User talk:Spinningspark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble[edit]

Greg caffrey (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Spinningspark. Thanks for your fast response and for your offer of help. In terms of meeting notability criteria. The ensemble has been the subject of a major newspaper article in the Belfast Newsletter on Dec 4th 2014, which discussed the importance of the establishment of the ensemble as a major new force in Irish contemporary music. In addition, all the the 6 ensemble members have significant reviews, articles written on them in addition to having been invited to perform at important international festivals and venues. The ensemble has featured in a "Salon Series" a profile of significant Irish composers hosted by CMC (Contemporary Music Centre) Dublin - In addition, the ensemble is a registered charity, a member of Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and an organisation governed by committee and not-for-profit. As such we feel it is in the public's interest to be aware of the organisation and the work it does in the promotion of Irish contemporary music. I hope this helps, please excuse my wiki-naiveté again and if you could restore the article as a draft and allow me to work on it, perhaps you could help me knock it into shape?

The Christmas Tree (1991 film) - deleted article[edit]

I just noticed that a few days ago, you deleted an article called The Christmas Tree (1991 film), due to an unchallenged PROD. I've done a bit of research and found these two videos [1] [2] by The Nostalgia Critic and Familiar Faces - the latter seems to be affiliated with The Nostalgia Critic. I'm not 100% sure whether these would be considered reliable sources, but my assumption is that they would be. I also turned up these two books [3] [4] which probably don't count for much, but might count for something. What do you feel about this? --Jpcase (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles deleted under the prod process are restored automatically on request, you do not really need to convince me of anything. Are you making such a request? If you are asking my opinion, I doubt that the Nostalgia Critic can be counted as a reliable source. There is no editorial review of his material (other than by those pursuing him for copyvio). Of the two book sources, the second, The Video Source Book, is not viewable but is probably just a routine listing. The first one is a deadlink to me, but the gbooks id just resolves to another volume of The Video Source Book. In short, I don't think you have enough to establish notability. SpinningSpark 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad link. This should work. [5] Yeah, the two books are just different volumes of the same series, and I assume that they don't contain anything more than a basic plot description with perhaps some cast/crew info. It's not a lot, but hey, it's more than nothing. My thinking with The Nostalgia Critic, is that he might fall under the category of notable self-published sources - okay to use in an article, but probably not enough to confer notability to a topic. I'm not necessarily requesting that the article be restored - just wanted to see what you thought. It might be worth having a formal deletion nomination, since there are at least a few sources, however weak they may be. But if you don't feel that the four that I've found make much of a case for keeping the article, then maybe we should just leave as is. --Jpcase (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The requirement for treating self-published sources as reliable is that they have been "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I doubt that anyone considers Nostalgia Critic to be an expert other than his fan base on Youtube. If he has published anything in a peer reviewed journal I will be astounded (but stranger things have happened). SpinningSpark 19:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with The Nostalgia Critic, but I guess that the question I would have is whether the standard for self-published sources is any different between sources for fact and sources for opinion. In other words, if the Nostalgia Critic video discussed production history of The Christmas Tree (it doesn't though; it's just a review), then we might not want to use that information, since as far as I can tell, he hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal. But at what point is someone notable enough to have their opinion cited on Wikipedia? It looks like this guy started out on YouTube, but from what I can tell, he's making his videos professionally now for the website Channel Awesome. Is there any editorial oversight for that website? I have no idea. But it seems that he does this professionally, he has a huge audience, he's been interviewed and written about by professional publications. Wouldn't it be appropriate to cite his opinion in an article? --Jpcase (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Conceivably, his opinion could be cited, I don't know but I'd rather not cite it personally. However, there is no way that I am undeleting an article on the basis of his manic rant on Youtube. I listened to the first five minutes of it and it gave me a headache, I'm guessing the rest of the 32 minutes doesn't get any better. It really isn't the sort of stuff that WP:SPS had in mind for an exception. SpinningSpark 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Again, I wasn't so much looking for the article to be restored, as I was just wanting to get a second opinion. Thanks for discussing! --Jpcase (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Walking After U page deletion[edit]

Hi Spinnings Spark, I was looking for the Walking After U page and saw that it was deleted and was wondering why. I hope it wasn't notability issues as I came to find out the dates and places for their SE Asia tour. Japan and Taiwan are two countries on the schedule but the rest I don't know about. Please restore their page. They aren't your neighbors kids garage band, this band was formed less than a year ago, but all members have been active on the music scene for at least 5+ yrs., have a loyal following internationally, put out multiple albums, done concerts, professionally produced videos featured on-air tv shows, commercials and other endorsements, music shows, and documentaries. I can send links if you'd like but it'd be time comsuming as I don't speak Korean (can read the alphabet but don't understand it, same with cyrillic). Sincerely yours (Brilliantradience (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

The article was deleted under the proposed deletion process and such articles are automatically restored when challenged, which I have now done. It is still open to any editor to initiate a full deletion debate, which may well happen as the sourcing of the article is very poor. SpinningSpark 13:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm[edit]

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP The IP was blocked in the past: [6] also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, [7]) (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You should report this to WP:SPI, along with your evidence that it is the same user, or else go to an admin who has been previously involved with this user. SpinningSpark 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Morse code[edit]

Hello Spinningspark, regarding your revert [8], you can see that the picture (SOS.svg) is repeated. There is no need for that repeating. Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, but you should make this comment on the article talk page where the discussion is visible to all interested editors. SpinningSpark 20:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:20:10, 6 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NeilRedburn[edit]

Hi, Thanks for reviewing. I'm struggling a bit with the comments around "copyrighted content"...can you elaborate? I don't believe anything in there is not in the public domain, or copyrighted. Can you help me out please?


NeilRedburn (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RHADC submission[edit]


i'm going to re-write and resubmit. It's difficult since i write the content for the website which comes out of club archives. Ah well!

I'll keep trying!

Neil NeilRedburn (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Series/parallel circuits reversion[edit]

Hi, why did you revert my edit please? Mebden (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all, when it comes to external links, it is for you to justify why we should have a link rather than me justifying why we should not. The default position is not to have links unless there is a positive reason for needing them, Wikipedia is not here to drive traffic to other people's sites. That means it should meet the WP:EL guideline. My apologies for not giving an explanatory edit summary, I accidentally saved it too soon. I deleted it because it gives no information that is not in the article, or could not easily be put in the article, it is condescending to its audience, it is an amateurish production, it is not by a recognised expert, and it contains gross errors (it is incorrect that current in parallel resistors "separates into two slower paths"). SpinningSpark 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the Walking After U wikipage.[edit]

After seeing the page and trying a few things it saddens me to say I'm way in over my head. My first handicap is I don't know Korean. I can read the words but only know about 50 or so, but things like bling-bling and fo' shizzle are useless. Pasting text into translators mostly has no value other than amusement as the results are largely laughable and indecipherable. The next largest obstacle is the lack of knowledge about computing and word processing, it took me @ 40 mins to figure out how to respond to you. I've tried substantial editing when I saw a jazz-pop fusion bands discography hadn't been updated in 6 yrs. I came close after spending considerable time atempting to add an album but never suceeded and decided to leave the cyber-witchery to the Harry Potters of the internet, believe me you don't want this bull in your chinashop. The last significant problem is the band itself. Recently formed from 2 failed groups, there aren't many usefull citations to add. I'm not even sure what is notable so that brings me to the last problem of having to spend time learning about Wikipedia itself. Reading about proper procedures for hours doesn't sound appealing and with that my apologies. The band itself is doing well, they matured somewhat and lost the "Avril Lavigne with rabies" sound but as a result have gained a larger audience so I have no doubt if the page is deleted it'll be recreated. Sincerly yours, --Brilliantradience (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. SpinningSpark 16:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your info isn't welcome on my talk page, the precise number of reverts by you and me is one. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy Cure cover band[edit]

I try to find some cover bands of The Cure...I find but I don't find Easy Cure...why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you can't find it, the article is there. What do you want me to do about it? SpinningSpark 14:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier access[edit]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review requested[edit]

{{subst:DRVNote|List of bus routes in Singapore}}Charles (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

spinning sparks
Thank you, specialist on the "1920s electronic filter designs and designers", for quality articles such as Waveguide filter and Otto Julius Zobel, for spinning according to "unless you can explain it to your grandmother" and sparking brilliant ideas and kindness, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 719th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani Page Deletion[edit]

Hi Spinning Spark, I just noticed the page for Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani was deleted due to "Expired PROD, concern was: Fails general notability". Caroline is a regular host on [The Huffington Post]'s livestreaming network, [HuffPost Live]. Aside from hosting her own segments, she writes for "The Huffington Post", has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and more. Additionally she's worked for a number of British newspapers. I'm happy to provide links if you need them. Can you restore the page? We will add more sources and if you have any advice on making sure the page doesn't get deleted again, I'd be happy to hear them. Thank you. Paulasrsly (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You should read WP:42 for a quick understanding of how we establish notability. It is not relevant who she writes for, notability is not inherited from one's employer. I will restore the article, but only because we do this automatically for articles deleted through the prod process, not because I think you have a case. The article is still open to deletion after a full debate. SpinningSpark 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Capacitor analogy[edit]

Hi - I thought it looked good to have all of the material I place on this page in one place, but I was waiting for someone to comment that the content now seemed inappropriate under the existing heading. Can you point me to the page(s) which the material I added duplicates ? G4oep (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be impedance analogy, as it says on the page. SpinningSpark 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

NGC 4038 Group[edit]

Thanks for doing some research before deleting it as a PROD. I looked online for sources before PRODing it, but somehow missed that study, which I agree clearly shows notability. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Morse code[edit]

Re:this edit - I can understand that there can be stylistic/tone concern about the refs' titles but am wondering why you converted them back into bare URLs. Keeping WP:MOS & WP:linkrot etc in mind I was thinking the titles could be kept but then fill in the rest of the refs with the needed information for complete inline citations. Any objections? Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not bare urls. A bare url is a url that is bare. That is, it is a url and nothing else. These links are showing the page title, not the url, so by definition they are not bare urls. What the editor actually did was not fix bare urls, but to fill out a citation template using some sort of automated script which overwrote the human input information. It is never constructive, and if persistent I would consider it disruptive, to overwrite human editor input without checking with an automated process. In most cases the human editor has taken the article title from reading the page. The script takes the title from the html headers, which may, or may not be saying something useful and in most cases is certainly saying something less specific. The most glaring error is the first ref that was changed, which, if you actually look at the page, has clearly gone dead and now contains completely different material. Overwriting the title of the deadlink page pretty much ensures that there is no hope of anyone ever recovering the ref from an archive in the future. SpinningSpark 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah well, I had always thought simple URLs with just a title attached were considered bare and that the cite templates - with their parameters of publisher, date, editor, etc were preferred but in looking just now at WP:Bare URLs I see that URLs with titles are not bare...who knew! In any case, per your mention of deadlinks, I am going through the references and see that the first one now links to the entire website and not to a specific column by Mr. Dilks. So far as I can tell the content at that has the title of "100 years ago this airship sailed from Atlantic City" is a 40 minute taping of an October 2010 meeting of the New Jersey Antique Radio Club hosted at - where Mr. Dilks gave a talk about the airship America, radio communications & safety. I am not sure what specific facts the linkage is being used to source and since the reference is being hosted at UStream am unsure how to cite it. I also went through and added information to some of the refs to guard against linkrot and to help safeguard the cited information. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You should also acquaint yourself with WP:CITEVAR. Citation templates are not a requirement and in some cases inserting them may be against guidelines (but I'm not saying that is the case at Morse code). For instance, I have brought several articles to FA without ever using a single citation template. SpinningSpark 14:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bertrand's postulate[edit]

No, of course not. (Sorry, I made a misprint in the comment). But the reference is wrong, the year of publication is 1854, after the french paper. Sapphorain (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Double-tuned amplifier[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Double-tuned amplifier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Gregg L Greer updated page[edit]

Spinningspark, Please review the updated article Gregg l Greer, and make and decide if this article should be deleted or not. I will be stand by your decision. Article has multiple updates including Major News articles. Thank You--Greeralivetoday (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Spinningspark, to clarify, I saw this page because I got a notification when the editor linked it to Trayvon Martin. I looked at it, didn't think it met the notability guidelines and nominated it for AFD. Subsequently I saw the prior AFD (under a slightly different title) so tagged the article for speedy as a recreation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no particular reason why I should review this, in fact an administrator not involved in the original deletion would be preferable as that gets a second opinion. I have, however, moved the page to the original (and proper) capitalisation. Hint for future reference, if you want an admin to look at something you are more likely to get a response if you provide a link to the page under discussion. SpinningSpark 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
for some reason he reverted your move. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Advise of rational for deletion-AFD review is requested--Greeralivetoday (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please advise of reason for Gregg l Greer article deletion (Restore Requested)[edit]

Deletion review for Gregg l Greer[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gregg l Greer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Greeralivetoday (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article should have been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg l Greer until a consensus was reached, and anyone was welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. The discussion should focuse on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines--Greeralivetoday (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not actually opened a deletion review. When you last brought this to my page, and again this time on your talk page, I asked you to link to a reliable source that discusses the subject directly and in depth. Unless you do that, I can't help you. SpinningSpark 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Double-tuned amplifier[edit]

The article Double-tuned amplifier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Double-tuned amplifier for things which need to be addressed. 23W 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Double-tuned amplifier[edit]

The article Double-tuned amplifier you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Double-tuned amplifier 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request CascadiaNow be un-deleted - Contest A7, G11[edit]

Hi Spinningspark,

Earlier today you deleted the article CascadiaNow - I would like to contest this on both points you flagged.

A7 - No indication of importance.

CascadiaNow is the largest organization promoting the idea of Cascadia. Over the past year it has been featured in : Anniston Star, Atlantic Monthly, Business Insider, Canadian Broadcasting Company, City Arts, Crosscut, Huffington Post, Humanosphere, KUOW/National Public Radio (Audio), National Journal, National Public Radio, Occupy Wall Street, Over the Edge, Pigsquash, PolicyMic, Portland Mercury, Post Defiance, Seattle Globalist, Seattle Times, Slate, Somewhere In Colorado, Swiss Public Broadcasting, USA Today, Vice, Washington Post. I don't have time to format reference properly, but I have included links at the bottom of this message to each of those.

All of these are verifiable third party sources.

G11 - Promotion

The format used for the article was copied from a very similar organization the Bullitt Foundation. The style and paragraph content was used almost entirely verbatim, so I am confused why one would be considered promotional, while the other would not.

Thank you for your time,

Also, for your consideration, here are the links to all the articles feauting CascadiaNow:

<a href="">Anniston Star</a>, <a href="">Atlantic Monthly</a>, <a href="">Business Insider</a>, <a href="">Canadian Broadcasting Company</a>, <a href="">City Arts</a>, <a href="">Crosscut</a>, <a href="">Huffington Post</a>, <a href="">Humanosphere</a>, <a href="">KUOW/National Public Radio</a> (Audio), <a href="">National Journal</a>, <a href="">National Public Radio</a>, <a href="">Occupy Wall Street</a>, <a href="">Over the Edge</a>, <a href="">Pigsquash</a>, <a href="">PolicyMic</a>, <a href="">Portland Mercury</a>, <a href="">Post Defiance</a>, <a href="">Seattle Globalist</a>, <a href="">Seattle Times</a>, <a href="">Slate</a>, <a href="">Somewhere In Colorado</a>, <a href="">Swiss Public Broadcasting</a>, <a href="">USA Today</a>, <a href="">Vice</a>, <a href="">Washington Post</a>.

Which would indicate it's importance.

None of those articles are features on CascadiaNow!. They have passing mentions, or quotes from a spokesperson, but they are not articles about the organisation, either in whole or in part. They are generally about the Scottish referendum and the affect that is having on other indepedence dreams. Getting into the news, in any case, does not amount to a "credible claim to importance". The claim that it is the largest organisation campaigning for Cascadia is pretty meaningless. I could start an organisation today campaigning for cabbage and peanut butter sandwiches. In all probability it would be the largest such organisation, but hardly important. I am not inclined to restore it on that basis as in my opinion it stands little chance of surviving a full deletion debate.
The article without doubt is not written in an encyclopaedic style. It would pretty much need completely rewriting to make it so. Please read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for an understanding of why comparison to other articles do not make a convincing argument. Comparing to an article that has been through some kind of quality review, or has survived a deletion debate would carry some weight as that would show such articles have community support, but that does not apply to the one you picked. The best articles to copy are Featured articles as these are considered Wikipedia's very best works.
I would be prepared to restore it as a draft if you thought you could make it into a compliant article (see WP:42 for what that means), but honestly, you would be better off starting a completely new article at Articles for creation where you can get the page reviewed before it goes live to mainspace. SpinningSpark 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit of RIVA article[edit]

Hi Spinningspark, What was the problem with my edit of the RIVA article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryhanuka (talkcontribs) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The page Riva is a disambiguation page. The purpose of such pages is to point the reader to the Wikipedia article they are looking for when there is more than one Wikipedia article of that name. Subjects that do not have articles on Wikipedia do not belong on disambiguation pages. SpinningSpark 23:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Hey. I got an appeal from this user on UTRS appeal #13122 explaining that the organization's website has been moved and redesigned. Their email address domain checks out and I googled their original domain and it is directing to the new domain. They appear to be here to update old links from their old domain to the new one. I don't see any reason to consider this a scam or a spam attempt. I'd like to unblock them and allow them to update deadlinks. I do not think this is similar to the deadlink scam that recently came up at ANI because their email address goes to the old domain name.--v/r - TP 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would very much oppose unblocking this account on that basis, especially when the block appeal is not publicly visible. I don't have an account at UTRS so can't look at the case (but now that you have brought this to my attention I will open one and take a look). However, it is perfectly plain from the user's edit history that they are not updating old links as claimed but inserting completely new ones, all to the same site. The very definition of spam. The user is a single purpose account for the sole purpose of inserting external links, failed to stop when challenged, and failed to communicate with an explanation either before or after being blocked.
I accept that this is not a scam, and I had nothing to do with the sockpuppetry notice. However, the user is clearly working together with User:Krelcoyne who is doing exactly the same thing. The relationship between the two requires an explanation. The user needs to understand that it is not acceptable to mass spam Wikipedia with links to their site and I would want to hear what useful work they intend to do for the encyclopaedia before unblocking. SpinningSpark 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
They are likely both from the same organization and likely going around updating links all over the web. Perhaps they aren't away of how to update links and are mistakenly adding new ones? Not sure, but I think what they're asking to do looks like spam - but isn't.--v/r - TP 22:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I would say that this is legitimate while this is not. I think all we have to do is explain that to them.--v/r - TP 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm not the blocking admin for Krelcoyne, although I did selectively revert some of their additions (and allowed others to stay). I did not block Krelcoyne since they had stopped by the time I got on the case and I AGF'd it was a different (but obviously connected) user. Nevertheless, before ublocking I would want to hear from the user that they understood why they had been blocked and undertook to desist. NilubonT is a different case; none of their edits are updates, they were actively spamming right up to the time they were blocked, and obstinately refused to respond to a warning. I would be a lot more cautious about unblocking that one, and would examine much more closely their explanation of what they were up to. I simply do not accept that this is not spam. It is a non-commercial, education site and we are naturally much more open to such sites, but that does not stop the behaviour from being spam. I would also require a clear statement of whether or not Krelcoyne and NilubonT are the same person. Although I AGF'd this in the first instance, there is a worrying lack of time overlap between the two accounts. Now that they are both blocked we should clear that up before unblocking either one of them. SpinningSpark 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. SpinningSpark 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Activated, thanks.--v/r - TP 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services[edit]

Unfortunately I am once again seeking your advice regarding WOT Services. One user seems to be taking the 'none shall pass' attitude. Passages contributed by others are reverted. Attempts to tag the article as unbalanced are reverted. The NPOV board seemed to concur that the article is unbalanced. The obstructing editor requested a 3rd opinion which found the article had balance issues. Despite this, the user has continued to obstruct others who would add balance.

I do not know what the next course of action is, but at this time I am not interested in edit warring. The user refuses to engage with others on the talk page by stating "The discussion is over". Should the appropriate course of action be taking this to a wiki bureaux, and which notice board is the correct one?

As I am not as familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia, I defer to your judgment. (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

YG World Tour[edit]

there was no reason to delete the YG world tour 2014: power article -.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes there was. SpinningSpark 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page layout[edit]

I am confused with your addition in WP:TPL since #9 contains "Old prod" and #11 "Old prod full". According to my notes for AWB the correct place for both of them is #9. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your notes don't amount to policy. I have now removed oldprodfull as that has clearly caused a contradiction. Possibly they should all go to #9, but there was no consensus in the talk page discussion to do that. Largely the response was don't care/apathy but with a slight leaning to #11. I don't really care either, my concern is only that the page needs to say the same thing as WP:AFD/AI. I opened the discussion in September, and declared in OCTOBER that I was going to make this change as a result of the discussion. There has been plenty of opportunity to respond to that if anyone cared that much. For the moment it needs to be left in agreement with WP:AFD/AI until such time as there is agreement to change both pages. SpinningSpark 12:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Special character inserter[edit]

The special character inserter has been re-designed. Because you previously shared your opinions on the old “floating box” version, I would like your feedback on the new, full-width design. Click here to open the Sandbox at As of this morning, this sandbox only shows a small, basic set of special characters. However, the list of characters can be customized at each wiki. Please test it out, and leave your feedback at the VisualEditor/Feedback page on Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Edison (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your undo[edit]

Dear Spinningspark,

You undid a recent edit of mine on the PCB page with the words: Reverted good faith edits by Karloman2: That doesn't really work for the bottom of the page. Also seems to be a ineffective attempt to circumvent the guidelne proscribing ELs in article body.

1) I must say that "an ineffective attempt to circumvent the guideline proscribing..." seems to accuse me of willfully trying to violate the guidelines. I am upset about this. Or am I paranoiac and is it not your intention to (willfully) say this?

2) I do not see where it violates the EL guideline. I had read this guideline after your first intervention and I find "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." The article faithfully complies with that guideline. I have not found a rule against a link to the external link section via an anchor in this guideline, nor in the style guide on internal links. If there is such a guideline to it please point me to it.

3) I hold the internal link as useful, as requested by the guideline and common sense. I am with you that the anchor does not work as precisely as I had hoped, but it does the job. If you now a more precise way of linking, please advise.

Karloman2 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Karloman2, it was not my intention to accuse you of doing anything in bad faith, and I apologise if that is how it has come across. However, using an internal link to point to an external link certainly counts as trying to game the system, especially when done immediately after the original EL insertion was reverted. We just don't point readers off site in the body of an article, that's the thrust of the guideline. Take it to a wider discussion if you want, but that's my interpretation. SpinningSpark 13:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Spinningspark. No need for apologies, I was just oversensitive. I will study the guideline you point to. (This will not be before next weekend, I am afraid.) I will then see if I take this any further. Probably not.Karloman2 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Spinningspark. From WP:GAME Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. To be honest, I do not feel addressed by this. The question is, I think, if the anchor violates the letter or spirit of WP:EL. I do not see where it violates the letter. WP:EL does state Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. I suppose you argue that the anchor is a roundabout way (gaming) to link the article internally. I don't think so. The effect is similar to inline citations: the links are grouped in a dedicated section at the bottom of the article, and from the body you link to that section. What I did is similar. Note that this practice is explicitly supported in WP:EL:#How to link: Because citation templates were not designed for use in the External links section, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link. So I feel I am fully within the guidelines and you have you cannot reverse the edit on this ground. Less formally and more practically. The link is useful. If somebody wants to know more about fabrication data, he is guided to the link. Otherwise he has to stumble on the external link. For those who do not want to know more, there is only the very small inconvenience of another letter color, but this is standard Wikipedia. So I hold the anchor as perfectly valid and a that the article is more useful with the anchor.
I did not object to your reversal of my first attempt because it was indeed clumsy and needed to many words in the article. I am not yet enamored by how it is now, but it does the job. Advice on how to do this better would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karloman2 (talkcontribs) 09:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will try to make an internal link to the reference in the least obtrusive way. Karloman2 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mechanical-electrical analogies[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mechanical-electrical analogies you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mechanical-electrical analogies[edit]

The article Mechanical-electrical analogies you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Mechanical-electrical analogies 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I get uninvolved eyes at RS/N?[edit]

A IP editor has been inserting a personal rant over and over again at RSN. I'm surprised there haven't been escalating warnings issued. Could you look at the situation and take appropriate admin action, if any is needed? thanks. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave the user a warning at 10:22 and they have not edited the page since. There is no need for administrator involvement at this stage. SpinningSpark 10:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate your looking. Given the ip editor's insistence on inserting this inappropriate material, I'd appreciate it if you and others kept eyes on. Thanks again for your help. BusterD (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Spinningspark,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Grave marker.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave marker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Y chromosome "citation needed" removal.[edit]

Hello. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? You state "completely perverse to challenge something you know to be correct". Sure, I may know it to be correct, but what that means is I've read/heard about it. I'm no authority (and even if I was references are asked for in Wikipedia) and could not find any paper that directly confirmed what the previous editor(s) had written. I doubt Wikipedia has reverted back to the early days when citations/references were not asked for or "citation needed" not added? In fact, on other topics editors will just remove un-referenced additions. I'm not a fan of that either and feel "citation needed" is a compromise that at least lets readers know to do more research before accepting the statement as correct. Look forward to your reply on this. Policy over opinion greatly preferred. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:V and the relevant, and most important, sentence is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". What that doesn't say is that all material must have an inline citation, nor does it say that you have to challenge it if it doesn't. What is more, according to your edit summary, you did not actually challenge the verifiability of the statement. You did just the opposite, you said you thought the information was correct, but that "but links to research would be nice". Links to research would be nice, it may be useful to some readers, but that is not the primary purpose of citations, and it is certainly not the purpose of citation needed templates.
Understood. It seems the tag I was looking for, more than "citation needed", was "citation wanted". I would have really enjoyed reading and referring to an original research source than to the uncorroborated Wikipedia edit - even though I'm pretty sure it is valid. Although, "pretty sure" coming from a layman in the subject isn't worth much.
WP:V further states "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it". You clearly believe that the material is verifiable and your expected behaviour is clear from the policy. On the other hand, if you genuinely think the material is possibly wrong or dubious then that is a different matter, but so far you have not indicated that.
Yes, as I mentioned, I certainly tried to find a paper or some citation to back it up, no luck, but then I didn't spend hours trying.
That's the policy, here's what I think. There are too many people here with "the little blue number disease" who think that every uncited passage must be tagged. They just mindlessly look for a little blue number, and if it doesn't have one, it gets tagged. No consideration of what the passage actually says, no attempt to provide a citation themselves, no explanation of a perceived problem (other than the lack of a little blue number). This is not constructive for two reasons. Firstly, it is unfair on the experts here who have to service these requests. They are volunteers too, not the servants of the taggers.
You may be dealing with more issues than just this, seems I just ran afoul of it. Over many years, I have added primary source material references to many Wikipedia articles. No one would consider me a "taggers".
They have better things to do, and very possibly might do them instead of paying attention to a pointless tag. So tagging might (sometimes does) end up damaging the encyclopaedia instead of protecting it because a perfectly fine passage can end up getting deleted.
Then railing against "citation needed" passage-deleters may be an even more noble cause. I've seen this occur and in many cases feel it went too far.
Secondly, little blue numbers might make an article look sound, but that can be far from the truth. Those who write hoax articles will typically litter them with references to make them look good. The references will be misleading, unreliable, titles which sound like they support the claim but actually don't, or are just hard to access. There is no substitute for actually reading the sources. Promulgating the idea that lots of blue numbers = good, less blue numbers = bad actually lulls everyone into a false sense of security.
That is your opinion. May be valid, may not be. To me, Wikipedia has moved towards wanting more "little blue numbers" than less. You may disagree with this, but if so, perhaps it's time better spent joining into the policy discussions that must go on about this matter rather than to wage a one person crusade against the little blue numbers? :-)
In my opinion, material on well known subjects that can be found in college level textbooks does not really need inline cites. At most, a general reference would suffice. Wikipedia is the only site anywhere, online or print, that habitually inline cites such material. And making that a requirement (it isn't a requirement by policy, but is rapidly becoming a de facto one due to editor behaviour) makes writing Featured Article standard pages a lot more difficult and a lot less fun. SpinningSpark 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
There probably is a balance between getting fact published and not having falsehoods or opinions published in Wikipedia. I assume this has been a debate since day-one and will continue of for the life of the project.
But this is not at all what my "citation needed" was about. Again, I just "citation wanted" that paragraph to help confirm the statements with original published research. As I wrote in the Edit summary, "links to research would be nice." I'd also wager I'm not the only one who would appreciate more of this on complex entries.
So, I'll leave this one be - and I certainly appreciate everyone such as yourself who is trying to contribute and improve Wikipedia. Just do please monitor your own reverts and "policing" based more on personal-want than on the consensus opinions of the rest. If ones talk-page grows too long, or the number of undone-reverts starts getting a bit large, one should step back and see if the effort is truly contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia.
Thanks for the talk-reply, keep doing good work and stay optimistic about Wikipedia... because remember, the optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute! ;-)

"In my opinion, material on well known subjects that can be found in college level textbooks does not really need inline cites. (snip) SpinningSpark 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)" I agree with this. I think I have only removed one "citation needed", though I might have thought about it more. The one I removed was obvious to anyone who cared, and for those who it wasn't obvious, they wouldn't care. Well, there might be some things that could be usefully cited, even from college (especially upper level) college textbooks. But some are just too well known. Thanks! Gah4 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 05:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oliver Heaviside[edit]

I'm sorry you've excluded a link to my Oliver Heaviside site from his Wikipedia page - again. I honestly don't remember previously submitting it. (When you're as old as I am, you'll find that your memory is not 100% perfect.)

I find the accusatory tone of voice of you and the other Wiki-police quite offensive. I have no strong interest, financial or otherwise, in having the link there - but as my site seems to be the only site devoted to Oliver apart from one by a family member, I can't see what harm there would be in including it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Does not do any harm" is not one of the reasons given for including a link at WP:EL as far as I recall, nor is the "only site devoted to a subject". It's a bit rich calling my post on your page "offensive" (in fact it is studiously polite) when you then go and refer to me as "wiki-police" and accuse me of having an "accusatory tone". The only thing I have "accused" you of is posting the same thing twice without an adequate rationale. There still isn't one, at least not in terms covered at WP:EL. SpinningSpark 12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


I see your on the editor assistance list. Im having trouble with an editor on the Barelvi article. He is removing my contributions and is unwilling to resolve the issue on Talk:Barelvi. What should be done?. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Model of the human ear[edit]

Hi Spinningspark, Do you have references for the model of the human ear? -MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcm3333 (talkcontribs) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the model described in the impedance analogy article? The reference is stated in the article. Here's a link. The anatomy diagram is based on a diagram from this paper. SpinningSpark 17:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla[edit]

You semi-protected it for an indefinite period of time. Then someone upgraded protection to temporary full protection without reverting back to what it was. Then it's been semi-protected temporarily three times. Can you add indefinite pending changes or change time expiration to indefinite? --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That was in 2011, four years ago. Speak to the administrators who have been more recently involved. I don't even watchlist the page any more, it's too much of a headache. SpinningSpark 22:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg

The image that happens to be on your userpage is also on my userpage along with other motion images.[edit]

Hello Spark this is dfrr. your motion image on your userpage is also on my userpage just so you know come check it out thank youDfrr (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)


I think it isn't so well known what Nyquist did and what Shannon did. I might think that I do, but even so probably not as well as I would like. So yes, I am not surprised that many would get it wrong. In other words, I agree that Nyquist was important. Gah4 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

T-Pad: I changed "antennae" to "antennas"; you undid that. Why?[edit]

In the "T-Pad" article, I recently changed the word "antennae" to "antennas". You undid that, and I don't see that you gave a reason.

I changed "antennae" to "antennas" because in the "T-Pad" article, a type of radio antenna is briefly mentioned. In my opinion, radio antennas are those metal things through which electromagnetic energy flows. Insect antennae are those quivering hairy things usually found on insects.

About 6 years ago, I spent a bit of time looking into this. I even communicated via e-mail with a representative at the Unviersity Of Chicago "Manual Of Style". That person agreed with me: "antennas" for the radio kind; "antennae" for the insectile kind.

Also, please see the book "Antennas" (Kraus, 1988, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0070354227). The book is listed on, and is a textbook on radio antennas. It's 892 pages long and written by an Ohio State University professor. Although I don't own the book, I referred to it a fair amount over the course of several years. Nowhere in it does the author use the word "antennas" to refer to a plurality of radio antennas. Most obviously, the title of the book is "Antennas", not "Antennae".

Also, please perform a search on, in the category "Books", using the term "antenna". You'll find many textbooks on radio antennas in the search. When I did this recently, I didn't see a single one that has the word "antennae" in its title, when the plural form of the word is in the title. For each such book, I see the word "antennas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talkcontribs) 03:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. I too have looked into this in some depth previously. A good place to look for authoritative usage on this is IEEE Xplore. There are many papers there using both spellings indicating that both are acceptable and it is thus a matter of editor choice. Amongst the notable authors found there using the Latinate plural are Michael Pupin, Reginald Fessenden and Oliver Lodge. There are also many recent papers using the Latinate plural [9][10][11][12]. If this were an unacceptable spelling I would expect this to be picked up by editors of peer reviewed journals in the very expert field applicable here.
Another notable author using the Latinate plural is Dan Brown. In his novel Deception Point Brown uses "antennae" in passages discussing insect feelers and in passages discussing radio equipment. Now Brown is certainly no expert in electronics, but as a successful author he is certainly an expert in correct English usage. Interestingly, in another passage where the word "antennas" comes up in informal conversation Brown uses the Anglised plural for insect feelers. It would seem that, in Brown's mind at least, the difference is not between insects and radio, but between formal, technical use and informal, conversational use.
I think the real difference is that in the life sciences writers are much more familiar with Latinate forms so Latinate is almost universal whereas in electronics authors may or may not be familiar so both can be used.
I don't know about the Chicago MoS. Does Chicago actually say that? You seem to be saying that that is just someone's opinion, not that it is actually in there, which is pretty meaningless as an issue of authority. In any case, it is not in our Manual of Style. Until it is, both forms should remain acceptable. SpinningSpark 18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC[edit]

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Three phase[edit]

OK, I put the "three phase" comment in Talk. The reason it was in a comment, was because the previous change was in a comment, and it seemed easier close to the source. (And people watching it will see where the source is.) I do sometimes get discouraged when there is discussion in talk, but I can't easily figure out where it is in the article. Thanks, Gah4 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

change to Derating[edit]

Hello I rolled back the changes, the very limited data that was on the old ver was unhelpful and did not give indication as to what is the actual process, moreover it did not indicate why the implementation will improve component life. the ref. are very limited in the subject and i used well known sources like the Mil standard(issued by non other then the us military) and is the base and the major reason for derating practice(started by nasa in the late 60's early 70's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You used a link to the company BQR, the same as you have done in every other edit you have ever made. Likely that you are connected with the company in some way, in which case you have a conflict of interest. If that is the case you should not be editing the article at all, let alone reverting someone else. You might also want read our edit warring policy, something you are likely to be in conflict with if you continue reverting.
It is nonsense that references are hard to find. I found two textbooks covering the issue on the first page of gbook results. Your reversion also failed to address other porblematic aspects of your original edit such as WP:ENGVAR violations. SpinningSpark 16:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lambda2 method has been accepted[edit]

Lambda2 method, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SpinningSpark 16:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting FloWer Beach Resort Bohol, can you help me out?[edit]

hi there,

thanks for deleting FloWer Beach Resort Bohol earlier today - it appears that what I wrote was not good enough to go on Wikipedia... I would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction or highlight what was wrong with the page perhaps?

Actually there's a new project the resort is involved in which is quite notable in Anda, they have established a school that helps local people/kids to get into education and they give them an opportunity to work at the resort as well, they have partnered with also on wiki which is an official body, it's called "Florance Learning Centre" - Florance is the owner of the resort.

I was planning to expand on this topic sometime later on, you can see that it's all for real here ,it's in tagalog though and there's this person that talks about this school project "Florance Lerning Centre".

I will appreciate if you can unlock the template so I can save it, I don't have a copy of the final and I was quite happy with the template.

many thanks, Gabrio81 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to sign, hope the message went through, must be late right now..

thanks, Gabrio81 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your article was not deleted for the quality of the writing, although it was somewhat promotional which does not help. See this link for a summary of the requirements. Generally, resorts are not going to be notable enough for an article and it would be a wasted effort to work on it. If you think you are really able to establish notability then the article could be restored as a draft for you to work on if you want. Otherwise, if you want a copy to use on some other site then please email me. SpinningSpark 00:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok that is very helpful to know, it would be great if you can restore it as a draft for me to do more work on it. So when it gets Significant coverage, Independent sources, More sources, etc which for example talk about the school project I was mentioning, then I can try again. Also, would it help if I put it first in the sandbox for someone to review it right? I just realized that :) Many thanks, Gabrio81 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, do you have reason to believe suitable sources actually exist, or are you just hoping something will turn up one day? If not, it will be a wasted effort. SpinningSpark 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has their own opinion[edit]

Regarding the proposal I started, I respect your opinion and input and hope that my comments haven't any in anyway affected future interactions between us, or how you view me if you have an opinion of me already.—cyberpowerChat:Online 16:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. Whatever made you think it would? SpinningSpark 16:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
IDK. I felt a vibe, and I wasn't sure. I'm glad to hear it though. :-)—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mobility analogy[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mobility analogy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mobility analogy[edit]

The article Mobility analogy you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Mobility 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 Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


I do not understand the reason for your revert: [13]. You are right, that numbers in the math environment are displayed larger than in the text environment, e.g. foo foo 5 foo foo 5 foo foo. But within the scriptstyle environment the numbers are displayed too small, foo foo \scriptstyle 5 foo foo, at least on my computer screen. If you want to correct this behaviour, it is not preferable to do this locally. This would be semantically not meaningful. You should agitate to change the standard settings and not to fix the problem with an inappropriate syntax. An appropriate textstyle environment would be the solution. The scriptstyle should be reserved for smaller fonts used e.g. in citations or captions. Is there a style guide entry which fits to this problem? --Boehm (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Scriptstyle looks fine for me, about matching the text size. It looks ok in any browser/OS combination I have ever tried. Are you using the standard settings? Try logging out and see what it looks like then. The vast majority of our readers are not logged in and have no opportunity to change their settings. We should give priority to the experience of our readers. The semantic meaningfulness of the code comes a very poor second. You may be right that the standard settings should be changed, but it is silly to format our articles to some conception of what the settings should be if it makes a mess of the current appearance of the article. It is not for me to agitate for changing anything. It is what it is, if it changes in the future bots can go round fixing the problems. SpinningSpark 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm using the standard settings in konqueror, firefox, and chromium (not logged in). In none of them I'm happy with the result of scriptstyle. Too small and too much pixel. Actually, I'm also not happy with the textstyle. I will try to figure out, if there is a help page addressing this problem. Thank you for your answer. --Boehm (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Typography reports about the problem. Unfortunatelly, there is no good solution given. --Boehm (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacketts Lake, Nova Scotia[edit]

Thanks. Verne Equinox (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


You (rightly) deleted this page, but you should check for redlinks, in this case you left four incoming links (from article namespace) in place. I have now redirected Uysyn, so the problem is solved, I just wanted to let you know. Thank you -- --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Staggered tuning[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Staggered tuning you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Staggered tuning[edit]

The article Staggered tuning you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Staggered tuning for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Staggered tuning[edit]

The article Staggered tuning you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Staggered tuning 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

negative resistance[edit]

Negative resistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Hello. Your GA nom has been listening to muzzle unconscionably long. I know nothing of electronic engineering, but I do know how to read. Could you start emailing sources to me that you know are unavailable on the Internet? I can start source checking next week or so. • Lingzhi(talk) 01:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The current form of the article is mostly the work of user:Chetvorno so that is more a question for him, hopefully he will see this ping. However, we usually AGF offline sources unless there is some question of the accuracy of a given statement and the exact wording needs to be checked. It is not normal to request copies of all the sources en masse. In any case, I think you will find that, mostly, the sources can be viewed online, at least the relevant snippets. Let me know if there are any specific sources you need and we will try and get you a copy. You will need to e-mail me (or Chetvorno) first so I get your e-mail address, attachments cannot be sent through the Wikipedia e-mail system. SpinningSpark 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If you AGF the sources, then only a domain expert can legitimately review the article. • Lingzhi(talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said, before I can do anything at all about this, I need a list of documents required and your e-mail address. SpinningSpark 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Lingzhi. Virtually all the sources are viewable online. I can give you a list of the few that are not. If you want the actual text of these sources I'll see what I can do, although it may take a little while as I no longer have access to the lab library where I looked them up. --ChetvornoTALK 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: Review started. Expect it to take a while. • Lingzhi(talk) 13:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture analgesia:possitive and negative opinion[edit]

You recently deleted the article Acupuncture analgesia: Areas of consensus and controversy because of unambiguous c/r infringement. The author(?) went and re-created the same copy/pasted article under a new name: Acupuncture analgesia:possitive and negative opinion. GLG GLG (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Negative resistance[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Negative resistance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Lingzhi -- Lingzhi (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for going to bat on the ref issue. I knew the article was "overcited", but it never occurred to me that this would be such a sticking point. --ChetvornoTALK 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't have been a sticking point. To be honest, if I was reviewing the article, I would probably have mentioned the overcite issue myself. The difference being that I would have left it as a review comment and passed the article anyway. If there were genuine GA issues that needed sorting before passing I would make a clear distinction on what these were. If this was being nominated for Featured Article the citations would definitely need a lot of cleaning up, but then so would a lot of other things. GA is not meant to be this onerous. SpinningSpark 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking about letting Lingzhi fail it and reapply. I really don't want to do that. But in addition to his "extra" GA criteria, which he doesn't seem to be willing to compromise on (see his latest), there's also his complete inexperience with the subject area. I don't want to edit the article to suit Lingzhi, then wait for him to bring in an electronics second-opinion and re-edit the article to suit him. This is just getting to be too much. What do you think? --ChetvornoTALK 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Lingzhi's problem is that he has found things he does not like but cannot legitimately fail the article for something that is not in the criteria. That is why we are getting all this nonsense of putting on hold and asking for second opinions. My advise is to address the points raised that you feel you can deal with, but politely decline on those you find too onerous. The ball is then in his court and we wait to see where he goes with it. If it does fail, resubmitting is no big deal, it just means another long wait until someone picks it up. SpinningSpark 11:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Alas, you have caught me between a rock and a hard place. I cannot in good conscience let you sit another sx months. I was really hoping someone would help; back in the old days there were more hands on deck I suppose.. I very honestly do not believe stripping refs is a matter of more than.. seriously .. 20 minutes work...tops. I would very gladly do the work myself, if I knew which refs were best. [I could guess by researching each journal, but that actually would take time.] Fix those three instances of WP:OR and I will Pass. I wish you the best of luck in all things. • Lingzhi(talk) 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"...researching each journal...", exactly, even if I had put the refs in myself I would not remember exactly which one said what. I would have to reread each source, just as you said you would have to, and I expect Chetvorno would have to too. So no, I am not prepared to expend that effort because, in the end, it will make no difference to the substance of the article. What I would be prepared to do is to cite bundle the references to improve the visual appearance of the article, a technique I think I have already noted that I have used before, provided that Chetvorno is happy with using that citation style (and let me say once again, citation style is not supposed to be a GA issue). SpinningSpark 14:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, what three instances of OR? The only one you raised that I accept as being OR, and dealt with, was "...majority of authors". Making such a statement requires someone to count authors and decide which authors are to be included in the count in the first place. If that "someone" is a Wikipedia editor then it is OR. Stating that something is a common presentation when that presentation appears in several student-level textbooks is entirely uncontroversial and should not be labeled OR. However, it is easily dealt with by rewording, which I might just go and do now. SpinningSpark 15:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Three is reasonable; if it is just three instances I can do the editing. Which three, Lingzhi? And what else must be done to the article? What about the other points you mentioned in the review? --ChetvornoTALK 15:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

your concerns[edit]

I am sorry to have caused you so much concern. Please see new thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks. • Lingzhi(talk) 03:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I haven't read your post at WT:GAN; I'm just gonna let everyone else comment. [Quite obviously, I'm biased in my own favor, so objective people should reply.] I'll check back in maybe 1 or 2 days from now. Sorry that I caused you distress. • Lingzhi(talk) 07:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of negative resistance[edit]

The article negative resistance you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:negative resistance 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. • Lingzhi(talk) 20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Negative resistance[edit]

The article Negative resistance you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Negative resistance 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 Lingzhi -- Lingzhi (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we're "good" to go. I want to thank you again, Spinningspark, for all the help, and walking me through the process. It's been fun. --ChetvornoTALK 05:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Spinningspark,

This is my first "talk" on wikipedia, so please forgive if I'm doing it not quite right. I'm writing to you because I think a couple of things might need to be changed in the MOID entry and I infer from the history that you initiated the MOID entry and I wouldn't know how to ascertain if somebody else was responsible for the particular items I'm writing about. Without further ado:

In the two sentences

"This is not the smallest Earth MOID in the catalogues; many bodies with a small Earth MOID are not classed as PHO's because the objects are less than roughly 140 meters in diameter (or absolute magnitude, H < 22). Earth MOID values are generally more practical for asteroids less than 140 meters in diameter as those asteroids are very dim and often have a small observation arc with a poorly determined orbit."

In the first sentence, I question first the limiting size of 140 meters for a PHO, as, since Chelyabinsk, even 20 meters has been seen to be worrisome. But certainly 40 meters, the size of the Tunguska object. 140 meters was just a somewhat arbitrary figure chosen by Congress for some legislation.

Then in the second sentence, it seems to me what follows would be better expressed by the word "problematical" rather than "practical." (In fact, this substitution could make up for the use of "140" in the first sentence, thereby removing the need to change the number.)

I am willing to make the change or changes, but first I wanted to understand why the original text was used. Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks -- Jmarks13 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jmarks13: There is no problem with you editing the MOID article. In fact, it is positively encouraged. Do you have a reliable source saying that objects smaller than 140 metres are PHOs? That could be the "something" you are missing. Wikipedia articles should be entirely based on reliable sources. I don't doubt that objects smaller than 140 metres can cause considerable damage, but according to the potentially hazardous object article PHOs are "big enough to cause regional devastation to human settlements".
I may edit this and/or the PHO page since what counts as hazardous has, as I previously noted, been set at a lower size in recent discussions of planetary defense. I'll do a little homework to find a good source.
Even if the definition of a PHO has changed, it remains the case that a small MOID does not equate to a PHO unless the object is also larger than what is considered a PHO. If it has changed, the article should still record the historical definitions: an encyclopaedia has a different purpose to a textbook. SpinningSpark 21:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
On your second point, I don't think you really wanted to say that Earth MOID is "more problematic for asteroids less than 140 meters". MOID is less problematic for small objects because it is much easier to determine than either the size of the object or its exact orbit. SpinningSpark 09:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still scratching my head about the logic of this sentence, Spinningspark, and now also of your reply. As I read the sentence, it seems to be saying that a smaller object is easier to characterize because it is more difficult to characterize. How could that be??
Thanks again Jmarks13 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jmarks13: The point it is making is very simple; for small objects, the MOID can be determined more easily and accurately (often much more accurately) than the exact orbital elements. To predict a collision, the elements are needed but are not always available due to limited observations. MOID is thus an ersatz parameter for collision probability, but, as the article explains, a small MOID does not mean there will be a collision soon, or even at all. One of the references explains this in detail, see the fifth paragraph. SpinningSpark 21:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I see the point, Spinnigspark; but even so I am unsatisfied with the wording of the original sentence, to wit: "Earth MOID values are generally more practical for asteroids less than 140 meters in diameter as those asteroids are very dim and often have a small observation arc with a poorly determined orbit." I think the problem is that the sentence does not clearly indicate what the MOID values are more practical FOR. It says explicitly that they are more practical for small objects, but this sounds paradoxical because it makes it sound like it is easier to obtain MOID values for small objects than for large objects. (That is what threw me.) But the real thrust of the sentence is supposed to be that MOID values are more practical for ASCERTAINING COLLISION POTENTIAL for small objects than for large objects, since predictions for large objects can generally rely on a larger data set than is needed to ascertain MOID values.
If I've got that right, then, first of all, the word "useful" would make more sense than the word "practical" in the original sentence. The word "practical" makes it sound like it's easier to obtain MOID values for small objects than for large objects. (Again, that is what threw me.) The word "useful" conveys more of the sense that MOID values are especially helpful when working with small objects (since for larger objects better data than are needed to ascertain MOID values are available for determining collision potential). Then, second, the explanation of why they are more useful needs to be further fleshed out (in line with what I have written here).
Do you concur, or am I still lost in space? ThanksJmarks13 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. SpinningSpark 09:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dog rope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warbonnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

editor assistance[edit]

Hello, I picked you at random from the list of editors willing to provide assistance. I have never heard of you before and I apologize if I misunderstood how this is supposed to work. Would you be willing to give me advice on my own Wikipedia conduct? Someone is accusing me on my talk page of several points of misconduct including COI, bad faith, copyright violation, vandalism, disruptive editing, personal attacks, and doxing. They are a much more experienced editor so I assume the accusations are valid but they are heated and I can't tell where I am going astray and where the other party is just upset.

If I can provide diffs and links to illustrate I would be happy to.

The point of contention is really about the Mauna Kea and related articles where we are involved in a debate about NPOV issues but in this case I'm asking only about my own conduct and compliance. The editor keeps threatening to have me blocked or to initiate formal dispute resolution. I've read through the relevant policies and I have to conclude that I'm not experienced enough to know if I should be concerned or not. Thanks for considering my request! kanoa (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@KanoaWithington: I have looked at your recent edits and am not really seeing anything problematic. I agree with user:Awien that for you to edit the Mauna Kea article is not prima facie COI. Even at the article where you have an undisputed COI, the telescope where you work, your edits were restricted to simple updates of technical information. Those kinds of edits are widely considered to be acceptable from a COI editor. It would be a different matter if I were seeing promotional language or determined edit warring, but I am not. What may be an issue, is that if you are paid by the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope, or were paid at the time you edited that article, then under the Wikimedia Terms of Use for paid editors you must declare that fact either on the article talk page or your own user page. The only behavioural issue that I am seeing that would warrant administrator action is some of the uncivil posts to you from user:Mark Miller, littered as they are with cuss words. If you have any specific issues you would like me to look at, please provide diffs. SpinningSpark 16:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)