User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Bangladesh pogroms

Hi! I found that, you have closed the AfD and made the result as Keep but I think it needs to continue. We were talking about merging the article. Thanks --Zayeem (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You (the nominator) were the only one talking about merging. In any case, that is a discussion which can be continued on the article talk page. You do not need AfD for that. SpinningSpark 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but I have also asserted the reasons to merge the article and my this comment was awaiting a reply. Besides, there have been many cases in which an AfD resulted into merging, thats why I thought of starting an AfD. Thanks. --Zayeem (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Well that wasn't the result of this one. SpinningSpark 13:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. --Zayeem (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD closure

I believe you showed partiality in the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy, based on your closing comment in which you expressed a particular viewpoint and dismissed the competing viewpoint. You should close AfDs based on the wishes of the community, not your own. Furthermore, "delete and merge" is not a valid option. To merge, we must redirect, or the content history is lost. Everyking (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not shown partiality, in fact, as far as US politics are concerned I couldn't give a fuck. I expressed no view in my closing comments. I am entitled, expected even, to weigh deletion arguments against policy ("These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy"). The policy WP:NOT trumps any verifiability argument and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are to be discounted. It is perfectly reasonable to explain what policies I have applied to what arguments in reaching a decision. SpinningSpark 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
By your own account, you favored one viewpoint, one policy perspective, over another. That's partiality. You didn't decide it on the basis of community consensus. Everyking (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
So you would rather I count votes? SpinningSpark 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The decision should be broadly representative of the community's views. This decision is based on your own views. Everyking (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The decision was based on the views expressed by the community in the debate, duly weighted. What action are you looking for from me? SpinningSpark 20:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
If you weight the views according to which you think are correct, then the decision will always match your own preference, even if it had minority support. That just isn't a sensible way to do things. I've submitted this to deletion review to see what other people think. Everyking (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Somehow, I doubt that continuing this exchange will be constructive. Rather than continue this here, Everyking, you can open a case at deletion review to review the reasoning. But to give you a warning before you open one up-- closing AfDs as contentious as this one require closes based both in policy and in community consensus. In terms of consensus, several different actions were supported by many users. However, Spinningspark used policy-based arguments in deciding how to weight different positions taken at the AfD. Using Wikipedia policies to judge the validity of an editor's view or a set of views is not "personal preference," it's what we expect administrators to do. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Just review the last thing I wrote, please. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The notion of "favoring one viewpoint" over another doesn't seem like a strong argument given that the nature of closing an AFD inherently requires making such a decision. This was handled in a proper manner; it's not a pure vote. One "vote" properly citing policy carries more weight than 100 "votes" providing no rationale. Kansan (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pressure and Whirlwind

This is regarding a page you have been deleted a while a go, can you explain me how this page is still there but you deleted the page which I created with good content that that article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapa123 (talkcontribs) 03:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Musicians need to meet our notability guideline WP:MUSIC before they can have an article. Once Whirlwind (band) meet one or more of those criteria then they can have an article. The article Pressure (reggae musician) has probably not been deleted because no one has noticed it. I have now proposed it for deletion. SpinningSpark 09:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing Blocked

Hi, I Just Found this message on a wiki page. You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from has been blocked (disabled) by Spinningspark for the following reason(s): Block evasion: personal attacks

This block has been set to expire: 10:51, 8 November 2012.

This IP that you have blocked, does not belong to a single person, It Belongs to Dynamic IP address Range of BSNL India. In order to circumvent it, all one has to do is disconnect and reconnect. Please unblock it. (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's done, the block was not far from expiring in any case. I realise this is a dynamic IP, but sometimes it is necessary to block a range of IPs for particularly troublesome users. The range was set to the minimum necessary to make the problem stop. SpinningSpark 17:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lifting 0RR

Spinningspark, you unblocked me almost a year ago, in part because I promised to refrain from any reverts at the article Maafa 21. Since then I have edited the article but not reverted.

Today I am asking that my promise be lifted, that I may once again be able to revert. Thanks in advance for the time taken in consideration of this request. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that is perhaps something you should be putting to the original blocking admin rather than me. As far as I am concerned, it is now long after the original block would have expired if it had been allowed to stand and any new revert (or complaint about it) will be treated on its own merits. What you haven't explained is why you want to make reverts in such a highly controversial article rather than discuss/consensus. If you are just looking to revert vandalism and the like then I don't think anybody is going to be concerned. But the first step in starting any edit war is a reversion, and edit wars are never good. SpinningSpark 09:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to participate in the WP:BRD cycle. Someone adds contentious material, I revert it, we all discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As I say, there is no objection from me (but it wasn't me who blocked you). However, on such a contentious article you might want to consider going straight to talk rather than a revert which will often only serve to entrench positions. SpinningSpark 17:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hi Spinningspark,

I have a question not concerning wiki but it is connected with electronic circuit.

I am studying electronic circuit recently and was looking for a proof of the torque speed curve of Asynchronous motor, I did quite a bit search on google and the model calculations I found based on equivalent circuit of a transformer are not good enough to me.

I am a physicist but not at all familiar with electronic circuit (except from those from college physics textbook), so I actually tried to write down a proof by myself (a model of course, which reproduces the main feature of the observed torque-speed curve) and it turned out to be very different from what I got from google. If possible, would you please point to me some source where I may find a well-established and well-recognized explanation, thank you for you time in advance.

Edit: I added some discussions into the talk page, if it makes any sense to you.

Gamebm (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't really help you. Have you tried the Science Reference Desk? You haven't said what problem you're having with the equivalent circuits. SpinningSpark 20:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to ask someone in person to recommend me a textbook. :) My question was I don't think the derivation I found is good enough, I made a short summary on the talk page Gamebm (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Write-only memory (engineering)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)



Thanks for keeping it neat and tidy while I was away. Λυδαcιτγ 07:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Talk:Merge (software).
Message added 23:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for a good decision on Saint Paul in Britain. Paul Bedsontalk 23:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for the David Jay Brown AfD closure

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For your exceptionally well-reasoned closure of the David Jay Brown AfD, applying policy rather than listening to advocacy. Qworty (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeenux Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since you have deleted Leeenux page, you should go through this list and delete all less notable distributions:, however I believe that this would lead to a rage from the Free Software community. I cannot say, can you please explain, why are only the few distributions singled out for deletion from wikipedia? Since I am highly knowledgeable on the subject, I truly cannot say on what do you base your decisions, since some admin has marked ZorinOS, more than notable distro, 9th on distrowatch list, for deletion, and some dead distributions that are on the end of the list are left. Truly, I do not understand what you all are doing. Spiralciric (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC) should go through this list and delete all less notable distributions.' No I should not. If you think they should be deleted you can nominate them at WP:AFD. I deleted this article because an editor nominated it for deletion and the consensus at the deletion debate which followed was to remove it.
...can you please explain, why are only the few distributions singled out for deletion... Because those ones were nominated by someone.
Zorin OS has been previously deleted four times. It still does not refer to a single reliable source so I have deleted it on that basis. If you can, in fact, provide reliable sources I will undelete it again on request.
Arguments of the form x was deleted/kept therefore y should be also are not accepted as valid on Wikipedia, see WP:OSE. Every article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what has happened elsewhere. The main criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. This is not the same as importance or fame. Notability means that the subject has been discussed in reliable sources. Reliable sources means things like books, newspapers and scholarly journals. SpinningSpark 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Spinningspark Please Reinstate [Leeenux Linux] article. Here are two links mentioning this distro in widely distributed magazines: [1] [2]. Additionally, I did object, there was not consensus on the deletion. I may have objected improperly (on the talk page of the article?). Thank you. Rusl (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't find either of those particularly convincing, they both read like marketing pieces submitted to the magazines and printed without any critical editorial and Linux Magazine at least, positively encourages reader submitted pieces. In any case I am not going to be restoring the article, it was deleted by community consensus and now can only be restored by community consensus. It makes no difference that you placed your objection on the talk page instead of the AfD debate; AfD is not a vote, it is decided by policy based arguments and you did not advance any policy argument. What I will do for any editor who thinks they can address the issues raised in the AfD and wishes to work on it is to WP:Userfy the article. SpinningSpark 23:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear SS, could you enlighten me on how consensus works on wikipedia when clearly there are objections? Is that not what consensus means? I'm not asking for a vote, I only have one and I'm sure you outnumber/outrank me. It seems that the article was deleted in fact by individuals, not consensus. As well, you are setting the bar way too high for inclusion in your subjective determination of what constitutes "reliable source" here. It seems you are assuming bad faith for these sources, marketing free software is not the same as marketing a commercial product! Finally, it is contrary to the mission of wikipedia to go around deleting FOSS Linux Distro information? Cannibalism, or at least eating your own young. I'm dumbfounded by the resistance to maintaining this information?Rusl (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you think accusing me of assuming bad faith, cannibalism and eating my own young will persuade me to be sympathetic to your case. You can read about our understanding of consensus at WP:DPR. Please don't use my talkpage as a soapbox to complain about our principles, I don't care if you disagree with them, and this is not the place to get them changed. I have no idea what you think the mission of Wikipedia is, but keeping this article is not the mission explicated at WP:NOT. SpinningSpark 19:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me ( with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Vocal and instrumental pitch ranges

You are, of course, correct Face-smile.svg Bleary-eyed, I mis-read C−1 as an incorrect C–1 or C-1 without regarding the context. It's too bad that the template doesn't use super/sub/small for the digits for clarity and I don't want to open up a can of worms by changing it, since practice seems to vary among music articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jat clans

Hi, re: your AfD note, Jat clans already exists and is populated. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Sam Gichuru

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Gichuru's talk page. Message added -- Trevj (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC).


Hi, content of the "Papillon-Method" was deleted through your deletion on 25 November 19:37. Please be so kind and give me a copy of the article. --Multiview99 (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)--Multiview99 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want a copy sent to you then please e-mail me from an address I can reply to. On the other hand, if you are asking for the article to be userfied I ask you to please first explain what you intend to do with it. SpinningSpark 18:34, 26 November 2012 (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.

Hi SpinningSpark, please check your e-mail. --Multiview99 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

John Dennis deletion


I'm John Dennis. You moved to have my page deleted. Was there a reason?

Regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it in my role as closing administrator of the deletion debate. The policy based consensus of the debate was to delete. The main policies cited were WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN which were not countered by any credible policy based arguments. SpinningSpark 21:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mesh analysis

Just wanted to check in — do the four diagrams at Talk:Mesh analysis#svg diagrams look okay to you? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they're good to go in the article, good job. The second diagram should have the loop currents marked, not just the loop numbers. SpinningSpark 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Lovely. I've changed the second image and re-added them to the article. Thanks for being so patient and willing to work with me on this! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Userspace draft

Thank you for the copy. I have tried to create a userspace draft. There seems to be a conflict. Can you give me a little support? Thank you very much and kind regards --Multiview99 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As cool as a cucumber

As a note (I saw your comment about Wiktionary transwiki-ing in the AfD close), Wiktionary does already include the simile. dci | TALK 17:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I said don't transwiki anything. It is only likely to bollocks up their existing entry by adding stuff that is not appropriate, mistaken, or just completely made up hoax. SpinningSpark 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I didn't realize you knew that the entry was already there, just that you didn't find the content appropriate. Sorry for any trouble, dci | TALK 17:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I was about to post the same thing - but your rationale is actually what I meant by my !vote anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Technical terms

Category:Technical terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion (ProFusion Imaging Expo)


I see that our Pro Photo and Video Expo (ProFusion Imaging Expo)page has been deleted from Wikipedia and have been following links until I'm blue in the face trying to determine why. Is there some info you can offer as to why our page was removed? We ARE a valid event, but we've been around for less than 5 years. So any info or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Also, can I have the content back so that I can rework the page and resubmit?

Thanks in advance!

Lisa Trainor-diNorcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaTD (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I meant to post this at her page. I will do so now. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth's early atmospheres user copy?

You offered to userify this, over at Talk:Paleoclimatology.

Could you please put one up in my userspace? I keep meaning to take a whack at updating the topic. I'm a geologist with a long-sttanding interest in paleoclimates. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, at User:Tillman/Earth's early atmospheres. Note that if any of this material is reused, then the edit history of the page must be preserved and linked in edit summary to comply with the CC licence. SpinningSpark 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WOT edit war

Please be so kind to take a look at latest edit war at WOT Services. Thank you, best regards, WeatherFug (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Three phase electric power

Your input may be valuable [here]. (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uroerythrin listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uroerythrin. Since you had some involvement with the Uroerythrin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ego White Tray (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Sic

Please partake in discussions on the talk pages, which is what they are for and I am doing, insead of you personal,. Which an administrator who has "been around long enough to know the behaviour policies" should know. Did you see the alk page discussion going on??? And resolution, which is the point of talk pages discussion instead of sulking when one single comment and immediate revert by a single editor didn't go his way? POINTy? Did you see his recent comment on the alk page? Tell me thats not personal. Conversely look at the other pages' comment that i dcivil-ly respnded. Doesnt seem you even read it. "Bizzare"ly(Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

Did you even BOTHER to read what i said on the DR page (i have no objection whatsoever, but, as is my right, discussion is needed to gain consensus). Did you see what i then responded to the talk page? If you did then your comment wouldnt ned to have happened. If you did read i you iwill say the sulking OP at DR made 1 comment and went straight out to revert per hsi assertions (and then you can see his blatant IDONTLIKEIT comment on the talk page). But IDONTLIKEIT, means you will have no reason to tell him for his comment?(Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).
What is disruption? Adding virtually all the content to the page?
What is discssuion? The 1 comment and rvert? Or partaking in consensus building as i did and vcoversed with said editor. Look at my 2nd last comment on the talk page?
6 agains me? Did you then see that i had no edit to the page since the last 2, i responded in agreement with the fourth. And the action of the OP were explicily motivated NOT by discussion but his personal view. hhat is on the page for all o see.


Since i have now adhered to the consensus you said (and intended to per talk page) which says to remove sic to the "american" bit. I would now like to draw your attention to this blind and undiscussed revert. 1. tag was removed (blindly), 2. image removal i cited in an edit summary (and its irrelevant to international reactions), 3. after restoring an irrelevant image he writes "removed text not relevant", seeing the edit, what i wrote in the lead is cited and about international effects, and finally 4. as i said before, not all sic tags were of the discussed issue (there are 3 that are separate and at least 1 indisputably not "usual usage"). Ive reverted it. It would be nice to take a neutral look at that. Im also posting it on the talk page, btw.

Also partaking along in discussion for every controversial/semi-controversial/remotely-controversial edit (see talk page). I hope its noted and that others do so too without warring. (Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

RE: Microstrip

Hi, thanks for the edit. I do not see much harm in pointing to related software as long as it is well targeted - is that considered "spam"? In that case you may also want to remove the other link "Microstrip Analysis/Synthesis Calculator", which is also simulation software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbrulis (talkcontribs) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a strong reason to provide an external link to vendors; the usual accepted reason is that the article is specifically about that particular product. Listing vendors in a general article invariably results in a long list of "adverts". See WP:NOTDIR. A good compromise is to provide a link to the Open Directory Project as I have just done at Finite-difference time-domain method where the ELs had got truly out of hand. Consider the warning withdrawn, I can see you are a good faith editor. I don't know about the Synthesis Calculator link, I was only looking at your edits. I will take a look shortly. SpinningSpark 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbrulis (talkcontribs) 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing while blocked

Can you point me, please, to the rule which says that one cannot make any edits to one's talk page while blocked except to appeal the block? I am not aware of any such regulation and would appreciate the pointer. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm referring to this edit of yours in which you restored 19K of material to User talk:Lihaas that the editor had removed. You gave the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Lihaas (talk): You are not permitted to make any edits while blocked other than to appeal the block."

My understanding was that the block notice cannot be removed while it is in effect, and if the blocked editor misuses the page while blocked, their talk page access can be revoked, but I am unfamiliar with a requirement that there can be no editing of the page except to appeal the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary may have been an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process but this editor is being so devious and disruptive here that I am not inclined to cut them any slack. They had already removed my warning posts to the page prior to being blocked, which I have not restored. There is still discussion on the page which points to some of the background to this incident. Allowing the user to remove it makes it more difficult for any reviewing admin to understand the situation. That is certainly not the purpose of permitting talk page access while blocked. When warnings are deleted we AGF that they have been read and understood, rather than taking it as a declaration of war. When that turns out not to be the case the user is much less likely to be treated with sympathy, at least by me. SpinningSpark 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Jat clans

You closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jat_clans as delete and userfied the article to Sitush for him to check against the category. In due course he tagged the userfied page U1 for deletion, and I deleted it (the system first said it had > 5,000 revisions and so would need a steward, but then relented). Mkdw (talk) has now asked me to restore it and userfy to him, but that seems to me to go against the AfD decision - please comment at User talk:JohnCD#Reconsider deletion of Userfy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Three-phase power consensus

Thank you for closing that silly thing! Editors, there, become very aggressive and all kinds of things transpired to attempt to stop it. WOW! I even had a one-edit vandal IP place a "blocked" note on on my talk page. I never felt the consensus was required but somebody wanted it and I attempted to formalize it. One thing I didn't appreciate was the accusation that I made all the editwarring edits. Now he has launched a Wikipedia/Incident report despite my explaining the confusion and apologizing for upsetting his comment format. **SIGH** Then the originator became a drive-by not to be found. Thanks again. We needed that to get on with real editing. (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Synchronous motor

I apologize if I complicated matters for you there. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot and I completely understand your unwillingness to undertake an effort that he's not willing to contribute to at all. JohnInDC (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I certainly don't think you are the cause of the difficulties here. It's good that you tried to resolve this. But I made an offer to work with Doniago to help get the article sorted out and if he is not willing to collaborate I am really not inclined to go any further. SpinningSpark 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, your offer to meet him halfway was more generous than anything I'd be willing to undertake. More generally, I certainly understand an editor's unwillingness to wade into and try to repair a pretty technical article but I'd think the same reluctance would extend to removing material without any meaningful understanding of it. It's exasperating. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I would just like to thank you for all the hard work you put into your thoughtful answers to editors' problems at EAR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why sentence case instead of title case?

Wikipedia titles and headings only capitalize the first word instead of every important word. I was just wondering when and why that choice was made. Was it that way from the beginning? Maybe there is an archived discussion somewhere? Please do not expend any significant time on this question; I want to know but I don't need to know. Constant314 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how it came about. I have always assumed that it was merely following the common practice of scholarly journals where the journal title is in Title Case but the titles of the articles therein are in Sentence case. SpinningSpark 21:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Questions: Circuit Diagrams

Sir, I'm impressed by graphics you have rendered for electrical circuits. They are unique and interesting to look at. If I may ask how are you putting them together? What tools are you using?

Regards, --EE123 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I use Inkscape with symbols I created myself. For rendering TeX formulae in diagrams I use MiKTeX. SpinningSpark 19:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Academic terms

Category:Academic terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:School-related terms

Category:School-related terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Synchronous motor

This edit is in breach of the gideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "Never address other users in a heading". The problem with such headings are two fold, the first is it can be construed as a personal attack, and because it is a section header it gets embedded into the edit history of the article the victim can not easily get the attack removed (even if you agreed to remove the heading from the page it would remain in the edit history).

If you do not see it as a personal attack you must be able to see that it was confrontational and does not help editors to build a consensus among editors participating in the RfC.

As an administrative action, to rectify the breach of a guideline, I have removed the heading. -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not part of administrative duties to enforce every dot and comma of guidelines, nor is it to correct every perceived slight. SpinningSpark 21:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind if I changed the section title "I don't care what heading you give this section, but it needs one to distinguish from the previous thread" to something shorter eg "citation needed" at the end of a paragraph? -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, be my guest. SpinningSpark 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hi Spinningspark,

I just wanted to clarify that I deleted the previous mod edit comments (maintenance templates) since I thought I had fixed the problem and, thus, also thought there would be no more need for them. Once I fix the article again, would that mean that you would just want me to leave all previous edits in there?

Thanks for all your work. Happy Holidays.

Best, Lajollaca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajollaca (talkcontribs) 01:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You did no such thing, you deleted the templates immediately after they had been placed by another editor. In any case that action was not the substantive reason for the deletion, although it minded me not to be lenient. The article was deleted under WP:CSD because there was no indication of importance of this company. Beyond that the references provided are rubbish, they do not establish notability by in-depth discussion in multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:ORG. I suspect you are associated with this company. If so, it is strongly recommended that you do not write an article on it as it is impossible for someone with a conflict of interest to write with a neutral point of view. If the company is truly notable, an independent editor will eventually take an interest and write the article. SpinningSpark 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Spinningspark,

I did. I added more references to fix it, and I apologize that I put references considered not acceptable. I'm not affiliated; I did mainly create this account so I could write this article since there was none and thought others would want to read about it on Wikipedia. Since writing this article occurred to me while googling about organizations using value investing principles, would it be better if it went as a subsection of value investing instead? Thanks, lajollaca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajollaca (talkcontribs) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote any company and such material is not really acceptable at any location. I have now salted the title so it cannot be recreated, as you have probably already discovered. You may not realise this, but the editing history of any article can be viewed, and even the history of deleted articles is still available to administrators. The template was placed on the article at 20:25 on 28 December by user:Blanchardb. The next edit was by you at 21:13 which did nothing but delete the banner templates without addressing any problems. There were only two further edits before the article was deleted, one at 21:18 which added a reference which merely listed your company (ie proves existence only, not notability) and one at 21:19 adjusting formatting. None of the issues raised were addressed in any meaningful way. I find it quite difficult to believe that the first action of a newly created account is to recreate a previously deleted article and that person just happened by and has nothing to do with the company, even though your account name is the location of the said company. If an established editor thinks this article should exist, or it is requested at a community venue, then I will unlock the page. Until then, please desist. SpinningSpark 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to fix this so haven't been trying to recreate anything, but thanks for the info. I added the references, and then I saw that the edits didn't go away after fixing it, so deleted them thinking they weren't needed anymore. Guess I was wrong. Wouldn't have touched them otherwise. Could you clarify the part about promotion a little bit, please? I've read the Wikipedia guideline and I don't think that's what I was doing. The value investing article mentions Berkshire, Cascade, and Baupost, and these three have their own entries, so thought I would do the same with Neosho and Brandes. Would this same thing have happened if I had written an entry on Brandes first instead? Does this mean I can't fix Brandes (really, really, really short) either since it would also be considered promotion? My username is lajollaca because I did create the account to mainly write this and couldn't think of anything else that wasn't taken.
Thanks for the help, though. lajollaca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajollaca (talkcontribs) 00:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not really interested in the state of other articles, they are not relevant as there is a lot of bad stuff on Wikipedia, every article stands or falls on its own merits. The hurdle you really need to overcome is notability, specifically, the guideline WP:ORG which you should read. Sources which do not count towards notability are press releases, the company's own publications, listings, brief or passing mentions, and sources considered unreliable such as blogs and most web pages. If you still think that you can justify notability then take the article to WP:AFC. If you can convince editors there that it is worhtwile then I would be willing to unlock the page. If you need it, I am also willing to WP:userfy the article to allow you to work on it in your own userspace. SpinningSpark 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation helps a lot. Thanks! Have a good day. Lajollaca (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointy edits

Is there a proper way to slow an editor down on this America-centric obsession in the electrical power based articles? He has taken the edits to WP:3OR and been told many times that it makes the articles not as clear deleting all the exact example numbers that, yes, are America-centric. (BTW: USanians :) dislike that term, with a passion, used for all of N. and S. America). In High-leg delta after I improved some of the formulae describing the diagram he editted the whole section to percentage and non matching variable names. Not only did the text not match the diagram being discussed, phraseology in the formulae was turned into nonsense with voltages expressed as 2n where n is a point on the phasor diagram. This type of artice destruction (IMHO) is tiring for contributing editors and does not further the progress of the articles. Many gentle hints have been offered in the past, in many articles, not to do this but rather to add Eu examples, if desired. His argument offered is that there are more voltage systems out there than just Am and Eu but ignores the Eng readership majority figures. Who would we cater to that isn't Am or Eu English speaking? Is there a gentle and gentle way to slow this down? Despite retorts against it he persists. (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you had provided a link to the discussion(s) you are talking about, diffs to edits that you think are problematic, and/or a link to where you have taken up the issue with the editor in question. As it is, I am left to guess what you are talking about. In answer to your question Who would we cater to that isn't Am or Eu English speaking? Wikipedia is intended to cover topics worldwide in all countries, whether or not they speak English, and in any case English is spoken widely in many countries outside America and Europe. SpinningSpark 15:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the IP users contentions are about these changes:
It's disappointing to see that this editor covertly raising the issue by making a complaint to an individual administrator rather than through the DRN with a proper notice to meCantaloupe2 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So far, I have heard no request for administrative action, nor do I see any reason why it should be required. If there is already a discussion going on, provide a link to it, if there isn't, my talk page is not a good place to start one. SpinningSpark 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for posting this here. With your interest in these types of tech articles it could be COI for you to become involved. I thought you may be quite aware of some of it and was looking for some more opinion. After your first response I figured I would let it go but it seems this is not going to go away without a lot of work and it detracts from real edits that I would prefer to participate in. Thanks. (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious links

The discussion on "Bipolar junction transistor" prompted me to look at the links. Although the base address of some of them are respected universities, some of them appear to be an unpublished personal opinion. Particularly the link to William Beaty's pages. I've corresponded before with WB. He is a smart, open minded, nice guy and probably is mostly correct in what he writes, but as far as I can tell none of it is published in a reliable source. What is the correct way to challenge such a link?Constant314 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your exact question for a moment, the best thing to do would be to find a better source and if necessary adjust the text of the article to match it. Personally, if you think the source is trustworthy, I would do nothing at all, there is no point chasing after more sources when what we have already is perfectly adequate. If you are just looking for an inline tag there is {{better source}}, {{self-published inline}}, or even {{verify credibility}}. SpinningSpark 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, Thanks Constant314 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are appreciated

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
For quick, effective help and making Wikipedia a better place. Ramwithaxe 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo Energy

Thank you for your review and comment. I agree, the references you noted are available but not easily accessible. Have made a request to change this. Issue will be rectified, either with these sources or with others. Thank you. Enviromet (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions on talk page usage

Hi Spinningspark. Since you're an admin who's familiar with the edits in some of the articles involving the concerns, I wanted to get your input. In a prior discussion discussion somewhere about disputes, I recall an editor getting advised to maintain personal grudges off wiki.

What is your input on use of talk page as a repository of personal contentions? The descriptions used is accusatory and gossip and the list at User_talk: looks like it could violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This is also the same editor who made a negligent accusation and caused me to get investigated for sock-puppettery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You will need to be a bit more explicit on what exactly your complaint is here, perhaps with some appropriate diffs. I am not really seeing what you are getting at. The user's page looks fairly harmless to me, if a bit obsessive. As a general answer to your question, we are usually a lot more tolerant of what users write in their own userspace than elsewhere, although strictly, WP:TALK and other guidelines apply there just as well. Using the page to attack or insult other editors would not be acceptable, but maintaining a list of links to disputes and comments that interest the editor is ok, even if that is a collection of links demonstrating a possible or alleged behavioural issue of another editor. SpinningSpark 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I find the remarks he's using insulting and some of his claims are wiki-libelous.
For example, user made a claim that another user is "Editwars using account[25] and IPsockpuppet[26]". Due to his negligence I was wrongfully checked out for misconduct and the sockpuppet investigation found that it was not a foul play by the user accused so the accusation is WP:AGF violation, no?

[3] Also the use of accusing and contentious remarks to note other editors, such as "agenda" "cover up" "NumerPhobic" and such insulting words. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I really struggle to see anything actionable here. Keeping track of another user's edits is a perfectly valid thing to do. It becomes a problem if it is being done for some malicious purpose such as WP:Wikihounding. Using sockpuppets is not, of itself, a breach of policy, and in this case appears to be merely the editor not bothering to log in. There is absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia for editors to log on, even if they actually have an account, so accusations of not doing so can hardly be taken as insulting. So unless you have some evidence of something disruptive going on here I am not even inclined to talk to the user about it. SpinningSpark 14:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion courtesy notice

Your name was raised at the discussion "Edits of Cantaloupe2" on the ANI page here. Thanks. (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not TB

Sorry, I used the add-on to post TB without seeing the double entry "DO NOT DO THIS" on your edit-box (with the add-on, Twinkle?, you don't ever see the actual edit box, you click "TB"). How do you add custom code to your actual edit-box, and not just the page itself? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You put it on the edit notice page for that page. In the case of this page, it is at User talk:Spinningspark/Editnotice. SpinningSpark 07:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Talk:Baghdad Battery.
Message added 13:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Talk:Synchronous motor.
Message added 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Transformer types

Hey! After doing several edits, mostly around the Instrument transformers section I viewed your edits and realised I had just reverted one of your un-pluralisations. I have mixed feelings about this one since it encompasses two types under it's heading. It doesn't seem right either way. You may want to look at this again with a fresh brain. Mine is burned out 'cause it's late and I am going cross-eyed. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of experience based reflection

    Is there a proper way to slow down an editor from cluttering and increasing the accuracy doubts of articles? An editor has been adding what appears to be contents based on personal experience and presumptions based on his local township to prose that is meant to represent globally. 

Policies consulted: WP:V, WP:PROVEIT "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"

what's to keep editors from adding weasel adverbs based on their experience? I understand that its not up to other editors to prove wrong, but the other way around. If this is allowed to be permitted, an editor can add what he perceives as common in his opinion and make an improper and unverifiable claim that "it is common" on global scale page like wikipedia. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I really wouldn't want to give an opinion without assessing the edits involved for myself. SpinningSpark 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wilkinson splitter image

I like your Wilkinson divider image (File:Wilkinson_divider.png)! It's pretty and helpful, but it is missing one wire. All three shields should be connected together at the P1 end, not just two.Larry Doolittle (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. One of my better works, I was particularly pleased that the resistor ended up looking like a real resistor. I'll add in the link you suggest. SpinningSpark 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Article approval criteria

Hello! We were trying to add an article regarding ETNA Software company, but it was rejected twice. Please advice how to make this article compliant to be approved? The company is certainly worth being in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedgregory (talkcontribs) 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ETNA Software has twice been speedily deleted because the article does not indicate the importance of the subject. The most fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. Articles for which no evidence of notability can be found are likely to be deleted. Our definition of notability is that the subject of an article has been discussed in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the coverage is in some depth (not a trivial passing mention). Follow the link to see what we consider reliable sources.
You have an article submitted at Articles for Creation. It will be reviewed by someone there in due course, but I can predict what they will say. None of the sources in that article verify notability, either because they are not independent (company's own website), are trivial mentions (proof of existence, not proof of notability) or do not mention the subject at all. I would also add that if you are associated with this company we would strongly discourage you from writing the article at all. This is because it is almost impossible for you to write from a neutral point of view. If the company is truly notable an independent editor will eventually take an interest and write the article. SpinningSpark 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarter wave

I probably put too much chat on that talk page but... My father gave me a multimeter, when I was six years old, with instructions not to stick the probes into receptacles! But then he made me learn Ohm's law. Teachers in first grade wondered WTF this triangle with V/IR is on my book covers!! :) Thanks for the explanations and patience. All the best. (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thévenin's theorem lead changes

Hello, I am proposing edit to Thévenin's theorem lead along the following lines:

In circuit theory, Thévenin's theorem for linear electrical networks may be stated in contemporary generalized form as follows (see image at right):[1][2][3][a][4][b][5][c][6]

  1. Any active terminal pair a-b composed of combinations of impedances and ideal voltage and current sources can be represented by electrically equivalent series connection of an ideal voltage source V with an impedance Z between terminals a-b, combinations involving either all DC sources or all resistive impedances, or both, being special cases.
  2. The voltage source V is the voltage found at terminals a-b with no external elements connected to the terminals and the impedance Z is the impedance measured at the terminals when all the ideal sources within the terminal pair are set to zero.

The theorem was independently derived by German scientist Hermann von Helmholtz in 1853[7] and by French telegraph engineer Léon Charles Thévenin (1857–1926) in 1883.[8][9][1][2] This theorem in widely used as a circuit analysis simplification technique to convert any circuit's voltage sources and impedances to a Thévenin equivalent. Thévenin's theorem is commonly used to study circuits' initial-condition and steady-state response; [4][3] use of the theorem may in some cases be more convenient than use of Kirchhoff's laws..[10]

Any black box containing only voltage and current sources, and resistors can be converted to a Thévenin equivalent circuit, comprising one linear voltage source and one series impedance.


  1. ^ Elgerd's Thévenin's Theorem:"The changes that take place in the network voltages and currents due to the addition of an impedance between two network nodes are identical with those voltages and currents that would be caused by an emf placed in series with the impedance and having a magnitude and polarity equal to the prefault voltage that existed between the nodes in question and all other active sources being zeroed." The statement applies to initial-condition analysis.
  2. ^ Brenner & Mansour's Thévenin Theory: "(1) Any active terminal pair a-b composed of combinations of active and passive elements can, with respect to its terminals, be represented as the series connection of an ideal voltage source v0(t) and an operational element Z0(p) between terminals a-b. (2) The voltage source v0(t), referred to in (1) of the theorem, is the voltage function found at the terminals a-b of the active terminal pair (due to the sources within it), with no external elements connected to these terminals. The impedance function Z0(p) is the driving-point impedance function at the terminals a-b of the terminal pair when all the ideal sources within the terminal paire are set to zero."
  3. ^ Wenner's Thévenin Theorem: "In a system of linear conductors in which the current in every branch is proportional to the impresseds emf, the current in any branch is that which would result should an emf equal to the potential difference that would appear across the brteak, were the branch opened, be intyroduced into the branch and all other emfs be removed." Dwight indicates that this statement applies to steady-state analysis.


  1. ^ a b Johnson, D.H. (2003). "Origins of the equivalent circuit concept: the voltage-source equivalent" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 91 (4): 636–640. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2003.811716.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b Johnson, D.H. (2003). "Origins of the equivalent circuit concept: the current-source equivalent" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 91 (5): 817–821. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2003.811795. 
  3. ^ a b Elgerd, Olle I. (2007). Electric Energy Systems Theory: An Introduction. Tata McGraw-Hill. pp. 402–404. 
  4. ^ a b Brenner, Egon (1959). Analysis of Electric Circuits. McGraw-Hill. pp. 268–269.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Wenner, F. (1926). ""Sci. Paper S531, A principle governing the distribution of current in systems of linear conductors"". Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Standards. 
  6. ^ Brittain, J.E. (1990). "Thevenin's theorem". IEEE Spectrum. 27 (3): 42. doi:10.1109/6.48845. Retrieved 1 February 2013.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Helmhotz, H. "Über einige Gesetze der Vertheilung elektrischer Ströme in körperlichen Leitern mit Anwendung auf die thierisch-elektrischen Versuche (Some laws concerning the distribution of electrical currents in conductors with applications to experiments on animal electricity)". Annalen der Physik und Chemie. 89 (6): 211–233. 
  8. ^ Thévenin, L. (1883). "Extension de la loi d’Ohm aux circuits électromoteurs complexes (Extension of Ohm’s law to complex electromotive circuits)". Annales Télégraphiques. 3e series. 10: 222–224. 
  9. ^ Thévenin, L. "Sur un nouveau théorème d’électricité dynamique (On a new theorem of dynamic electricity)". Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences. 97: 159–161. 
  10. ^ Dwight, Herbert B. (1949). "Sub-section of Sec. 2 - Electric and Magnetic Circuits". Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 36. 


Image and rest of article's text would need revision to suit. Please comment accordingly about these proposed changes. Cblambert (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this should really be on the article talk page and I think you should move it there (including my replies).
Nine ref tags on the lede sentence is ludicrous. Ideally, a lede should not need any ref tags because it is supposed to be a summary of the already referenced article body. I don't see the point of the extensive notes quoting the exact explanation of the sources. All these refs and notes seem to imply that there is some sort of controversy or disagreement amongst the sources. If there is, the article needs to explicitly discuss it, if not, the notes are superfluous.
The history material would benefit from being in its own section with just a brief summary in the lede.
I notice you have added "contemporary" to the lede. This is either unnecessary or else needs explaining in the article. Perhaps you are alluding to the original theorem, like Kirchhoff's, addressing only resistances? SpinningSpark 09:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)



My name is Reddy Mungal and i would like to ask your permission to use the information posted on 'Telegraph' topic . I am doing a project on The Telegraph and how it works . I need a yes or no answer by Friday 8th Feb,2013 . My email is . Thank you for your cooperation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not need permission to reuse the contents of Wikipedia provided that you comply with the terms of Creative Commons licence which you can read at WP:CC-BY-SA. SpinningSpark 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Smoked salmon cheesecake

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Smoked salmon cheesecake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Smoked salmon cheesecake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smoked salmon cheesecake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoked salmon cheesecake until a consensus is reached, and anyone is 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.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating Smoked salmon cheesecake and for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of food-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Kingdom

I've responded to your suggestion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandal Kingdom (2nd nomination). I apoligize if i was a little to quick with making the Vandal Kingdom article. Krakkos (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A very similar article was previously deleted as a fork. I suspect that you are the same editor that created the previous article and so already know this. Instead of discussing the issue at the article talk page, you have tried to sneak it in and hope no one would notice. That is not in the spirit of collaboration needed here. SpinningSpark 22:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Chlorine Trifluoride edit was not the true 1YlGC6dsynvm

I think you mistaked 1YlGC6dsynvm's edits to chlorine trifluoride as their own edit. It turns out that it was someone else's edit but I don't know who, but it wasn't the operator of 1YlGC6dsynvm who did the edits prior to chlorine trifluoride being vandalized by a false 1YlGC6dsynvm. Is it OK that you unblock them? (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph

I've begun the GA review for Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph. This is clearly ripe for promotion, but I need your input on one small issue. Drop by the talk page and let me know your thoughts--and thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Trout and message

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Well you've just deleted Christian Pasilan despite consensus for a keep, but failed to delete Izzeldin El Habbib despite consensus for deletion. Just reminding you ;) Happy editing! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit history

Hi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul You said: Colombia-South Korea relations is not a matter for AfD, but I will userfy the deleted article on request for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. SpinningSpark 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I thought move was a possible outcome for AfD?
Can I also ask, in deleting the article has the edit history been lost? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
An AfD might sometimes call for a rename, but what was being proposed here is a completely different article. It is not for AfD to create such an article (and certainly not the closing admin). That is the responsibility of those editors who wish it to be created. The AfD is about the article under discussion, not one that might exist, and the decision was to delete. I have userfied the article for you at User:In ictu oculi/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul, complete with edit history. SpinningSpark 11:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for doing it and thanks for explanation. I shall bear that in mind in future and not propose a move/rewrite in an AfD unless absolutely necessary. If I had not said that the result would have been keep. However no damage done. I have restructured new article according to weight of printed sources, and history is preserved, thanks to your good self. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You still do not understand the position, I think. The article was not deleted because you proposed a rewrite, it was deleted because participants in the AfD thought that an article on the embassy was not justified. Your proposal made no difference. We do not delete articles because they need rewriting. In those cases the proper action is to rewrite them, not delete them. Your proposal was not a rewrite, or even just a rename. Colombia-South Korea relations is not the same subject as Embassy of Colombia, Seoul. A proposal to merge the latter into the former would be a valid AfD decision if the article existed, but it did not at that time. SpinningSpark 13:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant that if I had not introduced the option the result would have been 5:2 for keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinie Fitri

Hi there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinie Fitri one week ago as keep, and while I don't really object against the result, I am a little uncertain whether your arguments behind the closure are the right interpretation of WP:NSPORTS. The meaning of that second sentance in NSPORTS (which make you close the AfD as keep, am I right?) has also been discussed recently on the talk page. My interpretation of NSPORTS, is that GNG is more important than the subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), but this closure makes me somewhat uncertain. I am currently considering opening an DRV, not because I think you did the wrong decision, but more because I want to have a broader discussion on which is the more important guideline. If you have a look at the AfD on Fitri's team-mate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearghus Bruce, which was started four minutes before the other one, you'll see that there are the same arguments from the same participants, but when Fitri was relisted twice, Bruce's AfD was closed as delete after one week (with the complete opposite closing-rationale than you). What do you think about opening a DRV? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think DRV is an entirely inappropriate place to settle a matter of broad policy. This should be done at a venue intended for policy discussions, and as it involves one of our most important guidelines, WP:N, the widest possible editor input should be sought, which will not be achieved at DRV. I appreciate that many editors believe that GNG should "trump" NFOOTY, but as neither policy actually says this, and in fact both contradict that belief, a proper close of an AfD should be in accordance with policy unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the debate supporting the view that GNG takes precedence. At worst the Fitri AfD would be a no consensus. The Bruce AfD is different, if not in the factual situation, then at least in the arguments presented. The only keep in the Bruce debate was a ridiculous argument from Giant Snowman that amounted to WP:CRYSTAL. In the Fitri debate there was a far stronger policy based argument for keep from DGG which was not countered either by policy arguments or overwhelming consensus. SpinningSpark 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how the Bruce AfD is different, one appearance for the same club, nomination rationale is mostly the same, GiantSnowman's argument is identical, the nominators reply is identical, my comment is identical. The only difference Phil Bridger's comments and the comment from C679 in Bruce's AfD, with the result that Fitri was relisted, while Bruce was deleted - isn't that a case for DRV, when two identical AfD's get different result? When it comes to your closure, you had the same arguments as in Bruce's AfD (which was closed as delete), in addition to Eldumpo's delete vote and DGG's keep vote, which I agree with you, would be a "no consensus" in my head, but you closed it as a keep because you "were swayed" by DGG's arguments - I thought the closer's job was to determine what was the consensus in a discussion, not which arguments you like the best? And when you closed an AfD where you believe that GNG is not important, when WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines states that In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline, isn't that a case for DRV? Mentoz86 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is incumbent on the closing admin to give weight to policy based arguments. That's what I think I did. If you disagree, then by all means take it to DRV. SpinningSpark 19:33, 24 March 2013 (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.

TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Closure of Ze Malibu Kids AfD

Hi Spinningspark, I wanted to ask you about your closure of the AfD for Ze Malibu Kids. You closed the discussion as keep, even though only the creator and an IP advocated outright keeping, along with another keep/merge opinion. Counting me, four editors advocated deletion, with another three favoring a merge and/or redirect. Don't you think a merge result would have been a better reflection of the consensus there? If you were hesitant to add to the substantial AfD merge backlog—and few editors would appreciate this sentiment more than me—I would just like to say I'd be happy to execute the merge myself. What do you think? Best, BDD (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments at AfD are not votes, policy based arguments carry more weight. The common "WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE" argument was deployed, but there was not overwhelming consensus for this view in the debate and it has no basis in policy. Michig offered additional sources to meet GNG which largely went unchallenged (except by J04n) and was supported by others. At best, this could have been no consensus and merge proposals do not require an AfD debate in any case. SpinningSpark 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC) and 23:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hade Vansen

There was one delete vote for all of them (me), two keep votes for all of them, and one SPA that decided to keep Hade while not commenting on the others. How were the comments "starting to diverge"? I have no problem with the discussion resulting in a keep consensus, but to say that it was a misuse of WP:BUNDLE is silly. They all have pretty much the same history. Worked in developmental in WWE, and didn't make it on national television.

I don't think the discussion was really over though. I would have liked to continue it. Feedback 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This could only get more messy if it were relisted. Whatever you may think, I know from experience that bundled nominations can be difficult to close. If you nominate articles as a group, they really need to be closed as a group, it is not silly to ask for them to be nominated separately if they might have different conclusions. WP:BUNDLE is really for articles that are related to each other as articles (rather than just by subject). Examples of a good use of WP:BUNDLE would be articles created for minor characters from a work of fiction, or a set of poor articles created by an inexperienced editor on a spree, or a walled garden created by a POV editor. This set of articles is none of those things. They were created by different editors on different dates; Driscoll goes back to 2008 which in itself is a case for a separate nomination, and Orlinger had been previously nominated, an important point which was hidden by the bundling. SpinningSpark 23:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fair. I just didn't want to risk people participating in some discussions and not the other. Few people would have voiced their opinions in one and then re-articulated them in the other when their reasons for Keeping or Deleting one would be the same for the others. Most of the wrestling-related AFDs have had very little participation as of late so I thought this would have been a good way to avoid that. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Cottonwood. I probably would have bundled that too had he not had 8 weeks on national TV. That AFD is probably never going to see another comment and I'm just trying to find ways to fix that dilemma. Feedback 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please undo your edit (Read the message body, please)

I have not yet done so, but would like to undo your edit that you made to 1-fluorohexane, because it didn't appear constructive. Notice that I did not yet undo your edit, please do not block me straight off because I am just asking if that can be considered block evasion. If it can be considered evasion, I will not do it, but I strongly want to. (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been previously blocked (by several other admins as well as me) for disruptive editing which included sneaky insertion of disinformation. I have lost patience with you and am no longer prepared to check out your edits to determine whether or not they are worth anything. If you edit anything at all I will revert it without reading and block you. If you want to do anything about this you should appeal your block from your original account and edit only from that in future. If you are truly turning over a new leaf you might start by coming clean about all the sock accounts you have previously used. SpinningSpark 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Even spell-checks and grammar-checks? Currently I find no reason to edit anymore. I swear I will take over Wikipedia, ban you from the community, and all other administrators as well (to prevent them from banning me). That way I can edit how ever I want. (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My edits can be constructive

I just asked Edgar181 to move a page because of a spelling error. This proves that some of my edits are constructive. Now I edited your talk page. Is that "block evasion"?! (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I already advised you what to do above. Now go away. SpinningSpark 06:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD closures

Basically two things:

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ze Malibu Kids, I'm wondering what your reasoning for closing it as keep was? The arguments to delete may not have been the best, but they were just as substantial, if not more so, than the ones to keep, so at very least a rationale when closing would be helpful. (My interest in this one stems from that I was about to argue for deletion myself on the grounds that notability is not inherited, contrary to some some of the keep arguments, but you edit conflicted me closing it so I just left it alone.)

As for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShoMiz, the general notability guidelines exist for the general case, but there is are reasons behind why there are more specific guidelines, and this is why I say WP:N does not entirely apply. In the case of sports entities, any player or team that takes part in a publicised event could be claimed to be notable because these events are covered, or claimed to be not notable because said players/teams are generally only covered in the context of the sport - it all depends on the interpretation of WP:N. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) clears this up such that the general is still met, but applying the general by itself just isn't necessarily helpful in these cases. Would you disagree? -— Isarra 02:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue here is that this wasn't completely a WP:N issue. The subject alone meets most of the GNG, but according to WP:N, that only establishes a presumption that the article is notable enough for its own stand-alone article. What we were arguing there was whether or not the subject matter, which indeed merited inclusion in the encyclopedia, should get its own article or just be relegated to being part of The Miz and The Big Show. Considering the team was so short-lived, I don't see anyone other than a very select few of die-hard fans to be searching for the term "ShoMiz". And most importantly, pretty much all the important information regarding ShoMiz is already in both of those articles so it seems like a redundant fork to keep the article around. We really need to crack down on redundant/repeated content in the encyclopedia. Feedback 04:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already replied concerning Ze Malibu Kids in a thread above. On ShoMiz, if you meant that WP:ATHLETE should be applied instead of WP:N you should have said so; what you actually said appeared to be advancing an argument not only not based in policy but actually counter to policy. By the way, as I indicated in my closing statement, WP:ATHLETE explicitly states it does not apply to professional wrestling, the correct notability guideline is WP:ENTERTAINER. However, they would appear to meet this also.
Feedback, I agree that an article can still be deleted despite meeting WP:N. Nobody has a right to an article. However, there is almost never a consensus to do such a thing at AfD (as there wasn't in this case) unless there is an overriding policy reason. Policy based arguments always outweigh those not based in policy, hence the decision was keep rather than no-consensus. There is no policy against repeated content, in fact this is a useful thing to do in numerous articles, at least in summary style. There is a policy against forks, but this is not a fork - it is a different subject. If it were a fork there would be no doubt where it should be redirected, but there are two members of a tag team... SpinningSpark 07:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that. Though I'm not sure I agree, that explanation would have helped on the page itself, since it really was ambiguous - and subsequently a bit confusing. And I stand by what I said - though I could have been more specific, that it appeared to be doing something doesn't mean it was. Few policies entirely apply to anything, and to try to do so ignores the spirit of the things. You are correct that I could have made what I was try to say more clear, however. -— Isarra 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14