Spinningspark, it's been two weeks since I first pinged you from the nomination page, and over a week since I posted this notification. If you wish to pursue this nomination, please respond there within the next 48 hours. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for continuing to take an interest in this article, but I'm still looking at a review that goes well outside the requirements. Since when has "too casual or colloquial language" been part of the requirements? I am also not happy with the claim that I am editorializing by saying Hancock started the war. I am pretty sure that can be justified by the sources. For Heavens sake, he turned up at peace negotiations in division strength, burnt down a village when he didn't get his way, and sent the cavalry to chase down the refugees. If someone did that to US township it would undoubtedly be characterised as an act of war without comment. And that's just from the information in the article, I left out some of the more unsavoury claims, like the suggestion that his troops raped children. If the objectors want to show me a source that says the war was caused by something other than Hancock's actions I might start to take notice, but all the ones I looked at support what I have written. If someone wants to offer a review that sticks to the pertinent issues I am more than happy to address them, but I don't feel much like having an uphill battle over the review we have at present. SpinningSpark08:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark, I asked Chris Woodrich, who is a very experienced DYK reviewer and admin (and my DYK mentor), to take a look at the nomination; you can see his comment on the review, which is that there are neutrality issues. As you seem to disagree with this view, it seems to me that we're at an impasse, unless his comments are something you can work with. If not, I don't see any alternative but to close the nomination. I'm very sorry things haven't worked out with this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
deleted page
Hello - you recently deleted the incorrect page. Schisler Museum was the page flagged for deletion. Schisler Museum of Wildlife & Natural History was the page that needed to be kept. Now the name of the page is incorrect, reading only Schisler Museum. Please correct this immediately. Thank you. Klinglerc (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I correctly deleted the page that was marked for speedy deletion. You appear to be trying to change the name of an article by copying and pasting it into a new page. This is a highly undesirable practice, see WP:MOVE for more information and the correct method for renaming a page. SpinningSpark15:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thomas Bailey Marquis
January has come and I will get to work on Thomas Bailey Marquis.
Any chance that you could take a look at Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida) - a 1920s church that happens to have 2 current presidential candidates as parishioners.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What blank section, and when did I do this? My last edit to the article was over 4 months ago, and that only added an entry to see also. SpinningSpark23:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I just recently saw that you deleted by page 'Steven's Paradox' off of Wikipedia for no sources. I would like to say that I just created this page and ran out of time to add sources. I was planning on doing this today, but this is obviously not possible.. Did you even read my contest?? Well according to the notice, all administrators considering deletion are supposed to. Thank You.Smith16sts (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you. Just getting back up to speed and I see you've archived our initial discussion on the article. I appreciate your feedback on the article and I'll follow your recommendations as I refine the article to be in the proper tone. I found more recent info on subject which will help me in making sure it's updated and in the proper tone. I'll let you know shortly when that's complete. Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said before, I don't particularly want to get involved in reviewing. Submit it for review at AFC when you are ready. SpinningSpark17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Spinningspark. I understand why you reverted my change, but on my browsers, placing the image on the left creates huge swathes of white space under the image, it pushes the TOC to the middle of the page and creates a huge area of white space to the right of it. Could you not just create a mirrored image? SchroCat did this for me in a matter of seconds for Matthew Pinsent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That is really strange behaviour. What browser are you using? I've checked four different browsers and they are all ok. Reversing the image is proscribed by the MOS (WP:IMGLOC), while having faces face inwards is preferred. SpinningSpark11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I get a large an ungainly block of white too. The reversal of faces isn't proscribed in toto, but advised against if there is possible confusion (it's also a guideline, which can be followed or not, given a modicum of common sense). There is no such confusion here in reversing the face, and I'd strongly advise using the image on the right, or of finding a different image for the lead. (By the way, my browser isn't "obscure": it's IE (and I get the same issue on Chrome too). - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because it's "just" a guideline doesn't mean we should be ignoring it without good reason. The guideline is unequivocal on this point "images of people ought not be reversed" whereas image placement on the right is only "in most cases". I have viewed the page in Firefox, IE and Chrome (and other browsers) and it looks fine to me. It is possible that the problem is due to something in your preferences. Have you tried viewing this while logged off? What operating system are you using? Would you please upload a screenshot of the problem so we can all see what we are discussing. SpinningSpark11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, don't bother, I've just seen what the problem is. The TOC moves when viewed on a wide screen. This should be easily fixable. SpinningSpark11:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Editing images of people in this way is misleading and is not something that should be done in an encyclopaedia. It's a mild case of scholarly deception. That's why it's in the MOS in the first place. SpinningSpark12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't bother, I've read why it could be misleading. A huge leap of faith in this case, but never mind. I'll drop this and move on to other articles whose editors are happy to try to fix such formatting problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Two years ago ...
spinning sparks
... you were recipient no. 719 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
Hi,
You have recently deleted a page I created "Bar Code Date ltd". I have read the reason you gave for deleting the page - [indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)] - however I disagree. The company is a leading barcoding solutions company and supplies to many well know brands and organisations. Other similar pages exist -
Read WP:42 for a summary of our expectations on a notable subject. If I were to restore this, in its present state it would only get deleted again after an Articles for deletion debate. Any sentence in an article about a company that has the word leading in it is likely marketing copy, see WP:WTW. WP:Notability is not inherited by selling notable products or having notable customers. By the way, the claim in the article that the company is a manufacturer is not verified by the company website. Other articles are largely irrelevant, see WP:Other stuff exists.
I am writing a book about fundamentals of filter theory and I wanted to use the portraits of Vitold Belevitch and some others like Cauer's portrait. Can I do freely? Of course, I will cite the source. By the way, what is the correct way of citation images from wikipedia?
To find out the licensing terms of images, you should click through the image to the image page where they will be displayed. In the particular case of both the images you mention, they are not licensed, and are used on a "fair use" basis. You will need to ask the copyright holder for permission to use them in your book, who can most likely be found by following the link on the image page to the "source" of the image. In general, most images used on Wikipedia are user created and are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and can be reused under those terms, but again, this does not apply to "fair use" images. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information on reusing Wikipedia content. SpinningSpark15:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
HMS Beagle clocks
Please note that a third clock from the HMS Beagle second voyage was sold at Bonhams in Dec 2014.
This would cause an update to the "Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle" page (which says two are known to have survived) as well as "List of chronometers on HMS Beagle" (which can now link to the N chronometer and have possibly have an image.)
Please consider updating the Wikipedia pages. I lack the skill to do it properly myself.
I note that you have deleted my page under the 'Speedy Deletion' process, and you say simply that you cannot accept my rationale as to why this shouldnt be the case. However you offer no reason as to why by argument is not convincing. Again, CSD A7 is not eligible to delete my page as it is a an educational institution, and furthermore clearly has credible signficance - you have not explained why you do not agree with this. There are myriad examples of pages for similar organisations, who in fact re arguably less significant. Please can you explain why you have deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimecesaire28 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Natalac toured all last year with O.T. Genasis, Chedda da Connect, Wayne Wonder, Mystical, kwame etc. inside some of the biggest Venues in the united states? I had made my response to the original person who looked to delete and i made my last reply i was waiting for a reply.... i didnt see a speedy deletion issued...or a response... Maybe if You look at these references
Hello! Your submission of Porcupine (Cheyenne) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpeg)
.jpg){kind=link}
