User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 18

Protection of William Shatner‎

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

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

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

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

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

Help Desk - Youtube Thread

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

Can you help with something?

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

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

Revert

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding referencing...

Hello,

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI discussion

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oppenheimer pole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Augusta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnet

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Impedance analogy, Spinningspark.

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Impedance analogy

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

RLC circuit

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

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

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

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

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

Your GA nomination of Indoor-outdoor thermometer

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

Images for Impedance analogy

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Impedance analogy

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

Your GA nomination of Indoor-outdoor thermometer

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

Carl Freer

Hi SpinningSpark,

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

The article Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem adding to Rubik's Cube page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Foster's reactance theorem

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

Your GA nomination of Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Foster's reactance theorem

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

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

Your edit of Japanese in New York City

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

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

Guidance for Draft:Jeju_black_cattle?

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

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

Spinningspark left you a message on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dYK

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

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

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

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

DYK for Impedance analogy

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

A barnstar for you!

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

John Tawell - Carol Baxter book

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Than you again.

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

Thank you!

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

B. S. Daya Sagar

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

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

Deletion of Gregg L Greer

Hi SpinningSpark,

Note The Gregg L Greer article was hastily deleted outside of meeting the established criteria and I believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide on the Overturn of the original decision and restore the page.

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

Is my request for article while under review for restore. 

If consensus can not be meet for any reason, on any of the request please advise.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)