Jump to content

User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Your reversions per CITEVAR

Hi Spinningspark, your two reversions ([1] and [2]) leave me puzzled as they have left the articles in a very weak state now. WP:CITEVAR applies to articles with a consistently established citation style. Before my edits, these two articles were not among them as they were using a mixture of general, full and short citations, templated and non-templated references, even in different formats, and inline and list style. Several references were incomplete, others were redundant or contained horribly looking grammatical and capitalization errors. Among other things like fixing the badly carried out category link my edits aimed at fixing these issues by removing the errors and bringing the references into a consistent format. Another aim was to improve the functionality of the references, that's why I chose template-based references instead of text-only ones. The styleguide you mentioned encourages editors to do so. My edits were very obvious improvements to help bringing the articles into shape, whereas your reversions did the exact opposite, unfortunately. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the style was not 100% consistent, but nobody was using templated references except for the one instance of the general reference to Loke. Nowhere at all, in either article, was anybody using the system you imposed of all repeated refs (<ref name=foo/>) or whatever it is called. We can debate why I don't like your system, but the bottom line is that there is no especial reason why these articles in particular need to have it. SpinningSpark 09:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Warren P. Mason

On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warren P. Mason, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scientist Warren P. Mason said that polymer chemistry was not "civilized" because of the awful smells produced? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warren P. Mason. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Warren P. Mason), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Distributed element circuit

On 14 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Distributed element circuit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that distributed element circuits include butterflies (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Distributed element circuit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Distributed element circuit), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you userfy

Time in Poland for me? I thought about starting this, and maybe the deleted version contains something useful (if it is pure gibberish, don't bother, but if there is even one useful sentence, I'll take it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Article now at User:Piotrus/Time in Poland. SpinningSpark 07:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak paint schemes GA

Thanks for your speedy GA review! Please let me know if you have any GA noms that need review - I have enough knowledge of electronics and astronomy to do a review. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have several articles waiting for reviews but I am in no hurry. Feel free to review any of these that take your fancy;
SpinningSpark 11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD on Danish bacon

Thanks, noted. Although BRD says "If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other editor made a mistake in a note or edit summary to reduce the risk of edit warring." - which is pretty much what I did in reaction to your That's not a redundant heading and the image is not especially appropriate for the history seciton edit summary. On checking policy it was an inappropriate subheading and a photo of frying bacon is surely more appropriate in a section which mentions the cooking of bacon than one that does not (although I appreciate I failed to explain my thinking in the original edit). Will bear BRD in mind in future though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Earnshaw

I saw your reversion of my edit that deleted the word 'ironically', and your comment. I have to point out that I'm not the one who named this paragraph of the Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language). But no matter what the section is called, it states, "Do not tell readers that something is ironic, ...etc. Simply state the sourced facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Such constructions can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone..."

As an aside, I do not see the irony in Maskelyne making the original proposal, and since it's unlikely that I'm the only one, that makes whether or not it's ironic a matter of opinion, which is not for Wikipedia editors to express.

Even if something is ironic, the word 'ironically', along with several others that are overused, does not belong in Wikipedia articles, unless it's part of a quotation or expressing an opinion that can be sourced. In this case, the word is instructing the reader that something is ironic. As the Manual of Style states, only the facts should be stated. The 'ironically' in this article should be deleted.

Regards,

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the MoS and I know why we have it, but really, mechanically removing every occurence of the word without assessing the effect it is having on the text really is not helpful imo. Not saying it is likely to leave readers wondering why Maskelyne is being mentioned at all. If they do work it out, they will realise it is being mentioned because it is ironiic that Maskelyne instigated that rule. Thus, mentioning Maskelyne at all is intended to make the point that it is ironic. Putting the word in just makes that explicit, it doesn't change the intended pov of the sentence. If you think that expressing that pov is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then the whole sentence should be taken out. I won't fight you if you take it out again, but you now have my opinion on it. SpinningSpark 19:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
...and on your aside, it's ironic because Maskelyne was promoting Earnshaw, but it was Maskelyne's rule that caused him to fail in the test. SpinningSpark 20:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electric bath (electrotherapy)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electric bath (electrotherapy) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warren P. Mason

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warren P. Mason you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

plural

I notice the change to plural on category:transfer functions, which seems to make sense. Yet I notice also that category:frequency domain analysis is not plural. Even more, there seems to be discussion (but I couldn't find it) on a change to category:frequency-domain analysis. (Presumably with redirects.) Seems to me that, either way, it should be plural, like other categories. Should we have category:frequency-domain analyses? Gah4 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Analysis" is more of a collective term, doesn't need to be plural as much as "Transfer functions" does, in terms of being descriptive of what's in the category. The renaming discussion that I started is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_28#Category:Frequency_domain_analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
So far, there is only one analysis in the category, but I believe that Fourier analysis should also be there, in which case there will be two analyses. I do agree that analysis is more collective than function, but with more than one analysis, it should still be plural. Of course with redirect, or maybe only redirect. Gah4 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review: Cantor's first set theory article (rewrite of Cantor's first uncountability proof)

Since you did such an excellent job in the GA review of Cantor's first uncountability proof, I thought you might be interested in the current GA review. I was mainly responsible for the version of Cantor's first uncountability proof that you reviewed and am mainly responsible for the current article that is being reviewed. If you check the talk section: The article rewrite and thanks to all those who helped me, you will find that I used your excellent GA review to restructure and rewrite the article.

At the top of the Talk page, you will find out that one editor has already expressed an interest in reviewing the article, but of course, other editors can review it, too. Since you did such an excellent job critiquing the last version of the article, I would be very pleased if you have the time to critique this version of the article. RJGray (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@RJGray: I'm heavily involved in other reviews at the moment so won't be doing a full review of this. However, one thing I am going to raise is that I don't think it is proper for Michael Hardy to be doing the review. He is both the creator and the nominator on the first GA so is hardly independent. SpinningSpark 18:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression that Michael Hardy won't be doing the review. I think that he is doing the same thing he did the last time: Nominate the article for GA Review and let others do the review. He states on the Talk page: "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it) ..." I take "An editor" to mean someone other than himself. Also, his statement: "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it) ..." clearly excludes him from doing the review since he nominated it.

I'm looking forward to the GA Review. I learned a lot about writing Wikipedia articles from my first review and became a better and more active Wikipedia contributor because of it. Thanks again for participating in the last GA review. RJGray (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You will notice that Michael is marked as being the reviewer on the GA review page. The bot that services the GA process assumes that the first person to edit the page is going to be the reviewer. The instructions clearly state not to start the page yourself. The bot takes the page off the list of articles awaiting review once this happens. If Michael really did not intend to start the review, then you could have a very long wait for a reviewer because of that. This can be fixed by deleting the review page and reverting the actions of the bot in connection with that article. Michael is an administrator so should be able to do that himself. If he is not confident of the process, he can request it at the GA talk page. Or he can ask me to do it for him. SpinningSpark 15:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Probably the best option is for you to attend to that. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clydesdale Motor Truck Company

The article Clydesdale Motor Truck Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clydesdale Motor Truck Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on Q6 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheSandDoctor

Spinningspark thanks for your comment. I would have preferred if you had raised your concerns elsewhere and simply let the candidate answer the question. If he thinks that there was nothing wrong with the speedy deletion he could have said so himself. For what it's worth: I was still evaluating the candidate and I would have preferred if I could have posted my findings without being preemptively presented to the other participants in the discussion as somehow incompetent to assess CSD contributions. I don't think I'll be participating in the discussion any further. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The candidate had already responded to your question, and in any case I don't see how my comment interferes in any way with your ability to make an assessment. I made no comment on your competence, I merely stated what I see as the correct application of CSD A3 in this case. Your question implied that this was an incorrect use of A3. I disagreed and stated it was a perfectly proper use of A3. If you think that makes you look incompetent that is entirely your own assessment of entirely your own actions. SpinningSpark 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An undelete request

Hello Spinningspark, Is this page: Naggar Castle · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] eligible for an undelete?
If so, I request you to undelete as I intend to re-write the article. Thank you. --Gpkp (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, it was deleted as a copyright violation. The copyrighted material was present of the page from its creation to its deletion. There is no copyvio-free version that can be reverted to or restored. The page that was copied is here. You may use that at a source for a new article, but it must be in your own words, not a copy or close paraphrase. SpinningSpark 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, thank you Spinningspark. --Gpkp (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on an AfD "Procedural Keep"

Hi there - I noticed your name pop up a few times on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion page, and so I thought I'd give you a shout with a quick question you could maybe answer. I've gathered a decent experience with anti-vandalism patrol, and recently branched out to AfD patrolling as well. I came across this AfD. As you'll see, a few responses to it are that of a Procedural Keep, since it had been decided to keep the page in the previous two AfD's, and that Wiki policy has not changed since. Are such circumstances entirely objective? In other words - is it largely the case that, regardless of the circumstances of newer AfD's, if an article's AfD was once decided Keep, all subsequent AfDs must also be keep, unless a policy that was previously used has changed? Specifically, in your opinion, would the aforementioned AfD be one that could be closed as a Speedy Keep for that reason? Is it a candidate for a non-admin closure? Thank you very much for your time! --HunterM267 talk 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not the case that a page must be kept because nothing has changed since the last AfD. For one thing, consensus can change, especially over long periods of time. Generally, consensus has taken a tougher stand on WP:V over the years from what it did in the early days. For another, participants might want to provide a new rationale that wasn't voiced at the first AfD, or offer new evidence. The proposer might simply argue that the previous AfD was simply wrong, or so poorly attended that it did not properly represent the consensus of the community. If I was closing the discussion you linked, I wouldn't give much weight to the requests for procedural keep. Procedural keep might apply to a nomination that was made almost immediately after a previous close if it was made simply because the nominator didn't like the result. But using that argument for an AfD that happened in 2015 is a bit of a stretch to say the least. "Procedural keep" can be a valid recommendation; for instance, if the nominator offers no rationale for deletion, if they request an action other than deletion (that does not require admin action), or is otherwise outside the scope of AfD. Procedural keep most certainly does no mean speedy keep, although in some cases both might apply. See the speedy keep guideline for what can actually be closed as "speedy keep". I would not recommend non-admin closure of procedural keeps unless the case for doing so is obvious and clearly uncontroversial. It would certainly be very unwise for an non-admin to close such an AfD early. SpinningSpark 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed response, I appreciate it! I personally view a procedural keep from the standpoint you do, which would allow repeat / subsequent AfDs to remain circumstantial and situational and not guarenteed to follow the outcome of those before it. Thanks again! --HunterM267 talk 20:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Unwritten rules of DYK

Sorry if I stepped out of line, I guess the symbols and phrasing aren't that clear to me yet. To explain my "messing" with your original post (diff) I was told in talk page discussion that having a direct link which shows up on What links here is used by some reviewers to check if a DYK review is claimed for credit by more than one editor. The rules are rather vague on this point and thus my confusion. (In any case my comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Railway surgery contains a direct link to the WRS review so it isn't necessarily needed on the Reviewed line.) I thought this was a rather small point, like minor ce/proofreading of a nom which can be done boldly. I'm still learning DYK and there seem to be a lot of unwritten rules/practices which I'm trying to pick up by going through the noms. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip

Hey I saw you reverted an edit I made to the Chip disambiguation page. The purpose of the edit was to make the biology related subjects easier to find. I made a new edit, which takes your comment into account. Can you take a look at it? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 14:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine as far as I'm concerned. SpinningSpark 16:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ruhan Rajput

Hi. You declined the speedy for this recreated article. I still think it is a case (at least) of WP:TOOSOON, so sent it back to AfD. However, the prior version of the article which was deleted had a different name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruhaan Rajput (Ruhan), so on the current discussion, other than my mention, the typical prior AfD discussion didn't appear. Don't know if it matters, but thought it might. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a big issue, but I've now added the navbox. SpinningSpark 16:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hexamethylbenzene

Hey, thanks for the help with the revert #3 of magnetic moment. Yun Tzu has also made the same move in Hexamethylbenzene. May you take a look? --MaoGo (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Collectors market index

Hello Spinningspark, thank you for your constructive contribution to the article's AfD discussion. In the spirit of transparency: I have cleaned up a lot of the extraneous listcruft and removed entries with no evidence of significance (like the probably unremarkable COLECTY indices, which have almost no visibility on Google). I have also added your book suggestion as a "Further reading" for future improvements and another source. Hope this is an acceptable compromise to improve the previous mess into something resembling an encyclopedic article ;). A rename or redefinition of the article's scope would of course also be possible in the future. If you are still interested in the topic, it would be great if you could have a quick look on the new situation. GermanJoe (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to work on the page as it is not an area I have any sort of knowledge, but I'm ok with what you have done. I think two things would help this page along. Firstly calling it a list in the title, since even after your wholesale removals it is still largely a list. Secondly, there should be clear inclusion criteria. We can often restrict lists to only ones that can be blue linked but that won't work in this case. Something like only items that appear in lists in reliable sources or are identified by them as significant might be suitable. SpinningSpark 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Distributed element circuit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Distributed element circuit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Distributed element circuit

The article Distributed element circuit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Distributed element circuit for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good choice of lede picture

The lede picture for the planar transmission line article is certainly an improvement. It would be nice to distinguish planar transmission lines from the distributed element circuits built with them - but any useful photograph will show both, so if it is to be a photo rather than a diagram, then I reckon you have chosen the best available. --catslash (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still open to suggestions for better images or captions. SpinningSpark 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Railway surgery

On 3 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Railway surgery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some railway surgeons opposed the introduction of first aid kits on trains, maintaining that only doctors should carry out this work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Railway surgery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Railway surgery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

UNTRS appeal 22359

Hi, I should welcome your reaction to my comment, here. I am also asking Boing! said Zebedee. Just Chilling (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warren P. Mason

The article Warren P. Mason you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warren P. Mason for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

revert

I won't revert your revert[3] but [4] indicates they developed modern Stethoscope--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the infobox said, it just said invented, nothing about "modern". This is yet another example of the dangers of infoboxes. The article text quite adequately puts the Rappaport and Sprague stethoscope in context. A bald listing as "inventor" in the infobox is inaccurate because it fails, as infoboxes so often do, to capture the nuances. SpinningSpark 10:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD

Telling a keepist that his argument is invalid is like talking to a dead sheep, they will never understand and always use their same list of shitty arguments again. Keepists also use vandal tactics sometimes to get an article kept. » Shadowowl | talk 15:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Cottages in Dorset

The deletion log states that

16:10, 2 September 2018 Spinningspark deleted page List of cottages in Dorset (WP:POINTy creation relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villas in Naples)

This action appears to be quite improper as Spinningspark was involved and so they should please revert. If they think that there is something wrong with the redirect they can use the appropriate process of WP:RfD. But note that I would contest such action as I myself am quite familiar with cottages in Dorset. There are certainly notable examples such as Old Came Rectory. That is currently a red link but not for long as I shall make a start on it too. This is how we build the encyclopedia, and insofar as I have a point, it is that we should be constructive. Red links are a "clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You created the page with the sole intention of making my example redlink turn blue. Please don't try to pretend you didn't. Thats POINTy. I'm not going to get into a silly Wikilawyering argument over the policy justification. If you really are going to create a proper article, go and get on with it, I'm not restoring anything. SpinningSpark 17:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of cottages in Dorset

I have asked for a deletion review of List of cottages in Dorset. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, shut up. » Shadowowl | talk 10:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird PROD problem

I nominated ABeam Consulting for deletion via PROD but a weird thing has happened. The date and time indicating when the seven days would be up has come and passed but the message the article is now eligible for deletion has not popped up like it would normally do. What do I do? Thanks. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And now I see the problem has self-resolved. Sorry for the trouble. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sinadil

Hiya. I went there yesterday as we were in the area. Dariush Zandi's book is totally useless, BTW - the entire topography of these areas has changed massively since 1991 and Zandi's book describes wadis and tracks that in the vast majority no longer exist - tracks have been washed away, whole towns have sprung up and others gone away. For years I've been meeting confused, lost people offroad clutching sweaty copies of 'Offroad in the Emirates'!!! The Hatta track is now, for instance, black top all the way and inaccessible unless you are a GCC citizen. And Sinadil is a new settlement, there's no sign of the old one - and it's inaccessible from the UAE side - the border fence is a 'hard' border and the crossing point was closed and unmanned when we went there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like Zandi was accurate at the time. That is still a good source for Wikipedia purposes, notability remains even after something no longer exists. Do you actually have a copy of the book? There might be something in it that can be added to the article. SpinningSpark 09:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hola. I do have the book, yes. Very amusing flicking through my dusty copy - EVERY offroad track in it is now a tarmac road! There's some stuff about the gorge at Sinadil, I'll add tomorrow. BTW, the chaps at the Masfout copshop totally denied the existence of Sinadil. I think now it's been consumed by the border and is Omani, the UAE has washed its hands of it! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, added what scant useful information was in the book. I took the liberty of removing it from 'Further reading' as it's a reference now. It doesn't refer to petroglyphs at all, which is a shame... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Manhole cover in space

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Manhole cover in space?

Best question ever. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Azia

Your close of the AfD for this states that "Large chunks copied vebatim from The Ancient City of Azia". This was not proven during the discussion. Did you get hold of a copy yourself? Is the book available online? Please advise. Andrew D. (talk)

Just google it. SpinningSpark 17:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I already googled the topic extensively and have done so again. I did not find anything which would support the contention that this was an "unambiguous copyright infringement" per WP:G12. Please provide more details of the evidence supporting this action. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Your refusal to accept that I did a proper copyvio investigation is bordering on a failure of AGF and quite irritating. Search for the title in gbooks, feed chunks of the article into the snippet search box. One search I recall because it is such a strange turn of phrase and returned a good chunk of the article was "warrant chief". Regards, SpinningSpark 22:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ADMINACCT, "...editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."
I already tried googling for a phrase from the article and didn't find anything that didn't seem to be a mirror or scraping from Wikipedia. I hadn't tried snippet searching though, as that's often quite difficult and frustrating, and so it is good to understand that this was the technique which was used. Trying your example of "warrant chief", I can confirm that the following sentence was used in the article and was probably taken from the book: "Ezeanochie-Ohanu was made warrant Chief by the Colonial Administration because of his brightness and wealth."
While I agree that there's an issue, it's not clear that such fragments are sufficient to warrant speedy deletion per WP:G12 which states, "For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as ... where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." The editor who created this article apparently did so in good faith, clearly declaring their main sources. As an inexperienced editor, they may have supposed that their action was reasonable fair use -- just quoting a few sentences from a book of 204 pages. By peremptorily deleting the article, further development to fix up the problem is disrupted and a good faith editor from a developing nation has been bitten. This is not best practise, especially as there is a significant issue of systemic bias which skews our coverage. For example. this project found that Canada was mentioned 27 times more often than Nigeria and here we have a town in Nigeria being deleted completely, rather than being preserved as a stub.
Those books seem to be important sources for the topic but they are proving difficult to obtain. The British Library doesn't seem to have a copy but I'll try some of the other big libraries in the area as I'd expect SOAS to want such material. This will give me a focus during the upcoming Bloomsbury festival events. As and when I obtain copies, I shall establish the extent to which there was non-infringing content too. In the meantime, I shall create a stub for the topic.
Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
That's nonsense. All you ever needed to know was in the log entry I provided. It's not my fault if you don't have the competence to make use of it. It isn't just that one passage. That was just a notable example I could recall. At least two-thirds is provably directly copied and the rest is highly likely given the limitations of snippet view. Even if some of it is not copyvio, there was no copyvio free version to roll back to, so it all has to go, regardless of how upset that may make the creator (or you for that matter). SpinningSpark 13:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Re Zikt

FYI - In 2009 there was a mass bot creation drive of articles from a horrifically unreliable site, and a bunch of us were deleting the products. We did not have time to verify them, but using this method meant that if someone wanted to recreate the article and tend and water it, so to speak, there was no objection to doing so. Certainly, if there's good cause to recreate it, simply do so (though don't use fallingrain as a source). Orderinchaos 02:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops

I suspect you are right (Re Cydippe (mother of Cleobis)) Thanks for paying close attention and having the right wiki sense to challenge it. I do catch quite a few copy_within_Wikipedia issues but I miss a few. One of my frustrations is that it is my sense that detecting these would be a relatively modest addition to the Copy Patrol software but so far my requests have fallen on deaf ears.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm 51.7.34.192. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

Hi

Hi.

MrEagerMcBeaver (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page "Grace_Sai" - How to recover?

Dear Spinningspark,

I am writing to you regarding the deletion of the wiki page of "Grace Sai".

From the history log, I have noted the reason listed as "G4" but the "deletion discussion" (what I understand to be the rationale for this proposed deletion) is unclear to me.

I am writing to enquire the rationale behind this deletion, and to seek your advice how to restore this webpage as I believe there is significant value in having this webpage restored with sufficient amount of relevant and recent webpages to support the (re)existence of this webpage.

Examples of relevant supporting webpages as follows;

http://www.hnworth.com/article/2015/08/20/grace-sai-societys-missing-piece-ceo-co-founder-the-hub-singapore/ http://www.womensweekly.com.sg/inspire/meet-the-great-women-of-our-time-2017-education-public-service-nominee-grace-sai/ https://medium.com/@give_womentum/grace-sai-fostering-startup-communities-6968f9799977 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/singapore-is-global-start-up-hub-but-lacks-vision-in-tech-ecosystem.html https://sg.asiatatler.com/generation-t/2018-list/gracesai https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/chinese-tech-giants-battle-alibaba-tencent-southeast-asia-10702424

Webpage in matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Sai

Awaiting your advice and/or resolution on this matter.

Kind regards,

LK 103.252.200.115 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

G4 is shorthand for one of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. In this case, there was a previous article at this title which was deleted following this discussion. In my opinion, the new article was not sufficiently different from the previously deleted artice to overcome the reasons for its deletion. I have restored the article as a draft here so you can improve it. Please submit it for review when you think it is ready. It the page is not worked on or submitted, it will be deleted again. SpinningSpark 12:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page 2016

Lincoln Townley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Spinningspark, Looking at creating a page but you removed the page "Lincoln Townley" in 2016 - "Does not meet wp:gng and does not meet wp:creative". With notability, I'd just like to ask if you think this has changed.

(one of the first artists to accept bitcoin Here, his association with the Bafta's here and him selling out at the Saatchi gallery here to name a few).

I can't find many press/sources before you deleted though. I've added a page lincoln Townley and would love any insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbgriffiths (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pbgriffiths: The deletion was via the Proposed deletion process. This process is for uncontroversial deletions for which no one has objected. Such articles are automatically restored if someone requests it. My action was purely administrative – I deleted a proposal that had gone unchallenged for the requisite period of time. If you wish to discuss the new article with someone, I would normally sugggest the editor who made the proposal, user:LaMona in this case, but she has not been around for several years. You could request an assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. SpinningSpark 13:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Sorry for adding at top, and unsigned Pbgriffiths (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Freshworks

Hi admin, just got a notification that my edits was reverted on the Freshworks deletion discussion page. I was replying to another user on that same page, who had tagged me. Just thought of letting you know. Csgir (talk)

Recent hoax deletion

First, thanks. Some people, even some admins, are too quick to take any link that works at face value. It occurred to me while looking through this that Internet Archive, while extremely useful, isn’t a stable source, nor an inherently reliable one, and that there should be some caveats placed on it for anything other than a convenience cite. It also made me wonder whether Wiki itself has any arrangements with IA to report this sort of thing. Again, thanks for rapidly flushing this hoax off of Wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Pity this guy wasn't flushed out earlier. We now have four years worth of tainted edits in the 'pedia to deal with. I don't think IA should suddenly be considered dubious. Even the most eminent journals and distinguished organisations can fall victim to a hoax. We have to stay alert. I've already reported this to IA, it's down to them what they do about it. SpinningSpark 19:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, he was flushed ou earlier, several times, but he allowed to go back to ground again after. He also posted as “BarbaraMervin”, by the look of it; if you have any friendly CUs handy, although it might be there is no evidence remaining.
Regarding IA, I have to strenuously disagree. This isnt a case of professional or expert review failing, this is a case of a completely unreviewed source. Some Dude on the Internet posts his own version of a respectable source, and IA just lets him. Hell, that has even less review than you see here on Wiki. This isn’t to say that IA doesnt contain large amounts of curated work, but there is no way to tell in some viewing which is which. Qwirkle (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NEED HELP

I have noticed that you have made excellent edit on my page Bishandot. Thank you very much for that. I need your help to improve it. I once had a conflict with PRehse and he promoted my article for deletion on irrelevant basis. Please Help me to improve that article and try to remove maintenance templates from my article. I have got frustrated with those. I don't know what should I do. I worked really hard on that article. If it will be deleted, It will be a great unjustice. Kindly Give few of your precious time to help me. I shall be very thankful to you for this favour. Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani 17 November 2018

If it gets deleted it will be entirely your own fault. You have exhibited extreme ownership of the article, repeatedly reverting other editors who are actually improving what is a very poor offering. Try listening to others a bit more.SpinningSpark 20:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spinningspark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bonne Nuit les Petits listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bonne Nuit les Petits. Since you had some involvement with the Bonne Nuit les Petits redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Omar Raja article

I saw you pushed Omar Raja's article back to draft. Is it because of the tone of the article? It passes WP:GNG for notability with the articles presented, which is why I pushed it through draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

See my comments on the article's talk page for why I don't think it should be in mainspace. The article was submitted for review by a disruptive sock. We should wait until the original author is ready to submit it, who might very well now respond to the templates and improve it first. SpinningSpark 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm rewriting the article to get rid of the tone. It should pass notability, given how many sports and Internet websites are writing about him. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you take a look at it now? It's been completely redone and stuffed with references. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
After a quick scan, that seems enormously better. I haven't done a full review, but I would not object to it being reposted. I suspect that this edit was intended to be an AfC comment rather than a section heading. SpinningSpark 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That's an artifact from the "Submit" button in draft. I'll remove it and send it through. Thanks again for checking up on it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Trachea dilator.png

Thanks for uploading File:Trachea dilator.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark/Archive_25&oldid=871692232"