User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 28

This user has opted out of talkbacks

• If you want to discuss an article or other page with me, please provide a link to it
  
  
• Please do not post talkback templates on my page or copy back my own comments. If I left you a message I will have watchlisted your page so talk to me there.

Double spaces between sentences.

Sorry, I did not think anyone cared about this. I was removing that extra space left by this and just cleaned up the rest. You know those double spaces are removed when the article is rendered. You could put dozens of spaces between words or sentences and it would render the same. I do not see any use for them, but if you want them there I will leave them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

See User:Spinningspark/Two spaces at the end of sentences SpinningSpark 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Redaction

Thanks for keeping me right on that! As I say, I don't have a strong feeling about this as I don't believe in Wikipedia as a concept. In spite of people like yourselves who obviously care about getting it right, it seems to me that it's basically a recipe for misinformation in any fringe cases like this. I will make some changes and see how they go over the next few days but it's a real pity to see facts being replacedSaineolai (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC) with non-facts.

Jiffy

I was wondering why you didn't sign your name under "Support", since the removal of Jiffy was originally your idea. The only thing I did was changing the headline to make it a formal request for removal. I'm also pretty new to the "vital articles" project, but as far as I understand it, everyone, including the one who started a request can sign. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well strictly speaking, I didn't propose its removal (although I do support that), you did. Deletion debates usually assume that the proposer supports their own proposal and having a bolded !vote as well is considered potentially confusing leading to a double count. My original post merely asked how it's inclusion had been decided, a question that has still not been answered. It's really hard to come to a firm conclusion on whether an article should be included without some firm inclusion guidelines. If this project has such a thing, it is well hidden. By the way, it's really useful if you link to the discussion you are referring to when you post on someone's talk page. Not always easy to identify it. SpinningSpark 11:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wigwag (flag signals)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wigwag (flag signals) 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wigwag (flag signals)

The article Wigwag (flag signals) 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:Wigwag (flag signals) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wigwag (flag signals)

The article Wigwag (flag signals) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wigwag (flag signals) 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Earth return telegraph

I thought the first telegraphs used earth-return and that during WWI the Germans listened in to the British telegraph from the earth signals. Or have I misunderstood? --TedColes (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the earliest commercial telegraph, the 5-needle Cooke and Wheatstone didn't use it, at least not for a few years, and many of the early experimetal systems were small scale and didn't really need to do it either. Not sure if Morse did it right from the beginnng – probably-maybe on that one. If you have a source for the Germans listening in, please put that in the article, but are you sure this wasn't related to a wireless telegraph that used ground propagation? That system is not the same as earth-return. SpinningSpark 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I had received a message from you regarding Conflict of Interest in regards to adding a link to finding aids from the Indiana State Library on the Mooresville,Indiana page. I have added a COI declaration to the talk page there. I am not intentionally trying to link spam or vandalize, and apologize for any confusion. If there are any further issues with my editing of pages, please let me know.Dlawrenceisl (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

One-way wave equation

Hello Spinningspark, have you understood the background, why I link impedance to One-way wave equation? As outlined on the other wiki page the well-known impedance equation is equivalent to a wave equation. I thought that this might interesting to the readers of your page. All the best. Cheers, HJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJRAIDA (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Waveguide maths

Hello, You have deleted my modifications on the page related to waveguide. I don't agree with the given reason. The mathematical developments given on the pages of Maxwell's equations and transverse modes are much more general. I deal with them in a specific context. Links exist between, but nothing prevents me from adding some more. In addition, I was adding the final results specific to the rectangular waveguides (cut off frequencies, losses, induced currents, etc). They are not written anywhere on wikipedia in the context of waveguide. I think it's a pity. I tried, month's ago, to understand the mathematical analysis of rectangular waveguide from wikipedia. It's impossible for the moment, you need other sources. Thats the reason why i wrote the development i was adding. Then, i don't understand why you deleted my work. And, I must admit, I'm a little disgusted. VK Vivien (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@VK Vivien: Please don't take this so personally. In point of fact, the information is not deleted, it is still available in the page history, so can easily be restored or moved to another article. Please take this discussion to the article talk page where other interested editors may have an opinion. You never know, others might agree with you. SpinningSpark 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, i was little disappointed in your modification. But I'm a big boy, I'll get over it. Will start a discussion there. Thanks for your work VK Vivien (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraph

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth-return telegraph 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have been left with no choice but to withdraw from reviewing this article, because I simply don't have a complex enough knowledge of the topic to assess it at this level. I wish you all the best, and it does seem like a well done article! Sorry about that Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim tea

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said on the review, I was only reviewing the hook. SpinningSpark 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but your tick implies that everything is in order with the nomination. I know it's a pain to have to re-review the article just for a hook, but in this case, as you see, it was necessary. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You really need to take this up with the original reviewer who declared there were no policy issues. It's not unreasonable to AGF someone else's review. SpinningSpark 21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraph

The article Earth-return telegraph 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:Earth-return telegraph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Heinrich Schütz

You moved the Heinrich Schütz House (Bad Köstritz), and I disagree. There are two houses named that way, and IF any of them deserves treatment as primary, it's the one in Weissenfels. Would you do that, please? ... or otherwise just self-revert, and make the house a dab? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, there should have been a dab there to start with which misled me. But a bracketed disambiguation is not the usual way to do this. It's more usually like and address like Churchill House, Hantsport. SpinningSpark 12:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at "my" articles, such as St. Kolumba, Cologne, you'll see that I usually use comma dab for places. The only reason not to do it here was symmetry to the other house. I didn't create a dab because it's only 2 which point at each other (or will do so), - therefore someone searching will be presented those options anyway, and it may save them a click ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If there isn't a dab page, one of them has to take the primary title and is given a hatnote to the other one. Either way, the primary title is obliged to exist. SpinningSpark 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vacuum tube

I did not vandalize the page "vacuum tube". All i did was fill in a spot with the word "who", which seemed necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.40.86 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Needle telegraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Network synthesis

Hello! Your submission of Network synthesis 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Earth-return telegraph

On 15 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Earth-return telegraph, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first earth-return telegraph was set up along the Nuremberg–Fürth railway line in 1838? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Earth-return telegraph. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Earth-return telegraph), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Wigwag (flag signals)

On 16 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wigwag (flag signals), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an officer continued to send wigwag flag signals (example flags pictured) with a bedsheet after the flagman retreated during Pickett's Charge in 1863? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wigwag (flag signals). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wigwag (flag signals)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

mail

• Compliments to you on having a thoughtful and well thought out talk page section. I haven't even seen this type before.

There are major problems with how things are being done in regards to deletion of articles, bias against performers on this site and in particular tv performers. Momentum7 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an actual question or request for me? SpinningSpark 07:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is faulty, should I be able to show you that will you reverse it? Momentum7 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a big notice at the top of this page requesting you link to the thing you are talking about. I will, of course, always reverse an action if I believe I was at fault. SpinningSpark 10:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good thing. AfDs are often problematic. I don't feel anyone thinks you or other admins always have an easy way of being involved. In this case users or editors on here are causing problems. You can see that on their talk pages, etc. Even if I double the size of the article they will still have their biases. I would welcome the chance to show you this. Momentum7 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not that difficult to prove the biases. Momentum7 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Let us try a simple question. Have people demonstrated biases to you in the past? Momentum7 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. SpinningSpark 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe this. They closed (or one admin closed) the deletion review before I could even edit. I have nothing better to do in a weekend then stand up to admins run amuck? Ok, I can try to go over this with you and maybe we could agree. First, this site is overrun with problems. As soon as you try to get involved in something like new page patrols or similar stuff you will have difficulties. Bias? It's all over. I didn't want to go to deletion review but you seemed to be staying out of things a little. Then that travesty of a proceedings? No wonder people are quitting involvement with this site. Momentum7 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That was a bit harsh, but it was never going to end any other way so closing early has saved you effort and frustration. You were told this would not go in your favour before you did it. Same goes for your thread on WP:ANB. Both venues are only going to look at whether I acted within guidelines, and since I did that there is no case to answer. What you seem to want is to have the guidelines changed. Such a thing is possible, but it is a waste of time telling you how to go about that. The notability guidelines have now been established for many years, they have been debated in great depth, and they have very wide consensus. There is zero chance of persuading the community to make the kind of significant changes you are looking for. Sorry, but that's how it is here. SpinningSpark 15:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is proof you are in error. You could look at everyone who has been on AGT or Idol and has a page on Wikipedia. You could see for yourself that it's arbitrary who deletionists go after. Address things I ask you. I think we could solve this so we're both happy. I can expand the article even to some extent. That goes to a previous point; she is 15. How many articles do you think there are for fifteen year olds that can be cited? Keep in mind that privacy is important; there's not going to be as much information to put into an article. Still I could expand it. Go look at the people who have been on the show. Also look at the biases on here against that show, other shows, other performers particularly younger ones. Notability is one of the hot button topics and like most things on this site it is not understood. Momentum7 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's hardly arbitrary. The reason I nominated Angelina Green for deletion is that sources only covered her in the context of America's Got Talent. She has not been covered in independent sources since then, so WP:BLP1E was a factor. Green does not meet any of the criteria for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and there has not been sustained coverage of her, so I think deletion was the appropriate outcome in this case.

Regarding whether you could expand the article, you were given a chance to do so in April when it was restored to mainspace, but you did not make any substantive changes. I think the best option at this point is to wait and see if Green goes on to have any notable music accomplishments before trying to recreate the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"How many articles do you think there are for fifteen year olds that can be cited?" not many that's why we don't have that many articles on fifteen year olds (although we do have a fair few). If you can't find references, that's an indication we shouldn't have an article. Whether people aren't writing about the person for privacy reasons or whatever else ultimately isn't our concern. We are here to write an encyclopaedia largely based on reliable secondary sources and in the absence of those sources, we shouldn;t have an article. Also "before I could even edit" is inherently false. You opened that DRV so you clearly had the chance to edit it. However you failed to provide an actual valid reason. Funnily this is the second time today I've said something like this, but you need to try and make sure you get things right the first time. While you may not be able to predict all the issues that will be raised, you should be able to predict the lack of an actual rationale will doom your request. That said, I cannot imagine anything you could have said which would have been enough for an overturn. BTW, I suspect one reason besides the lack of a rationale, why your DRV failed so quickly is because before you opened it, you drew attention to yourself and the article by making those silly comments at AN. Definitely there's little chance I would have seen it were it not for AN. To be clear, I'm not saying people !voted endorse because of what you said at AN. I'm saying they became aware of a DRV they would otherwise either not have come across, or not have come across so fast because they saw what happened at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Australian currency license template

Greetings. I saw you were wrestling with {{PD-because}} on one of the AU bill images. You may wish to bring over Commons:Template:PD-Australia-currency, or just move the files to Commons and use that license there. If you do move them to Commons, please delete the local copies afterwards (as opposed to tagging them CSD F8). There's a backlog of almost 1,500 items at F8 and it's been over 1,000 since at least March. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I did try and bring over the Commons template, but it is not simple. It is buried in a very complex template coding system that goes down at least four levels of transclusion. For now, I've copied over the wording into PD-because. I'm reluctant to move the files while the XfD is open. That needs to wait till we have consensus on the issue. The last thing this needs is a parallel discussion going on on Commons. SpinningSpark 09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vacuum tube, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress test (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Law of squares

On 17 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Law of squares, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Oliver Heaviside, the law of squares does not mean that an electric current knows where it is going? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Law of squares. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Law of squares), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

An Advice

Hi Respected Grandpa! Two Years Back, I Quit Using Wikipedia Because Of Your Rude Attitude And Was Very Hurt Then. I Don't Expect Any Apology Or Anything From You But Kindly From Now On, Treat Others Like You Wants To Be Treated By Others. Hope You Understood It In A Positive Manner. ThanksRaja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani(Gakhar) (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to take this as positive, but I've blocked you as a sockpuppet. SpinningSpark 09:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Network synthesis

On 18 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Network synthesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that interest in network synthesis research is now greater than at any time since the 1950s due to its new applications in mechanics, particularly in Formula One? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Network synthesis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Network synthesis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Confederate Motorcycles

My name is Ernest Lee. I own Confederate Motorcycles and was invited and asked to post pages on each model of motorcycle models on Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/New Articles. I was planning to first post the current models that Confederate Motorcycles is building and then to work my way back to models that Confederate Motorcycles has produced over the last 29 years. End of the day, I spent several hours providing information on six models of motorcycle that Confederate is currently producing. I first submitted links to the specifications on our official website. I was advised that the links needed to be to external third party sources as well. I then submitted links to two external sources in addition to the official website. I was advised that the information on the external sources (two notable motorcycle journalists) "regurgitated" the information on the Confederate Motorcycles official website. To the extent that they stated the exact engine size and other specifications they had copied such stats and information from Confederate Motorcycles press releases but the sources are in no way connected to the company. I thereafter peformed google searches for third party material and cited several sources for each sentence in the articles for each of the motorcycles currently manufactured by Confederate Motorcycles. I was then advised that the text in the article needed to be my own summary of the information in the articles and not direct quotes. I would like to submit these models of motorcycle to this project but humbly ask that you verify my sources and submit the information in my stead. Thank you for your time and consideration. Earnestly (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Earnestly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earnestly (talk • contribs)

Note: The same message has been added to three user talk pages, and the user has been blocked for two weeks. This is essentially admin shopping and does not necessarily require a personal, detailed reply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Earnestly: You were invited to create these articles? I don't think so, at least not at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/New Articles which is a simple list of articles to which you have added these titles to yourself. My involvement here was in patrolling the requests for speedy deletion. I declined them because you said you had contacted OTRS (but if I don't see an OTRS ticket number soon I will delete them anyway), and then did you the courtesy of reveiwing the articles so you would know they were too promotional. Your response to that has been to make them even more promotional. I was not intending to do more than decline the CSDs, but now that you have drawn my attention to your activity, I intend to revert everything you have done to the Confederate Motors page. You cannot hijack a page in this way. You company is a different company. Ok, you have bought the IP, but a page about Confederate Motorcycles LLC still needs to stand or fall on its own notability, not on the notability of something it has inherited. I strongly recommend that you make no further edits to that page because of your conflict of interest. SpinningSpark 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Telegraph Plateau

Hello! Your submission of Telegraph Plateau 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! Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth-return telegraph

The article Earth-return telegraph you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Earth-return telegraph for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Telegraph Plateau

On 25 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Telegraph Plateau, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Telegraph Plateau was so named because it seemed to be an ideal route for a transatlantic telegraph cable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Telegraph Plateau. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Telegraph Plateau), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pavel Schilling

On 26 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pavel Schilling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Pavel Schilling invited Tsar Nicholas I to touch two wires together, the tsar was greatly surprised by the resulting distant explosion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavel Schilling. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pavel Schilling), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Michela Gallagher

Spinningspark, I was hoping you could return to your DYK review here and see whether Mary Mark Ockerbloom's edits have addressed your concerns. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Spinningspark, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on mek page

Hi. You recently concluded this rfc. Based on your conclusion no new testimonies from former members can be included in the article without consensus. My question is whether you sensed any consensus on removing previously added long-standing text of that same nature. To give you a background some of these contents date back to years ago and there is serious objection towards removing them as you can probably see in the page history (and the fact that there are sanctions applied to this page.). Thanks.--31.2.155.95 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my close. The RfC was about four specific quotes and my close related only to them and was based on the consensus I could see in the discussion. It has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes. Of course, if these other quotes are objectionable for the same reasons as articulated in the discussion, then it would be unwise to add them. My role here was merely to formally close the discussion. I have no interest in becoming involved in any way with editing the article. SpinningSpark 17:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow up on the IP's question. Given the fact that those four sentences were in the article from long time ago (upon including which there was consensus back in the days) did you sense any consensus in the above mentioned RfC to remove them? I guess what I am trying to say is that sometimes there is no consensus towards either inclusion or removal of a content as a result of which you do not touch the long-standing text. I appreciate your response.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Needle telegraph

On 30 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Needle telegraph, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the needle telegraph built by Carl Friedrich Gauss and Wilhelm Eduard Weber had a needle weighing at least 25 lb (11 kg)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Needle telegraph. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Needle telegraph), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)