?

Would you have a look at this "grammar correction"? Thanks, Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Maybe not grammar, but do you have a problem with that edit? The only thing that "threshold circuit" adds to the article is the assertion that the term is a synonym for Schmitt trigger. I don't see much evidence that that is the case: all the books I looked in use the term to mean something different. Spinning Spark 17:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello!. I'd like to thank you for scanning my copyedits and pointing out all the mistakes I've made on them. To be specific, it was hard for me to (or try to) make a copyedit of the article WFN Strategies. It was the first time i made a copyedit in my whole life and I felt i didn't changed anything on the article.

I'm still thinking about if I can handle the copyedit job. English is not my native language but i have a degree in the US Embassy in my country on English Language (both American and British) and English culture. I know i usually write awfully bad on the talk pages... --Hahc21 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligence and objectivity in reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nullspeeds in General Relativity and bringing a subject matter expert into the discussion. Good work! Pol430 talk to me 20:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The word cabrón

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a lifelong resident of Union City, New Jersey, which is mostly Latino (although I'm Italian myself), so I've grown up with the derogatory understanding of that word. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chebyshev

Why not just cite that book, if that is where it came from? Let the publisher worry about if it too lengthy a quote. Hgrosser (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

myWOT page appears written by fans or PR staff

Originally I voiced some concerns about the lack of balance in the talk page. After a month or so of inaction, I did a bit more research and uncovered the advert tag. I thought it was appropriate to tag the article as having a promotional bias. The article has been tagged this way historically. Those who removed the advert tag appeared to be fans of the service or otherwise troublesome users of that service. I am not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia, but it appears an edit war has been brewing with the user Weatherfug and myself. I have asked him politely to engage me in the talk section, but he refuses. Instead he levels allegations of 'loudmouthing' on my part, without further elaboration. How should I best handle this situation? I'd rather not go back and forth with the undo button. Ideally I would prefer that someone who is not a user of the service, or someone who does not hold negative views of the WOT community rewrite the article. My apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to bring this up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOT_Services,_Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.232.101 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are edit warring, please stop it. Taking data from a primary source and synthesising it into a conclusion that is not explicit in the source is called original research on Wikipedia and is not permitted under policy. We simply do not offer opinions in the encyclopedia. On the other hand, if a reliable secondary source has done such a synthesis then their conclusion may be cited. Spinning Spark 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Structuration

Given your comments at the GAR, I don't think this needs to sit in the GAR queue. This seems like it should be speedy-delisted as GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Was almost tempted to do that, but I don't think assessing ones own student's articles is actually against guidelines, even if done incompetently. I wouldn't object to someone else speedying it, but probably best to let the process run now it has been opened. Spinning Spark 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

Hi, Spinningspark, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested on the above article. Please feel free to correct or revert me if I'm doing something I shouldn't be. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Never been known to hesitate to do that. Thanks for reviewing. Spinning Spark 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again; I've now finished copy-editing the article - I read through the Peer Review and noted Finetooth's comments, all of which you've addressed. I'm sorry that you waited so long for a copy-edit; I hope it's okay for you. I've replied to your comments on the article's talk page and have addressed the issues you've raised - thank you. :-) It's an interesting article and I wish you well with your FL Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you continue to watch the article through the FL process in case any copyediting issues come up? Spinning Spark 16:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that - I'm not as active as I was, but I'm usually active daily, so I should catch any problems. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of battery types, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Spinningspark, I just wanted to say thank you for the advice on how to improve the Akasha article and make it read less like marketing. I really appreciate it.

Have a good day. Cheers - Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan M MacDonald (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

refer

hi dude you have a message in my talk [6].al (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lessac Technologies

Moved to User talk: Corretore

appreciating wikipedia

I don't know if anyone will truly appreciate Wikipedia to the full extent of its potential. I use it as a personal reference for any number of researches and value its content as utmost importance for truth and accuracy. I just wanted to find a link to show my appreciation for it. I hope this is it or will get to the editors or other responsible authors. I personally hope to become more of a contributor in the months & years to come. Haleiwahi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)haleiwahiHaleiwahi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on Parker story

Untitled

Im having trouble with having my upload remain and also linking the photos to match the page??SOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.23.146 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason you are unable to upload photos to Wikipedia is that you have not registered an account and it has not been confirmed. But in any case, you need to provide evidence of notability of your subject before you write any more about them on Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask me why I didn't complete this survey. Spinning Spark 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good article standards

Hi, can you take a quick loot at [this] article. Please tell me the requirements it needs,Despite being citations. So that i could fix the problems and make it Good article. Cheers 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Helped a lot. will conquer all the difficulties after integrating [this] one. Will it be consider vandalism,if i forgot to mention what changes I've made in edit summary of the article? well wishes 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but you will irritate other editors if you don't use edit summaries. Spinning Spark 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, studiousness is going in accordance,what I've told for Indian Railways . But meanwhile i'am in plan to develop one more. So kindly visit [this] page also. This article doesn't seems encyclopedic. I made some changes but,i'm foiled. Will you please help me By telling what requirements it needs and what contents it should not be. please let me know which part of the section will not require reference part.Reply on my talk page if possible.well wishes 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

oh yes, my intention was to remove those kharaghpur station pic's gallery. Article is about Indian railways. As far as media article concern i will try to develop in good way. Thanks for your kind response and help 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indentation again

Hi, Spark. Since you took part in an RfC at the talk page for our indentation essay, I wonder whether you might care to comment here, as well. No additional blocks are being sought, but a broader consensus on the indentation issue would be welcome. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries if you'd prefer not to, of course. But thought it might amuse you to know that you may have a long-lost cousin, however. Visually similar sigs, and a very close linguistic match, too: Same number of letters in each segment, both start with the "sp" sound, "i" and "a" sound swapped in one name relative to the other. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Re constantan

Deleted unsourced addition, just because it was unsourced. Thanks for providing source, which I have now completed, please check. So you are an old filterist? Me too. Have done a lot of filter design synthesis from the transfer function. (by chain fraction development from Zin from S11, for the lossless filter, plus preshift of PZ pattern for loss compensation in the pass band) Besides, on an old PDP11, in Fortran. This was a time when EEs still had to know mathematics. 70.137.140.123 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the constantan fact tag was 3 mo old and the name of this constantan proprietary brand was not present to me as an ee. a direct search for the name gave no immediate hit, I should have searched together with "constantan" as you did to avoid 100 leading false drops in the search. Regarding the fix to templates, I saw that the refs were all a little bit sparse and flaky and I completed them into one style, using templates. Usually after a few years and many little fixes you have 10 different citation styles in one article, then it is time to clean that up and work it up. IMO templates are even a bit easier to read, as you immediately know what is what, and they also are bot accessible for the same reason! I cannot follow the argument that they are clutter, they are more cleartext than the many dots, commas and apostrophes you need for a good formatting. If you read the refs now they are better.(have isbn and page number and a title etc. where possible) In particular in articles with many journal cites templates pay off. I read the wiki article about filter synthesis and it is rather sparse. IMO the way from S21 to the continued fraction for Zin should be included, thats for conoisseurs. It doesn't need to be the complete "Theorie der linearen Wechselstromschaltungen" by Cauer. (you should read that, it is really worth it. The guy was a mathematician, and it is gourmet reading.) Besides, the first filte synthesis program I wrote ran on a Zuse Z23. This were times. Later I made an extended version on an Electrologica X8, followed by one on a PDP11. The most tricky part was the polynomial solver, because the polynomials may be high order and numerically ill-conditioned. Today it is all canned programs, and my impression is that the engineers don't know what they are doing, just relying on the canned std. solutions. Do you know who still needs such skills, I can't find work, I will soon sit at the corner rattling with coins in a tin can. 70.137.135.97 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You really need to get an account if you want to continue talk page converstations with a dynamic IP. I did not really want to get into an argument with you over citation styles, just to let you know that it could be controversial so it did not come as a surprise to you, but if you were to do something like that to an article I was pushing for FA status, you would get a very lively argument. No idea about work, I seem to over 5,000 miles from your location. Spinning Spark 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, I do appreciate it. Egg Centri c 22:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

my talkpage

Hi - Unfortunately for returning to my talkpage and repeating a imo unduly attacking allegation that I had previously objected to - I would request that you do not post on my talkpage in future unless this dispute is resolved satisfactorily or I remove this request - thanks - Youreallycan 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there some part of the above post that is unclear? - Youreallycan 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If I need to say something to you, especially in my role as an administrator, your talk page is the place it is going to go. Spinning Spark 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In this instance - I have already objected to a comment you made and then repeated - if you consider administration needed in this case imo you are not the person to do it - Youreallycan 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Kelvin bridge

Hi Wondering if you could take a look at Kelvin bridge ? I was trying to read up on the topic and the article really confused me. The article seems to be erroneous and the cited article didn't help me either. What do you think? Woz2 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous books which describe this well known circuit - do a search on gbooks and you will find quite a few with preview. Can you give me a clue where you think the article is in error? Spinning Spark 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I think I figured out how it works now. The two errors in the article (I think) are:

"Resistance R should be as low as possible (much lower than the measured value) and for that reason is usually made as a short thick rod of solid copper."

...it seems to me this is completely bogus. There is no deliberately introduced component. There is parasitic contact resistance that the double bridge engineers around.

The diagram doesn't show the key point namely that the resistance is a four-terminal configuration.

I'll make a sandbox a come back here when it's ready for review. BTW, what tool do you use for drawing svg files like your

Woz2 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Inkscape, although I created the symbols (coils etc) myself. Spinning Spark 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol

See bottom of article Egg Centri c 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sun, wildly inaccurate as usual. They must be using some funny clocks to measure that at 10 minutes. If only it were a reliable source you could write yourself into the article. Spinning Spark 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

High Q filters using dielectric resonators

Spinningspark,

Trying to find someone with expertise in the use of ceramic components to produce a better filter is proving impossible. Can you help or do you know someone that might?

Just been made redundant and was pinning hopes on getting help with this.

I have a customer and access to a factory but at present no product.

Thanks

Chris Straygrey (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, unlikely I could help. Spinning Spark 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Current-to-voltage converter

This article is plastered with User:Circuit dreamer's whiteboard drawings. On the one hand, this presents the same problems as the other articles this user has edited, namely the editing difficulties of the illustrations and the lack of references in the text. On the other hand, the version of the page from July 24, 2006, the last version of the page before C.D. edited it, is very short.

I'm not sure how much to cull from the article, so a second opinion would be good. Hellbus (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to reverting it all the way back, and not just because of the unencyclopedic drawings. The application examples are largely bogus and the explanations are full of OR and unnecessarily involved. There are a few ideas from CD that could be retained, but they effectively need completely rewriting:

You could keep in something about a simple resistor amounting to a current-to-voltage converter. This is sourcable (source) but only requires one or two sentences to explain its drawbacks.
If you want a general theoretical description without referring to specific circuits such as op amps, then the nullor is the circuit element needed (source).
Genuine applications are needed. A very common use is with photo-detectors. There are numerous book sources with circuits - here's one.
CD is correct that I-V converters are used for current meters, but it is highly unlikely that any modern multimeter would use the simple passive circuit he describes. I think he is probably conflating this with the current shunts used on the old moving-coil meters. The moving-coil meter is still measuring current, not voltage, and the shunt merely brings the current within range, it does not perform a conversion.
This might just be me, but I like to see example circuits that don't do everythign with op-amps. It depresses me that virtually every electronic circuit article amounts to an opamp application sheet. To understand how circuits work one needs to get down to the component level. If you can get Amazon "see-inside" where you are, there is a simple example on page 206 of this book.

Spinning Spark 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proportionality

Hi, Spinningspark. Many thanks for the corrections and knowledgable commentary on Barlow's law. (I can't believe I mis-entered Ohm's law!) Do you know of any other real-life, interesting, not-too-complicated examples of people expressing mathematical relationships using the vocabulary of "varies directly", "varies inversely", "varies jointly", etc.? I first took up editing Barlow's law while I was teaching a remedial algebra course, and it seemed like a delightful example of that terminology as well as a real-life, simple use of the square-root function. I was distressed that students were able to recite the definitions of the "varies directly", etc., phrases, but had never seen a single example of their use and could not see how they would apply to anything real. If you know of further examples, they might be good to add to Proportionality (mathematics), which is a pretty weak article right now. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Would you also care to comment on my latest, super-elementary explanation of how Barlow got an inverse square-root law? I don't trust my meager knowledge of batteries.

Newton's second law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Boyle's law, Charles's law, Hopkinson's law...there must be any number. Your explanation is completely wrong-headed. Spinning Spark 17:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Endtown

Please explain to me why the Endtown page was deleted. When it was listed there was very little discussion (very few participants)-- mostly TenPoundHammer. When it was re-listed, there was even less discussion, fewer than a half dozen posters. There were several requesting keep and there was no consensus by any definitin of the word. It is my understanding that an article would not be deleted without clear consensus. Thank you. Jlbickley (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Jlbickley

Deletion debates are not votes. The closing admin decides on the strength of the arguments, with policy based arguments being given far more weight. I gave my reasoning in my closing remarks and don't really have anything to add. There was actually only one declaration for weak keep (although I appreciate that other contributers might not have declared due to being newbies not understanding the system) and that was only after relisting. Spinning Spark 09:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

FL

I'd like to help, but I can't see well enough to wade through the material in the article or the FLC debate. Also, my knowledge of table options is limited. I see that User:RexxS is involved in the discussion; I would trust his judgment and expertise. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Qesdunn

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Yes, I am the author of QESdunn and the related relationships.

The development seemed appropriate in my account sandbox area; unpublished and a place to develop format and materials.

I don't want to publish my details without a copyright, so I will withdraw all related content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.174.180 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

fixed pato page

I reported a mistake with a page which you promptly fixed but there is a small mistake with the fis I quote;

'Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva (born 2 September 1989), commonly known as Alexandre Pato, is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a striker for Barcelona and ...'

Pato does not play for Barcelona, he plays for Milan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.86.126 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to this version on 4th June. The recent editing seems dubious and is certainly not explained. There is no reason to bring problems with this article to me, you can edit it yourself. Spinning Spark 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

British isles article

Thanks for taking on this close, and I appreciate it is a long and complex discussion. Not to add to your burden, but would you consider closing this one at the same time: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Politics_of_the_British_Isles - many of the issues raised were similar, and since it appears like you're taking your time and weighing all of the arguments carefully, whatever logic you end up using to close could likely be applied to the category as well. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, something this controversial should not all be done with the input of one person. Spinning Spark 13:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Perhaps once you close, you could ask another uninvolved editor to close the category discussion, which needs to be closed as well... Cheers. --KarlB (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have familiarized yourself with WP:BISLES and the discussions there before you closed. It is also poor judgement to not give your reasons or rationale for the close, and to then bring up your Britishness. How do you think that looks? --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would have looked at WP:BISLES if anyone had raised it in the debate, but it probably would not have changed the outcome. Would you have preferred me to attempt to hide my Britishness? Spinning Spark 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, but why did you make a point of your nationality? Either it's relevant or it's not, and raising it makes it seem like it is part of your decision. If there was doubt, you should have avoided closing. If you're not happy to explain your reasoning, you should have avoided closing. It's disrespectful to other editors who have spent their time outlining their views, whatever they may be, only for a closing admin to not be as transparent in their motives or reasoning. The fact that you had no knowledge of WP:BISLES means you have zero knowledge of the background. The fact that you say it would have made no difference anyway is a common attitude of mainly British people (and unlikely to be shared by Irish people), so perhaps your British background is a factor. But hey, cos you didn't outline your reasoning, all we can do is guess. A bit of a fuckup if you ask me. At least have the courage of your convictions whatever they may be. --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My reason fo closing "keep" was that that was my assessment of the consensus. I do not have any fear of publishing a detailed breakdown of my assessment, I just do not think it would be productive. It will be endlessly disputed point by point for absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia when energy could more usefully be put into improving the article. However, because of its clear politically controversial nature, and because it was a major element of the debate, I felt it important to indicate that I had considered the issue of the name "British Isles" and made an exception for this. It should be clear from my closing statement why WP:BISLES would make no difference to the result - it represents an issue I had already considered. And it is certainly not because I share "a common attitude of mainly British people", as should have been obvious from my closing remarks. The bottom line on this as far as the deletion debate is concerned is that a problematic name can be changed; that is, arguments against it are arguments for a name change, not arguments for deletion. Spinning Spark 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the biggest argument was that it was a content fork of an existing article. And if you check, the people bringing up the "British Isles" name suitability are the ones trying to keep the article. They were (and still are) trying to turn this into a name dispute and not focusing on the article content. The "name" dispute always gets emotional, its a tactic used many times before, and then naturally the superior numbers of British editors forms a "consensus". Funny that you also see it as a name dispute.... Anyway, no point in rehashing this here. Thanks for responding in any case. Difficult topic, not the end of the world, etc, etc. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not see it as a name dispute. Nowhere have I given that indication. I just felt it important to explicitly state I had considered that point. My closing statement explicitly makes the point that the AfD result is not to be taken as approval of the use of that name. Spinning Spark 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Spinningspark, to the topic area of the British Isles. I assume at this point you can see why this is such a contentious topic area? The section right below is a prime example. This is my first foray into the area as well and it is quite inhospitable. I can see why so many people have been banned from this area if you have to deal with the users you are currently having to deal with. Anyways, I wish you luck and the will to withstand the onslaught. Silverseren^C 00:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

I note that you have not explained the rationale for your closure. After such a long an complex debate, that lack of explanation is very disappointing. I was going to open a DRV, but thought that I should first ask you to reconsider your lack of explanation, in the hope that I might better understabd why you have made such a perverse closure decision.

I was particularly struck by the evidence and reasoning offered] by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA) near the end of the discussion, in which he demonstrated quite clearly that this article is a content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

XfD closures are not supposed to be a headcount; they are supposed to be an assessment of policy-based arguments. Please can you explain why you did not accept this policy-based argument? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you have already read my response above. I cannot see that providing a fuller closing statement will achieve anything other than providing a scaffolding around which to structure yet another pointless wall-of-text debate. I would happily put in the work if I could be convinced that some constructive use would be made of it, but sadly I can't see that happening. It is quite ironic that I am being criticised for not giving a full enough statement at a venue where discussions are habitually closed with just the bare result and my alleged inadequate closing statement is actually already far longer than any other recent close. I will say this though: my decision was absolutely not based on a headcount; I can say that with complete confidence since I did not carry out any kind of count prior to making the assessment. It was entirely based on arguments and policy. Spinning Spark 00:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read your response above, and wanted to give you a chance to reconsider your lack of explanation.

I think that it is misleading to say, as you did, that "discussions are habitually closed with just the bare result"; that is the case with non-contentious discussions, but the more complex ones usually eplain the closer's reasoning.

It is also a bit disingenuous to say that your closure is "already far longer than any other recent close", because that length has not been used to explain the assessment you made. Instead it simply sets out a refusal to do so.

Anyway, thank you for your response. I'm sorry to say that I find it completely inadequate, and without an explanation of why you weighed the debate as you did, I can only regard it as a perverse closure. I will therefore open a reqiuest for deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Electrical Engineering

Hi I have created the Electrical engineering wikiproject, I think you might be interested. ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 08:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)