User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 10

 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

schools

Hi Spinningspark/Archive 10. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Hi Spinningspark. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Skinny triangle

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rod Thornton

Thanks for reviewing. Replied on DYK page  Francium12  09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pulvermacher's chain

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of Harpy Tomb

I've made a few initial observations here, and I'm going to put the review on hold pending their resolution. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Frog battery

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK submission

To avoid cluttering the nominations page, perhaps you can tell me what the problem is more specifically? What seems to be wrong about the age number? Benea (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark! Thank you so much for this and this. I'm not a scientist by profession; as a child, all I wanted be was an entomologist; and now, through a glass darkly... ahem. Thanks again for help and wise advice. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. SpinningSpark 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My DYK Sub

Would you care to revisit my April 28 entry? I've been slow to work on it (my personal situation is nothing to laugh at right now, long story) and the IP editor seems to have vanished, but after getting a note on my talk page today made some quick edits; no one has commented since at the template talk page. I made a point of incorporating the first of those two sources you found in several places, even where another reference existed, and located a spot to put the second one (later finding a second spot where I could add something). So, I think it's ready now. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dwarwin's chronometer

Hi

I am close enough to get a picture at the NMA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much! SpinningSpark 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Steam devil

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Enthusiastic editor

Hi Spinning, It seems that some of the edits of 202.81.235.24 have already come to your attention. Could you check out the rest of them? I hesitate to do blanket reversions to these good-faith edits, but the volume of Gratuitous, inconsistent, and unexplained change[s] makes picking through them for worthwhile edits somewhat laborious. Perhaps as an admin., you could offer this editor some guidance? Cheers, --catslash (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Miller Effect

Hi, You keep changing the Miller effect explanation to be for a positive gain (ie, +Av) where it should be -Av, the confusion comes from the 1st citation on the page which says the Miller effect is C(1+Av) but note that it specifically says that it is for a negative gain ie, -Av. Please let me know if you disagree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.115.124 (talkcontribs)

There is no should here. The article is correct as it stands with Av considered a positive number and the gain of an inverting amplifier being -Av. I really don't care if this is changed to Av being considered a negative number with the inverting amplifier gain then being just Av, although it could be argued that the current way makes the negative sign explicit and is thus clearer. What I really do care about is half-baked attempts to change the formulae without carefully going through the rest of the article making sure it is now 100% consistent and correct. This is the reason I have been reverting - lack of consistency. Also, you should be raising this on the article talk page where it is visible to all that article's editors, not here. SpinningSpark 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to YOUR Post Last year

I appreciate your post last year -- but as you can see it has been nearly a year since I logged on. Frankly there is good reason why "unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police it [wikipedia] are quitting." It is the unwillingness of people to apply standards evenly and fairly.

Truthfully the article on Robert Watke and Fred J. Strain, both of which were deleted, that I researched and wrote, were done so by people who had an axe to grind with little real training in historical research or editing. The sad thing is that since the editors are unwilling to highlight significant people in small communities, therefore there is less to write about.

Actually the thing that wikipedia should do is to require ALL editors to have contributed at least a small number of articles themselves before they can become judge and jury. Secondly, they should have an appeals process that submits articles to a panel of judges who actually have the training and credentials to make those types of judgments. Without these changes wikipedia is likely to fade into the sunset over time.

But I thank you for your graciousness in at least trying to be fair -- even though there were 2 "editors" that consistently attempted to delete every article that I submitted. Unfortunately they succeeded because of their loud bombastic voices. And I have had no need to waste my time on the wikipedia project.

Drmissio (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 The Technology Barnstar For your excellent work on List of chronometers on HMS Beagle. I knew little about the Beagle and even less about chronometers, and your list piqued my interest in both. Just when I despair of finding anything new on the 'pedia, along comes a page like that. Many thanks! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
PS - On an unrelated note... I couldn't agree more. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Superb article. Surprising that something with list in the title can be such a gripping read. I liked it even better than distributed element filter. --catslash (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does the 1/2 come from?

Hello Spinningspark,

I don’t usually make a practice of writing things on the Reference Desks that are likely to irritate other Users, but in your case I simply couldn’t resist the temptation. Let me explain. Reference Desk questions usually attract a small number of answers, and sometimes a large number of answers. All answers are different, and sometimes the answers cover a broad spectrum varying from the commendable to the crass. Mostly the Users who provide answers focus on the question, and either say nothing about the other answers, or if they do say something it is supportive or at least non-judgemental. On the Reference Desks it is only rare that one User will be critical of another User who supplies an answer. That is the way it should be – we are all volunteers and the Reference Desk is not a competitive sport. There is an etiquette that seems to work well on the Reference Desks.

An IP address posted an elementary question saying Where does the ½ come from? The first answer was from Red Act giving a link to an article that explains kinetic energy in terms of differential equations. That constituted a very specialised answer to an elementary question so Red Act’s link was not necessarily a comprehensive answer to the IP. I could have responded by saying Red Act’s answer is unsatisfactory! I could have implied that Red Act does not understand the need to anticipate the level of prior knowledge of the person who asked the question. For a number of reasons I didn’t do either of those things – they wouldn’t be consistent with the etiquette that operates on the Reference Desks. Instead I began my reply by acknowledging that Red Act’s information was legitimate:
The link supplied by Red Act gives a sound explanation based on differential equations.

Perhaps you can imagine my surprise when you reacted to my answer by writing:
That's completely back-to-front, the result is being used to prove the question. The differential equations are required to to obtain the $v^2=u^2 + 2as$ result.

Everything else is just adding confusion. It really does not give any insight into explaining an equation that has been plucked out of thin air (1/2mv2) by plucking another unexplained equation out of thin air.

Instead of merely presenting his own opinion, Spinningspark was being competitive - going out of his way to make adverse comment about another User’s answers. I began to suspect that Spinningspark was not good at choosing words or perhaps a tiny bit too pompous for the Reference Desk. (I know you didn’t intend to sound pompous, but that is the way it appeared to me. On an anonymous website like WP, appearances are everything.) When I see someone who might be a tiny bit too pompous I cannot resist the temptation to see them returned to ground level (gently, of course. And if I ever display pomposity I expect to be similarly deflated.)

Spinningspark’s latest words on the subject are:
Don't be condescending. Of course I knew the relationship here. That is completely beside the point. The OP is asking for an explanation, not another equation that would need even more explanation. Now stop cluttering this thread with this nonsense.

The Users on the Reference Desks are all your friends. It isn’t a competitive sport so none of us needs to prove our virility or tackle the other Users. Our opinions are all of equal value. Tackle the questions, but don’t bother to tackle the other answers. You are a very competent and experienced User - show leadership. Use your experience and skill only to encourage others.

I look forward to seeing you around the Desks. Very best regards. Dolphin (t) 03:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Buttered cat paradox and Nyan Cat

The Nyan Cat is a flying cat with a toast instead of its body. Isn't quite similar? Marin M. (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says they are similar? Superficial similarity is not the same as actually connected in some way. SpinningSpark 12:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your efficient but thorough review of Bruce Jackson (audio engineer). Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vitold Belevitch

Materialscientist (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image of nothing

I plan to get sources and use the images as referents in the article body, and thus convince you in particular. If I do not, I will keep working. It seems that the prolem in the past was a kind of sophomoric OR image placement, which was more like a high school or college "what nothing is to me", rather than academic standard image used in professional treatments. I look forward to your comments and criticisms. We should reach unanimous consensus, or I have no done my job well. But it will take some time, WP:WNF. :) PPdd (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you provide reliable sources discussing the meaning of blank images in relation to "nothing" that will be fine. At the moment unsourced claims are being made about the images, the same goes for the null set image. This is not the same as providing sources for the image caption; sources discussing the image itself are required. SpinningSpark 17:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Golding Bird

Hi, Spinningspark. I've given comments on the "Life and work" section. Although there are many comments, I enjoyed this section as it's thorough, objective, well-rounded and vivid. In the review I suggested you copy the article into a subpage of your User page. It might be best to fix the "Life and work" section first, so that there is no risk of overwriting the revised "Life and work" section with the original. Over to you. --Philcha (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Network node elimination

http://hrrltnn.com/nej.jpg

Using general form of netw ork node elimination four star to diamond doesn't seem to work for me, is it really possible? Sorry to be of nuisance. Harri Aaltonen harri.aaltonen@sasky.fi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.133.20 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well for one thing you have not put in the diagonal resistors. You have to transform to a star polygon, or more accurately, a complete graph, not just a regular polygon. SpinningSpark 09:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Solar cable

Hi. I would like to if it is possible for me to get the deleted page back so that I can improve it further in my subpage and submit it later? Cheers Suraj T 10:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I wasn't trying to play with words or trying to trick anybody. I wasn't aware of admin shopping and I tried to get all the help I can get. And I wish to thank you for pointing me to the link. Won't repeat this in future. Thanks Suraj T 05:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. When you are ready, I would be happy to review the article prior to "going live". Just ask me when you feel it is far enough advanced. SpinningSpark 11:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops.!! I came back to inform you that I went live just after "going live". Hope I din't do a huge mistake by doing that, as the article creation page instructed that I can create the article if the new version is different from the deleted one. If I did, I'm sorry.Suraj T 11:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a mistake, you are free to do that, just bear in mind that others are equally free to nominate it for deletion again. SpinningSpark 11:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
May I request you then to kindly review that article and provide me with feedback? And I moved the article Solar cable as per you instructed. I feel I wasted a lot of your time and another sorry for that. I replied you in my talk page here. Cheers. Suraj T 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage of Chaturaji chess icons

Hi,

Looking for some clarification on the icons on the following page Chaturaji.

I have taken the SVGs and used them to generate bitmap's for my application and would like one of the following:

1. Permission to use my versions of the icons in a commerical application without attribution (perhaps a small pay-pal donation?)
2. If this is not possible then how would you like to be attributed
• Part of application or will readme/doco credits suffice?

Regards,

Brad Mclain (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The attribution I ask for on all recent contributions is "Courtesy Spinningspark at Wikipedia". However, the Chaturaji icons are old work and I did not specify an attribution so you are free to do it another way as long as it complies with the CC-BY-SA licence. As for where the attribution should appear - I would say the same place you put all your other attributions.
I could only release the artwork under a different licence for the elephant and the boat icons. These two are entirely my own work, the rest are derivative works of existing chess icons from Commons so I am not in a position to specify a licence. It may well be easier to start again with entirely new artwork if you can't live with the CC licence. E-mail me to discuss terms if you are interested, which will depend on exactly what your application is all about. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. SpinningSpark 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What people want to know

I took great care to provide a section that answers what most people want to know. I am an electrical engineer and the technical details of this article are terrible. While much of it is accurate, it is so obscure that most people cannot understand any of it. Even the Hydraulic analogy is poorly written as it never associates the electrical terms with the water flow. The image of the electroscope, while related to electricity is not informative or discussed in the article. Similarly the image of a Q a b and an s (what ever that is) stating "the work is independent of the path", while true has no business in this article. Direction of current flow is also true but not only confuses the reader. I could go on (and on).

Please talk to me regarding accuracy, (my ? ) confusion and errors. I will correct error and reapply the edits. Please don't tell me that there are various chemical combinations for constructing a battery which produce very different voltages, as I am well aware of that. This is discussed in the article about a cell which I included a link to. I will be making additional edits to this article and I will try to resist totally omitting the particle physics information. Thank you in advance for you comments.

1)especially regarding the formatting.

2)Sorry I did not include a link or diff since it was so soon after I posted the update that you removed it and the fact that it was an entire section in question not bits and pieces.

3)By the way, just for frame of reference where are you from?

4) My mistake regarding 19th century flashlights. It should have been 20th century. Most "Modern" flash lights do not use "D Cells" since the power LEDs and they use multiple AAs, (see duracell ) however most people are still familiar with Ds.

5)Providing precise ranges as in zinc-air is inconsistent with the purpose of this section.

6) The reference to transistor radios in the 1950's is because 9V battery were frequently called "transistor batteries".

7) As you correctly pointed out car batteries have less cells and I will revise that.

8) I agree with you regarding using AC instead of alternating current

9) Consistent with #5 I will remove the fact that "most devices ...100-120"

10) The term house current (a link in the text I inserted) is something nearly everyone is familiar with.

11)The discussion of AC supply voltages is specifically not a range and people who might purchase an air-conditioner or stove should be aware of the difference in the necessary supply.

12)I plan to add additional information regarding high voltage used in transmission lines especially since it is currently in the news.

resource request

Hi,

I was able to find one more of the papers you requested on Railway Surgery at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You can find a link to it on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you help chop up a couple photos?

There are some musicians for whom finding a photograph as an example in their biography is difficult. I am hoping that, as before, you might separate the part of the individual people in question for use in their infobox? They include: L. Shankar- I uploaded this photo: [1]. It would be great to get not only a decent photo for L Shankar, but another showing such a young John McLaughlin for one of the early sections in his biography as well! However. Shankar is harder to find photos. The other is that of Dave Bartholomew, who is featured on the left of the photo here: [2] He's about to shake hands with Fats Domino but I found photos of Fats already. If you can help with this stuff, I'd appreciate it! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Golding Bird/GA1

Hey. I have this article on hold for you to address final concerns. Hopefully you can get to it soon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Distributed element filter

 Four Award Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Distributed element filter. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OTTO BLÁTHY, talkpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ott%C3%B3_Bl%C3%A1thy

Simple induction coils are not trans-formers. Jingoism tried to create that semantic errors. God bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.20.31 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

electronic lab notebook entry and vendor listings

Hi,

I work for a company called Rescentris. I have in the past contributed to the "Electronic Lab Notebook" page. As you know, companies including ours often try to use wikipedia as a way to market our services or at least, get exposure. In the past we have created a page for our company, but it was deleted because it was deemed to be blatant advertising. We respect wikipedia's decision although we believe that the page had merit because of our use of certain innovative technologies. We would of course love to have a mention of our company on the wikipedia "Electronic Lab Notebook" page, but previous attempts to list any vendor on this page have been deleted. I noticed that recently, several of our competitors have added their names on that page. Competition in our market space is fierce, so this hardly seems fair. I suggest a "list of all vendors" or "no vendors allowed" policy on this page. If the criteria to allow a vendor listing is a wikipedia page for that vendor, then could you maybe suggest how I can create a page for my company that will not be deleted as advertising?

Regards,

--Invasifspecies (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Golding Bird

That sounds fine. Once the comments are handled I'll re-open the review and handle everything on my end. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Voltage doubler

Hi SilkTork,

I would like to discuss your close of the GAR for voltage doubler. I have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks so could not take part in the discussion at the time. Your close said the scope could be clarified and then resubmitted. Yes, I agree this could be done, and there were some good ideas from Roger during the discussion. However, the fundamental problem and reason for going to GAR has not been solved. The GA reviewer was of the opinion that the article title should be taken literally and the scope adjusted to suite. Myself and Roger are of the opinion that the scope should correspond only to the conventional industry use of the term. I am worried that a large chunk of work could be done to rework the article only to have it failed again if the same GA reviewer (or someone who agrees with their point of view) reviews the article the second time around and I will have made a wasted effort on an article that will still not get GA. The purpose of appealing to GAR was to get a clarification on this point of principle - how should the accuracy of article title and scope be judged? Please advise on how to proceed from here. SpinningSpark 18:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark. I am sorry that you felt the GAN/GAR experience was not helpful. The GA process, like the AfD process, can be beneficial to the development of an article. Ideas are exchanged, improvements are suggested and discussed, and flaws are pointed out. I am very supportive of the GA process because of that, as well as that the experience, (usually - but not always!), can be motivating for editors, and because the general reader is getting a decent article which has met basic standards. However, to be fair, the process is simply of one fellow editor reading through an article and checking it off against the GA criteria and making an independent assessment as to if the article has met those criteria. If a reviewer reads through an article and feels it doesn't meet the criteria, then he doesn't list the article. We ask that the reviewer says why he feels the criteria hasn't been met, and we encourage, if possible, reviewers to make improvements; and it's helpful if reviewers give as much feedback as possible, but essentially the reviewer is only checking off if the article meets the GA criteria. A GAR is little different to a GAN - it is, again, checking if the article meets the GA criteria.
In the Voltage doubler GAN, the reviewer felt that it was difficult to pin down the scope of the article, so there was an issue with meeting criteria 3 (a) - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". This view was upheld at GAR, and I closed accordingly.
Electrical circuits are not my thing, so I am not the best person to advise on structuring such articles. You could approach those who write such articles - try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering and Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, or putting a notice on the talkpage of the article. Good luck! SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer original research discussion

Please see WP:NORN#Wein bridge oscillator. - Glrx (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Ok, I will skip this kind of links. However I'm not sure this would make any difference in order to be properly linked... I mean the only difference will be in the source text, the final page will be identical (eg. copy and pasting the attribution in Word creates the same hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinningspark, the url seen from the browser is the same, etc). Do you expect that someone will click edit and then copy the source text of the attribution? Why? For example the template {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} does not work outside wikipedia... In my opinion a full url hidden in the source text is useless. I would prefer to add a note like "If possible please make a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinningspark". -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 Congratulations! Thanks for all the work you did in making Golding Bird a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that a topic ban has been proposed. How does that work?Constant314 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It does what it says on the tin: the editor is banned from editing that topic by the community. Any breach of the ban can then result in administrator blocks temporarily or permanently. SpinningSpark 14:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What I mean to ask is how is it determined that a particular article is part of the banned topic? Is it any article with electronics as a category or is human judgement by admins or other editors?Constant314 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It is down to the wording of the ban and the judgement of the policing admin. A ban could be imposed on a category, but my proposal is electronics articles broadly construed which will be taken to mean that there is no wriggling out by claiming an article to be not technically exactly electronics. SpinningSpark 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect current in transformer diagram

Hello! You reverted my edit on the transformer page. Jolly good, the image had been edited by the illustration workshop in between me removing it and you putting it back. How efficient of us! Just to be sure you agree, the secondary current is going from top to bottom now, rather than bottom to top as it was before. Larryisgood (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, I needed to empty my cache before my browser updated the image, so you may have to do that. Possibly because it's an SVG? Odd. Larryisgood (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
[Here] is an example of the correct way to represent the current. Larryisgood (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Among/amongst

In response to a long-ago question/complaint on a transistor talk page: I've been watching some BBC and socializing with a British English speaker. "Amongst" is a perfectly good word in AE, but any native AE speaker would routinely say "among". I gather that any BE speaker -- certainly a Received English national-broadcast type -- would routinely say "amongst" and hear "among" as variant. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leonard R. Brand

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Leonard R. Brand. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Power dividers and directional couplers

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I have declined the review of Power dividers and directional couplers, an article you nominated for GA-status. According to the criteria, it appears this nomination is premature. Please address the concerns shown on the review page and resubmit the article when you believe it is ready for the review. You may contest my decision and request a reassessment, but I strongly suggest you consider the elements I have outlined for you. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your rebuttal on my talk page was compelling. I have reopened this review and recused myself to the discretion of a second opinion. I wish you luck and suggest you profit from the interim between reviewers to cleanup the article and improve its condition for the review. Thanks for expressing your concerns in such a civil manner as to sway my own opinion. My76Strat (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The unhappy Negative resistance

Wikipedia has two remarkable features: the first is history; the second is that administrators cannot delete history. Only imagine what Wikipedia will be if they could do it...

I remind you of the deplorable state of this unhappy Negative resistance article after (actually) you removed my last version where I had done all my best to reveal the simple truth about this phenomenon, to bring the article to perfection. I needed five years to do it; you destroyed it only for a few seconds and then ban me...

Now, your favorites should bring it to a satisfactory state; if they cannot do it, you should do it. If you cannot do it, you should restore the right version. If you do not do it, I will ask you, "What is your role of Wikipedia administrator? To destroy else's creations (or to urge the ordinary wikipedians to do it, what is worse) with the purpose of gratifying your ego or to improve, help and stimulate them?" If the former was true, you would be the best of administrators...

Your colleagues have easily helped you to banish me from Wikipedia since they did not need any knowledge about the topic. It is interesting for me how they will help you now to exit this confusing situation... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 09:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite the accusations, it was not me who either banned you from electronics (you are not banished from Wikipedia altogether) or reverted your work, although I support both. I am willing to help you become a better Wikipedia editor, but before I can do that the first thing that needs to happen is for you to recognise that you need help. The second thing is for you to want help. The greatest contribution to getting you banned, in my opinion, was your own contribution to the ANI thread: before that, it might well not have happened, despite the numerous editors supporting it. When you cannot find even one editor who supports what you are doing you might want to consider the possibility that you are in the wrong. In the meantime, I suggest that you completely avoid negative resistance, it will do you no good to carry on brooding about it. SpinningSpark 10:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I had to say the truth about me and wikipedians inhabiting this space even though this was a bitter truth. I want(ed) to become a better Wikipedia editor but you had to find the right way to me - instead to remove totally all that I written, to correct only what is unacceptable. I have said it many times that you are clever and you perfectly understand what I written (in contrast to your favorites)... and maybe you take delight in my insights at the back of your mind... but only your ego does not permit you of accepting my assertions. I have said the simple truth about negative resistance and it has entered history; it is your turn now. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 11:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
A point of order: administrators are able to delete a page's history if it is required. The process is called WP:Revision deletion. They do so only in rare circumstances. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing citations in Wien bridge oscillator

Three weeks ago, I was accused by a wikipedian of placing an unsourced text in the introductory section. Then you seconded him and skilfully directed the discussion to ANI. To my surprise, four days ago, I saw that the same wikipedian accusing me, had placed a great mass of text in a new introductory section without any citation. Any reaction? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 11:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Highlight the exact passage that you think is incorrect and if I agree that it is dubious I will consider adding a {{cn}} tag. Produce a reliable source that backs up your claim and I will consider deleting the passage. SpinningSpark 18:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! But, as an administrator, you should first set an example to me with the unhappy Negative resistance previous version that (actually) you have replaced with maybe the most unsuccessful version. Highlight the passages that you think are incorrect and I will explain them so that a "6-year old boy can understand them". Then, if you have not still understood them, produce reliable sources that back up your claims and I will delete these passages... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 21:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I advise you not to delete anything from that article. You are banned from editing it and if you do so you will be blocked. My offer above was a good faith attempt to assist you. I have no obligation to act on your behalf and will not be pressured into working on any particular article because it is not to your liking. Your comments only serve to highlight the reason you were banned in the first place. SpinningSpark 22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Spinningspark, your response and offer to Circuit dreamer is extraordinarily good on so many levels. Best of all is that it asks CD to focus on the right issue. I am humbled. Glrx (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Otto Julius Zobel

 Four Award Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Otto Julius Zobel. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Power dividers and directional couplers

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Power dividers and directional couplers 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. Nathan2055talk - review 17:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Power dividers and directional couplers

The article Power dividers and directional couplers you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers for things which need to be addressed. Nathan2055talk - review 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on 2011 Southern US drought

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on 2011 Southern US drought. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pound (mass)

I see that you removed the comment from the Pound (mass) talk page. Well done! (BTW, I am the editor who re-instated the signature frist time round). Martinvl (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

One show i watched today

this show involved Zak, i believe it was with a WW2 aircraft carrier and a contest 4 bragging rights for researching the aircraft carrier for spirit activity. Well to put the story short they (1) of the teams recorded a E.V.P session with morde code and on the screen(tv) it showed the letter's WNCCNWREE could you please dicipher this for me? iam really puzzled by this because i can't decipher this at all with my knowledge of Morse Code. thank you very much and have a great day!! Sincerely Yours; Tim (tstas721@aol.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.209.18 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, try asking at WP:RD/S. SpinningSpark 13:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →