User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

DYK nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)

Hello! Your submission of Porcupine (Cheyenne) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Spinningspark, it's been two weeks since I first pinged you from the nomination page, and over a week since I posted this notification. If you wish to pursue this nomination, please respond there within the next 48 hours. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for continuing to take an interest in this article, but I'm still looking at a review that goes well outside the requirements. Since when has "too casual or colloquial language" been part of the requirements? I am also not happy with the claim that I am editorializing by saying Hancock started the war. I am pretty sure that can be justified by the sources. For Heavens sake, he turned up at peace negotiations in division strength, burnt down a village when he didn't get his way, and sent the cavalry to chase down the refugees. If someone did that to US township it would undoubtedly be characterised as an act of war without comment. And that's just from the information in the article, I left out some of the more unsavoury claims, like the suggestion that his troops raped children. If the objectors want to show me a source that says the war was caused by something other than Hancock's actions I might start to take notice, but all the ones I looked at support what I have written. If someone wants to offer a review that sticks to the pertinent issues I am more than happy to address them, but I don't feel much like having an uphill battle over the review we have at present. SpinningSpark 08:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I asked Chris Woodrich, who is a very experienced DYK reviewer and admin (and my DYK mentor), to take a look at the nomination; you can see his comment on the review, which is that there are neutrality issues. As you seem to disagree with this view, it seems to me that we're at an impasse, unless his comments are something you can work with. If not, I don't see any alternative but to close the nomination. I'm very sorry things haven't worked out with this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

deleted page

Hello - you recently deleted the incorrect page. Schisler Museum was the page flagged for deletion. Schisler Museum of Wildlife & Natural History was the page that needed to be kept. Now the name of the page is incorrect, reading only Schisler Museum. Please correct this immediately. Thank you. Klinglerc (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I correctly deleted the page that was marked for speedy deletion. You appear to be trying to change the name of an article by copying and pasting it into a new page. This is a highly undesirable practice, see WP:MOVE for more information and the correct method for renaming a page. SpinningSpark 15:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Bailey Marquis

January has come and I will get to work on Thomas Bailey Marquis.

Any chance that you could take a look at Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida) - a 1920s church that happens to have 2 current presidential candidates as parishioners.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Annette Obrestad

Hi, hope you are well. I have to log off but have just discovered another serial date-changer, User:Loose eel and the above is just one of many articles changed. Regards Denisarona (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh...

You left a blank section on 2 bore. Widgetdog (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What blank section, and when did I do this? My last edit to the article was over 4 months ago, and that only added an entry to see also. SpinningSpark 23:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Must've been someone else, sorry. Widgetdog (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Page 'Steven's Paradox'

Hello!

I just recently saw that you deleted by page 'Steven's Paradox' off of Wikipedia for no sources. I would like to say that I just created this page and ran out of time to add sources. I was planning on doing this today, but this is obviously not possible.. Did you even read my contest?? Well according to the notice, all administrators considering deletion are supposed to. Thank You.Smith16sts (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Conway Article Refinement

Happy New Year to you. Just getting back up to speed and I see you've archived our initial discussion on the article. I appreciate your feedback on the article and I'll follow your recommendations as I refine the article to be in the proper tone. I found more recent info on subject which will help me in making sure it's updated and in the proper tone. I'll let you know shortly when that's complete. Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't particularly want to get involved in reviewing. Submit it for review at AFC when you are ready. SpinningSpark 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A message.

Can I recreate Littlest Pet Shop: Popular? 黄天使魚類❤ (blub o0O) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Not unless you can first address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LPS: Popular. See WP:42 for a summary of what is needed. If you do create a new article, you would be wise to create it as a draft through the Articles for creation process. SpinningSpark 09:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Porcupine (Cheyenne) image

Hi Spinningspark. I understand why you reverted my change, but on my browsers, placing the image on the left creates huge swathes of white space under the image, it pushes the TOC to the middle of the page and creates a huge area of white space to the right of it. Could you not just create a mirrored image? SchroCat did this for me in a matter of seconds for Matthew Pinsent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Like --->

... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That is really strange behaviour. What browser are you using? I've checked four different browsers and they are all ok. Reversing the image is proscribed by the MOS (WP:IMGLOC), while having faces face inwards is preferred. SpinningSpark 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I get a large an ungainly block of white too. The reversal of faces isn't proscribed in toto, but advised against if there is possible confusion (it's also a guideline, which can be followed or not, given a modicum of common sense). There is no such confusion here in reversing the face, and I'd strongly advise using the image on the right, or of finding a different image for the lead. (By the way, my browser isn't "obscure": it's IE (and I get the same issue on Chrome too). - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I get it the white space on Chrome and Safari. It's a mess, I'm afraid, which is why I changed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And Firefox. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. That image is already uploaded at Commons should you wish to use it on the right-hand side to eliminate these white space issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's "just" a guideline doesn't mean we should be ignoring it without good reason. The guideline is unequivocal on this point "images of people ought not be reversed" whereas image placement on the right is only "in most cases". I have viewed the page in Firefox, IE and Chrome (and other browsers) and it looks fine to me. It is possible that the problem is due to something in your preferences. Have you tried viewing this while logged off? What operating system are you using? Would you please upload a screenshot of the problem so we can all see what we are discussing. SpinningSpark 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother, I've just seen what the problem is. The TOC moves when viewed on a wide screen. This should be easily fixable. SpinningSpark 11:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so we now just have a HUGE swath of whitespace below the lead to the right of the TOC. Also a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is: use the reversed image and place it to the right. Or use a different image. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing images of people in this way is misleading and is not something that should be done in an encyclopaedia. It's a mild case of scholarly deception. That's why it's in the MOS in the first place. SpinningSpark 12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? Is it because he'd never face left to have his photo taken? I don't follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother, I've read why it could be misleading. A huge leap of faith in this case, but never mind. I'll drop this and move on to other articles whose editors are happy to try to fix such formatting problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

spinning sparks
... you were recipient no. 719 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Porcupine (Cheyenne)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Frog galvanoscope

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Self-experimentation in medicine

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page

Hi, You have recently deleted a page I created "Bar Code Date ltd". I have read the reason you gave for deleting the page - [indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)] - however I disagree. The company is a leading barcoding solutions company and supplies to many well know brands and organisations. Other similar pages exist -

[[1]]

Is there anything I can do to get the page re-published and inline with the guidelines in your view.

Kind regards, Angela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelajane23 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:42 for a summary of our expectations on a notable subject. If I were to restore this, in its present state it would only get deleted again after an Articles for deletion debate. Any sentence in an article about a company that has the word leading in it is likely marketing copy, see WP:WTW. WP:Notability is not inherited by selling notable products or having notable customers. By the way, the claim in the article that the company is a manufacturer is not verified by the company website. Other articles are largely irrelevant, see WP:Other stuff exists.

If you work for this company, you must declare that you are a paid editor. SpinningSpark 13:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Use Images in a book

Dear Spinningspark,

 I am writing a book about fundamentals of filter theory and I wanted to use the portraits of Vitold Belevitch and some others like Cauer's portrait. Can I do freely? Of course, I will cite the source. By the way, what is the correct way of citation images from wikipedia?

Best Regards 46.24.201.238 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To find out the licensing terms of images, you should click through the image to the image page where they will be displayed. In the particular case of both the images you mention, they are not licensed, and are used on a "fair use" basis. You will need to ask the copyright holder for permission to use them in your book, who can most likely be found by following the link on the image page to the "source" of the image. In general, most images used on Wikipedia are user created and are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and can be reused under those terms, but again, this does not apply to "fair use" images. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information on reusing Wikipedia content. SpinningSpark 15:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@46.24.201.238: I don't know whether my offer comes too late for you - you can use the photograph of Wilhelm Cauer which I put in the German wikipedia article. It is a photograph taken 1935 in Göttingen. I am his grandson, Rudolf Polzer. My mail address is Rudolf.Polzer@i-r-p.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:86:8A07:2A00:AE9E:17FF:FE4A:C462 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

HMS Beagle clocks

Please note that a third clock from the HMS Beagle second voyage was sold at Bonhams in Dec 2014.

This would cause an update to the "Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle" page (which says two are known to have survived) as well as "List of chronometers on HMS Beagle" (which can now link to the N chronometer and have possibly have an image.)

Please consider updating the Wikipedia pages. I lack the skill to do it properly myself.

Heiberg (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

DYK for Paul I. Richards

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Capokolam Speedy Deletion

I note that you have deleted my page under the 'Speedy Deletion' process, and you say simply that you cannot accept my rationale as to why this shouldnt be the case. However you offer no reason as to why by argument is not convincing. Again, CSD A7 is not eligible to delete my page as it is a an educational institution, and furthermore clearly has credible signficance - you have not explained why you do not agree with this. There are myriad examples of pages for similar organisations, who in fact re arguably less significant. Please can you explain why you have deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimecesaire28 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't duplicate your posts here, it isn't necessary to post in two places. SpinningSpark 13:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis

Natalac toured all last year with O.T. Genasis, Chedda da Connect, Wayne Wonder, Mystical, kwame etc. inside some of the biggest Venues in the united states? I had made my response to the original person who looked to delete and i made my last reply i was waiting for a reply.... i didnt see a speedy deletion issued...or a response... Maybe if You look at these references <removed> Thank you::: Yameka (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Deleted multiple times. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not the least bit interested in looking at your photo gallery or Youtube videos so please stop cluttering my talk page with this shit. If you want me to look at a source post just the link and a brief explanation of why it supports notability. Performing at notable venues does not make the performer notable per WP:INHERIT. The deletion was not a speedy deletion; there was a full deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis in which you took part. See my closing remarks there for more information. SpinningSpark 15:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• :::OK, My apologies I'll Keep It Short I wont do that again:::
• == Link - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O.T._Genasis_and_Natalac_CIAA_Performing_Live_in_Charlotte_at_The_Fillmore.jpg

• == Explanation of why it supports Notability -

CIAA BasketBall Tournament 2015 hires Natalac to headline for the Once a year and Biggest Event in Charlotte, NC with O.T. genasis on the Under cardYameka (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. i didnt have this information prior to deletionYameka (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being short with you, you seem to have a poor understanding of our inclusion guidelines. The link you provided is to a Wikimedia image and is thus not a reliable source, much less a source establishing notabililty under the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). See WP:42 for a quick summary of what is needed. It is also possible to establish notability under the criteria at WP:BAND, but you still need reliable sources to verify that the subject does, in fact, meet those criteria. SpinningSpark 19:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

PeeBuddy Page Deletion

Hi There,

Please create a wikipage of PeeBuddy. It's an Female urination device & helping females to stay hygiene. It protects them from germs & provide them freedom to stand & pee as men. This is really awesome concept. You can find so many recommendation of this concept in India & now this product is open for all in PAN India, I met with these guys in an investment meet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgjaswant (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not an article I'm ever going to write. It was deleted because it was irredeemable advertising. I have no idea whether or not this company is notable enough to have a well-written article here, but they certainly did not invent the concept; there are plenty of other makers out there. SpinningSpark 14:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

drive-past comment The only one I'd heard of redirects to Female urination device. Bazj (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Online estate agents

Just removed 4 chunks of copyvio from it. So much of the rest reads as if cut & pasted from press releases I'm sure there's more. That then leaves the chore of picking out which versions need revdel. Are you sure it's worth keeping? Bazj (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I declined a prod made on the basis of notability, the question of copyvio was never raised. You can still nominate it for deletion with a speedy G12 tag if you think it is copyvio. It can't be revdeleted if the copyvio was there from its creation. SpinningSpark 22:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it as promotional. It probably would make an article, if it were rewritten. And it would make a much stronger article if not limited to the UK. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: I'm not sure who you think it was promoting; several different companies were mentioned in the article, but given the copyvio problems, it is probably best gone. SpinningSpark 21:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

right, I used it as a shorthand. I considered it promotional for the practice of buying real estate online, and I'm reasonably sure the rest of it is copyvio also--it readslike a web page or a popular magazine article. But I didn't want to track down the sources. In other words, exactly as you said. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Thetupeta

Hi. First, I didn't think it was controversial, since the creator hadn't done any work on it since its creation. Since I could find no reliable sources on it, wasn't sure whether it was a real place or not. Second, you mentioned in your edit summary "Village is in Census of India". When I come across these types of articles in G13, If I can provide sources, I like to move the stub to the mainspace, adding those sources. In this instance, I could find nothing on this village, other than the google link currently there, which is normally not considered enough. If you could point me to the link you found, I'll re-work the piece and get it out of draft space. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

All I had to go on was this snippet from the 1991 census which isn't going to tell you much. Possibly it says the population was 299 in 1991, but I can't even be sure of that much. The 2011 census is available online but I can't find it in that. It would help enormously if we knew which mandal it was meant to be in. If you don't know you have to open the page for all 56 of them individually to find it. The 1991 census snippet has Thetupeta listed under Ravulakollu underlined, which may mean that Thetupeta is a sub-village of Ravulakollu. Google maps backs this up, placing Ravula Kollu and Thetupeta around 600 metres apart as the crow flies. From the 2011 census Ravula Kollu is in Ponnaluru Mandal. Checking a couple of the other names in the 1991 census, only the underlined ones are in the online 2011 census, so I am guessing that the 2011 census did not go down to the sub-village level, or whatever that division is called. Sorry, can't get any more than that. SpinningSpark 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. If I get ambitious, perhaps I'll work on it. Can't really say it excites me though. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pantapath

Thanks for offering an opinion on the proposed deletion of Pantapath. Could you share a couple examples of the news coverage you think may make the topic notable? If you can convince me, it'll save me a lot of effort taking it to AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a set of references prepared that are a slam dunk for notability, but take a look at this news story on traffic jams for instance, and this proposed flyover construction (although I'm not sure if it is the same place). The street has numerous important buildings, and I can't help feeling that if this were in New York or London there would be no question of it having an article. Don't forget, we are up against the language difficulty here, there may be much more in non-English sources. Anyway, if this is deleted, I think it should be looked at a lot more carefully first, meaning an AFD. SpinningSpark 07:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please think of the impact you have on others

the mop

Hello Spinningspark, when I asked you "Which Wikiproject?", I had already looked for that, but I didn't see it. Apparently this template is not displayed on on a mobile device, as I was using. I didn't know that, so I searched up and down the very long conversation, which takes a minute or two just to scroll, and if I were still on a mobile device now, it would have taken at least the same amount of time just to get the WP name. You, on the other hand, saw the note, and it would have cost you just a couple seconds to copy it in either your post of 07:29 or that of 18:36. You know that the ease of including internal links is the reason why wikis became so popular, so I don't understand why you couldn't provide the link at least when specifically asked.

This is now the second time that I'm incurring extra work due to the interaction with you. Normally, I don't worry about that, as I accept that as par for the course on a project that depends on a diverse group of people. But I believe that a main responsibility of an administrator is to make contributing easy for other well-intended editors; that's expressed in the humility of calling it "being given the mop". Please consider spending a second or two when you can save the other editor minutes. — Sebastian 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Most people can't even manage to find the talk page at all in mobile view. It's the worst piece of junk ever cobbled together by Wikimedia. Use the desktop view and manually zoom in to where you want to be. It's much easier if you are trying to do anything other than just read the article. SpinningSpark 10:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a red herring. I did't write this message to get told by you what view to look at. Let me make it very simple. Please consider the following situation:

1. A steps on B's toes. [2]
2. B says "ouch". [3]
3. A says "sorry" and steps on B's toes again. [4]
4. B says "ouch". [5]
5. A steps on B's toes again. [6]
6. B says "Ouch, you're stepping on my toe". [7]
7. A says "Wear different shoes!" [8]

What do you think of A's behavior in this case? Now, consider our interaction. I added the diffs that map the simple scenario to our respective actions. Can you see my point? — Sebastian 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction: You were not actually hurting me, you just inconvenienced me, so a better example would be: A and B are in an airplane in economy class, and A, who has the window seat, is repeatedly squeezing past her for no apparent reason. In the end, A tells B "Next time, get a window seat!" — Sebastian 06:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe First Party

Hello Spinningspark, now this is a funny coincidence that I'm coming to your page with a completely different issue. I just became aware of the article Zimbabwe First Party through WP:HELP, and alerted the Project that I wanted to add their template. To my surprise I noticed that the talk page (not the article) had been deleted by you previously. Since I want to avoid any impression that I'm wheel-warring with you, I want to ask you if you have any objections to adding {{WikiProject Zimbabwe}} there. — Sebastian 07:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem at all with that, you didn't really need to ask, but thanks for doing so. The article is a different matter, it still has problems and might be speediable, I'm going to take a closer look shortly. SpinningSpark 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that you reverted my removal of the speedy tag, even after I drastically toned down the article. At first glance, this seems like wheel-warring to me, but I'll have to look into the applicable policies, since this is a first for me, as I am cautious in avoiding anything close to wheel-warring. For now, I will WP:DISENGAGE. In the mean time I would like to ask you to reconsider your action, and see if you can't help fix the issues, instead of threatening to delete the article. In particular, it would be very helpful if you could point out which concrete wording you have a problem with, especially since these articles are edited by new editors who can need some guidance. — Sebastian 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I have not reverted you, I have nominated it under a different criterion. Secondly, I am not threatening to delete the article, if that was the case, I would already have done it. I nominated it so someone else could decide, largely because after your edits I felt it was borderline enough that it needed a second opinion. I think you should leave it to someone else too, as editing the article has now made you involved. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Block of User:South African Association for Jazz Education

No, not the usual complaint about a block :) Just suggesting you also block User:SAJEjazz as the account that created the one you blocked ([9]) and the account that created the userpage of the one you blocked. Obviously the same, and username is still representing the group. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe First Party

What s going on Sir/Madam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchikove (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. SpinningSpark 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe First Page

I need your help in pointing out the content you deem copywright vio Thank youMchikove (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)mChikove

Don't you know what you copied? SpinningSpark 09:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of The Giggling Snakes

Hi, you recently deleted an article on a Queanbeyan based gang known as The Giggling Snakes. I was wondering I there would be anyway I could be able to copy the text and put it into a word document so I can keep it for personal use Xx Salty12V xX (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail and I will think about sending it to you. You will need to register an e-mail address in your prefernces first. SpinningSpark 10:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

ticketscript draft deletion

Hi There, thank you for reviewing my submission on ticketscript. i would like to update this page to ensure it does not read like an advertisement are you able to undelete the draft so that i can update this page thanks Regards jarrod taylor (user: taylorjarrod) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjarrod (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I can do, but for articles deleted for unambiguous advertising it is usually best to start again from scratch. By the way, I was the deleting admin, not the reviewer, but I agree with both the other editors who reviewed the article that it reads like marketing copy. Also, if you are connected with this company, you should read our policy on paid-contribution disclosure and our guideline on conflict of interest. SpinningSpark 14:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects

Spinning, there is a consensus to allow speedy deletion of all redirects created by Neelix as he created thousands of ridiculous ones. The summary and links are at WP:G6. This is in regards to Ex patria. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware, but I think that one warrants a discussion first. There was another I was going to decline but someone else deleted it while I was looking into it. SpinningSpark 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Commensurate line circuit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on discussion

Can you please comment on this discussion. The article GoldenEye introduced it as a spy-fi film, so I categorized it as one too, but user:Betty Logan removed me. The intro already refers to it as a spy-fi film , meaning I did not put it; it was already there. The article is also ranked as a good article, meaning the spy-fi label is accepted by the community. Now if I'm correct, the category Spy-Fi films should be added in the category section because that's what the film is introduced as. But user Betty Logan removed the category multiple times asking me to obtain consensus. Can I ask if an article is introduced by that subgenre and ranked a good article, what am I missing in order to add this category?

Also because about half the sources on the spy-fi page, most of them books and from google scholar, refer to James Bond as an example of Spy-Fi, I categorized the article as such. Mind you I didn't change the content, just added the category, but user:Betty Logan insists on adding sources. Even despite I kept pointing to references in the Spy-fi article that clearly cite James Bond as an example because it includes elements of spy-fi.

Are you an admin? Can please help clear this mess? I'm not asking for you to argue on my behalf or any, but just looking for some help resolve this unnecessary dispute. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

PS the discussion seems to be going crazy. I'm being accused of making personal attacks there. If you can help resolve this silly mess, I would appreciate the good hand. Thanks again.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking me to intervene because I am an administrator and I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy-fi? It would not be right for me to intervene as an administrator because my comments at the AFD make me an involved party. In any case, it is not the role of administrators to arbitrate in content disputes. However, I can certainly give you advice. Challenging an article categorisation is the same as challenging article text. That is, if it is challenged whether or not a title is in the spy-fi genre, then it is the responsibility of the editor reinserting the information to supply a reliable source as an inline citation. This is in WP:V, one of our core content policies. For now, I would advise leaving it alone until the AFD plays out. If the AFD closes as keep, then there is good reason to have a category for the genre. If it closes as delete on the basis that the genre does not exist, then logically the category should go too. SpinningSpark 15:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Cassidy

Hi Spinningspark, Well done for removing the changes made by Scenography. Keeping things 'on topic' is only appropriate if the topic is to whitewash the reputation of Daniel Cassidy. As you say, Cassidy's lack of qualifications and lack of skills are of central importance. As it happens, Scenography recently vandalized the item on Gibberish, removing demonstrably true claims (that gibiris is found in Irish as a loan-word) and putting in nonsense about gibberish coming from gob or gab (with a reference to Mackay's work of crank etymology) or that it comes from geab ar ais, a phrase which does not exist and is not found in any Irish text or dictionary (with a reference to Daniel Cassidy's book.) (Personal attack removed) I suggest we keep an eye on him and if he keeps putting in nonsense in support of Daniel Cassidy, he should be reported for his biased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saineolai (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Coeditors, what is the best way for us to work together on the Daniel Cassidy article? Should I continue with specific edits, and talk about each edit? Or, possibly, would you rather see from me a draft of the entire article, to see whether the entire article is neutral?

In isolation, one of my edits sounded like support ("attended Cornell"). But I also added criticism ("the etymologies he proposes for individual words would require a substantial amount of research before they could be taken as fact").

Would it help to discuss general matters before I make specific edits? For example, we could agree on the sources for the article. We could agree on an outline for the article.

As for the gibberish article, my edits were the kind I try to make: I corrected facts, improved structure, and kept others' contributions. I also shortened the article, which might look like vandalism. Certainly, I will discuss the gibberish article in more detail on its talk page, but may we please work on the Daniel Cassidy article first? Scenography (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If you accept that Cassidy's theories of Irish etymologies are uninformed WP:FRINGE with no scholarly support and that we should consequently not be giving any WP:UNDUE weight to them (in most cases, not mentioning them at all) then we should be able to collaborate fine. If you don't accept that, then we have a majpr disagreement. SpinningSpark 19:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark, yes, I agree about undue weight. I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean about "not mentioning them." An article about a person should describe a person's claims, briefly.

I suggest that the article have three sections: life and works, Slang book, and criticism. The Slang book gets a section as his most notable work. Criticism gets a section to avoid undue weight.

Can we agree on the following points?

• The article will include a section about the Slang book and its claims. I added some information about the book's contents when I quoted a book review ("Cassidy's main thesis"). Before my edit, the article only mentioned "etymologies" before proceeding into criticism.
• The article will include only meaningful critique. The book review has meaningful critique, saying that Cassidy's proposals still "require a substantial amount of research." Can we agree to remove general insults ("nincompoop") and general compliments ("eureka moments")?
• The article will have criticism in its own section. For example, I hope the biographical section will say that Cassidy "attended Cornell," end of sentence. The criticism section can say that Cassidy had no degree in linguistics, or no academic degree, or whatever other information is in the sources. Scenography (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I had in mind the Gibberish article when I said Cassidy should not be mentioned at all. As for the rest, the proper place to discuss Cassidy's article is on the article talk page where all interested editors can see the discussion. SpinningSpark 23:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, I hope I am not breaking any Wiki protocols by putting this here. I don't find Wikipedia user-friendly. Feel free to delete if so. Scenography, I am not attacking you personally here, but I believe you are biased, unconsciously or consciously, in favour of Cassidy and that this is a problem. (Personal attack removed) did you know Daniel Cassidy personally? Do you have mutual friends? If you did, this is a conflict of interest and you really should not be editing this article or any article relating to Cassidy's work. Saineolai (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Saineolai, I think the three of us are a good group to bring the article to a neutral point of view. One of the Wikipedia policies or guidelines describes neutral as an article that all parties can read and approve. Can that be our goal? You are right to think that I am interested in the Daniel Cassidy article because I know people who knew him. But I didn't know him. I didn't ever meet him or hear him speak. My contributions to the article aren't biased towards him, or else I wouldn't have quoted the book review, which says that "a substantial amount of research" is lacking from his work. I am a technical writer for a living, with a bias towards neutral. Scenography (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Scenography Thank you for your honesty about your links to Cassidy’s social set. I still feel that the fact that you are a friend of Cassidy’s friends potentially taints your contribution and I certainly think that the article on Cassidy and on gibberish were more objective before you got to them. You changed them to imply that Cassidy had a degree (as SpinningSpark says, attended on its own implies graduated, because most people who attend university graduate), you removed genuine information and restored information which is entirely bogus. I don’t really like the word or the concept of neutral. I prefer objective. If you wish to defend Cassidy, then the only way to do it is to find evidence for his claimed Gaelic phrases. If Cassidy says geab ar ais exists (to give one example out of hundreds), I want an example that someone used this phrase before Cassidy. It’s not enough to show that the words that make up the phrase are Irish. If you want to be useful here and if you insist on contributing to articles about Cassidy rather than other things, I suggest you pursue that particular wild goose-chase, looking for proof of Cassidy’s Irish phrases, though I can tell you now, the chances of your finding any evidence supporting any of Cassidy’s arguments is virtually zero. As a linguist with a doctorate in Irish, I don’t see any value in Cassidy’s book. As for your point about insults, that is a statement of opinion, negative in that case. The piece before it from Best American Poetry is a positive statement of opinion. I can't see any reason why one should one be given precedence over the other. Saineolai (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Saineolai, Let's take SpinningSpark's advice and discuss specific points about the Daniel Cassidy article, like "attended," on the article's talk page. I copied my suggestions from this page to that.

As for the gibberish article, I didn't originally add Cassidy's supposition (diff). I left it in as only a passing mention (diff). I changed the citation to say there is disagreement with his book and included a link to the Daniel Cassidy article, for readers to investigate the disagreement.

Yes, I deleted sentences you wrote ("The terms geab and geabaire are certainly Irish"). I didn't see the need for a detailed argument against Cassidy in the gibberish article. Is his derivation of gibberish especially well known? I should have asked that question on the article's talk page.

Combined, my revisions show I agree with SpinningSpark and you that unlikely etymology deserves little attention. I don't mind Cassidy's supposition being gone from the gibberish article, and I won't add it back. For that article, I put much more effort into editing the true story of gobbledygook. Scenography (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Scenography, With respect, you're being disingenuous here. I stated that geab and geabaire are Irish but that geab ar ais isn't Irish. You removed that, along with the fact that gibberish is a loan-word in Irish as gibiris, and replaced it with Cassidy's false claim. You say, you didn't see the need for a detailed argument against Cassidy in the gibberish article. The fact is, this erroneous claim sat on a Wikipedia article for years and would still be there if we hadn't challenged your changes. Things on Wiki get copied. I think there IS now a need for a detailed argument against this claim and even if there weren't, where's the harm in adding a little extra information about false derivations? I suspect you removed it because it contained a negative reference to Cassidy. You claim that you acted with impartiality. The changes you have made don't look very impartial to me. Saineolai (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Saineolai, how many Wikipedia articles should include a Cassidy derivation and a refutation? SpinningSpark says none, apart from the Wikipedia article about Cassidy himself.

In the gibberish article, a Cassidy derivation appeared unchallenged for only 11 days. Then you added your refutation (diff). Derivation and refutation appeared together for four years.

For different reasons, we can agree there is harm in having a Cassidy derivation in the gibberish article. From your point of view as a linguist, it gives undue weight to Cassidy. From my point of view as a technical writer, it wastes a reader's time. Also, from my point of view as a friend-of-a-friend, it speaks ill of the dead.

The linguist's view is the most relevant to Wikipedia, the technical writer's view is valid but secondary, and the friend-of-a-friend's view is no basis for argument. Agreed? Scenography (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that no article on Wikipedia should ever have been altered so that an editor could prevent an article speaking ill of his friend's dead friend. I'm sure you're a nice person and well-intentioned, but I still think that your behavior on this and the gibberish article don't reflect much credit on you and that to avoid casting further doubt on yourself, you should think carefully about the changes you made and the reasons you made them. If you feel you can contribute impartially to any further rewriting, fine, but I think it would be better if you confined your editing to non-Cassidy related subjects for a while.Saineolai (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Scenography: I have just read your attacks on me on another page:

"Please give me an outside opinion of a discussion:

Am I talking with an editor (Saineolai) who is not here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE" I'm afraid that's the question I am asking of you. Your agenda seems to be to defend Cassidy regardless.

"For example, I asked, "Can we agree to remove general insults ("nincompoop") and general compliments ("eureka moments")?" Saineolai answered, "I can't see any reason why one should one be given precedence over the other."" This is a distortion of my position. I said that a negative opinion should carry as much weight as a positive one. They're both opinions.

"As a reality check on our discussion, read our contributions. For example, I contributed a book review from an academic journal (diff). Saineolai contributed an insult from an unsigned blog (diff)." I also pointed out that there is no evidence in any Irish language dictionaries or texts for most of Cassidy's claims, which is demonstrably true.

"Saineolai was cautioned before but has returned to defend the same unencyclopedic language and sources, insulting a specific writer and his theories about slang words. Scenography (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)" My modifications to the article on False Etymology were still there last time I looked, because although another editor objected to them at first, I provided criticisms from LanguageLog, which is an acceptable source.

It is obvious from the above that I am right about your bias and lack of objectivity, Scenography. "Also, from my point of view as a friend-of-a-friend, it speaks ill of the dead." I hope that SpinningSpark will continue to protect the integrity of the Daniel Cassidy article now. I'm going to walk away from this. I simply don't have the patience to argue with "friends of a friend" of the article's subject.Saineolai (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

SpinningSpark: I hope that you will look after the Daniel Cassidy article and defend it from unfair and distorted editing by friends or friends of friends of Cassidy himself. Good luck! Saineolai (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalizing the article Frame-dragging by an Administrator

Could you, please, take a look at the article "Frame-Dragging"? It seems that an Administrator is abusing of his powers by vandalizing it removing all and solely the article by Lorenzo Iorio against whom it seems he has personal issues in view of the comments left. Please note also that such an adminsitrator has, by no means, the competences to edit an article in general relativity. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.77.5 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Spy-Fi discussion

There is a discussion on the spy-fi talk page weather we should split the list of spy-fi media or should we keep it in the main article. I supported splitting it and there seems to be an edit war between two editors weather to split or keep. Please post your comments there. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to complain about edit warring (or any other behaviour) to an administrator please provide diffs of the alleged behaviour. You did not even provide links to the two articles involved. You cannot expect me to already know what you are talking about. On the face of it, I can see no edit warring—one action by one editor (made without explanation or edit summary) was undone by another editor who did give a rationale. This is normal and acceptable bold, revert, discuss behaviour. SpinningSpark 07:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The reverts were here[10] the discussion is on Talk:Spy-fi--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, that is one revert of one unexplained action. That is not edit warring. SpinningSpark 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Leave your comments there to help build consensus. Also category Spy-Fi films was deleted despite me going by your advise.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The user Betty Logan had the category spy-fi deleted after emptying it out and calling me a "spy-fi" spammer. I checked on somebody's talk page on the process on how to restore it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Permalloy cable.svg

Hello. As a non-admin with File Mover permissions, I was working through the Category:Wikipedia_files_requiring_renaming backlog. A user has flagged File:Permalloy cable.svg for moving as it shadows Commons, however the commons file is essentially identical. The commons version seems to have been copied from en:wiki. Complicating this, you set a "Keep Local" flag to the local file in 2009. As you now have all the necessary administrative tools to deal with, I would be grateful if you could deal with this specific backlog item. Many thanks --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the people who copy my files to commons who are causing this problem. They do this in the full knowledge that a keep local tag is in place and an eclipse will be caused. They should copy to Commons with a different name and there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. I'm not inclined to sort out the mess that is being caused by this. Commons have created the mess by deliberately creating a file with an identical name. They should rename the file there. SpinningSpark 12:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Frame-Dragging

Dear Spinningspark, may I ask you to kindly avoid to further damage the article on frame-dragging by removing, without any justifiable reasons, solely my references? As a scientist active in the field to which the article's topic belongs and as an author of several peer-reviewed publications on it, it seems to me I have the right to have them in place. I also let you note that, as you might have noticed by inspecting her/his IP address, I have no connections at all with the user who decided to restore them before me. In any case, I cannot see how sockpuppetry and/or alleged metapuppetry issues may affect the content of an article, especially in the present case. You may want to discuss related issues on the Talk page if you feel to have valid reasons to do so. Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation. With best regards. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.: You do not have "the right" to have any material included in Wikipedia. Inclusion is a matter for the Wikipedia community to decide. As an editor with a conflict of interest you should refrain from editing the article yourself (or having your undergrads do it on your behalf). As for sockpuppetry, it is beyond coincidence that the IP who made the edit resolves to an Italian location, has made no other edits to Wikipedia whatsoever, and you have instantly come to the IPs defence. SpinningSpark 23:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Spinningspark, what would be the issues about notability, relevance, and style which can induce you to arbitrarily decide to remove entirely and solely my papers without any discussion with other users? Why do not let you the other users discuss and decide? Or have you decided in advance that every other voice worldwide contrary to your point of view is automatically a sockpuppet of mine? Are you competent to decide about the notability and relevance of my papers on the topic? Why do not take a look at the database NASA/ADS and count the citations that my papers on that subject have received and the journals in which I published them? What are your competences to decide if they are mainstream or not? After more than ten years that I have published dozens of articles on that topic in a variety of different and independent journals, among which an invited review with other researchers, they would not be mainstream? Does a matter of style allow you to destroy an article as you did instead of dicussing on how to improve it? On which basis did you decide that Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia in the world which prevents the active contributors of a scientific field to contribute to a voice on it? I am curious to hear your arguments other than sockpuppetry, given that your actions were solely and only absed on sockpuppetry issues. Just to let you know, in case you did not notice, the user that restored the article with my citations using her/his IP address was in USA, not in Italy. Or, what is your criterion of sockpuppetry? My street? My town Bari? My region, Puglia? Italy? Some Europen country? The whole world? L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us try to be collaborative. If, as seemingly suggested by the other colleague (I mean the physicist from abroad who edited with his IP) who restored the correct version of the article, there are too many citations to my articles, we can discuss about it and make a selection. Or, if you believe that the style and tone is somewhere not balanced enough, suggestions to make the voice more impartial are welcome. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

But the user Betty Logan is constantly trying to redirect Spy-Fi into Spy Fiction or another page without any explanation. I'm asking you as well because you tried to save the article. The term was in use before 2004, but the user keeps trying to put in that i was invented in 2004. I'm trying to add an image to the article soon and it dates before 2004. I requested a page protection, but I can't care for the article on my own. I don't edit Wikipedia that much anymore and when I;m gone it's sure likely to disappear.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan has made that action only once as far as I can see. You need to open a discussion, either on the article talk page, or directly with the user concerned. I gave an opinion at the AFD for the article. I am otherwise unconnected with it, and not really intererested in reports of activity on it. SpinningSpark 23:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Frame dragging

Hi,

Could you please revert your last edit to the Frame dragging article, here: [11]? I believe that this kind of whole-sale deletion of content is uncalled for; you might not like Iorio's self-promotion, but just deleting everything that he wrote does leave the article considerably worse state.67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Homeland Security Advisory Council

On the page "Homeland Security Advisory Council"

AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_Council

This link is broken...

Homeland Security Advisory Council Home Page

Is this the place to report this problem?

Thanks Regards -- Cliff CRK-Wenonah (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@CRK-Wenonah: No, this is my personal talk page and I have had no connection with that article. Talk:Homeland Security Advisory Council is the right place to raise it, or fix it yourself if you know the new address. SpinningSpark 15:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Brigham Young University residence halls

Hi Spinningspark,

On December 12, 2015 you deleted List of Brigham Young University Residence Halls. The original argument for deletion was that articles such as this serve no purpose. That argument was resolved when it was noted that there is a category for University and college dormitories in the United States and that Brigham Young University is one such notable university. The argument for which (unless I am mistaken) the article was ultimately deleted was that there were was not sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. I am requesting that the page be undeleted, due to there being independent sources, including newspapers and articles, which would give ample coverage to the subject. Please let me know your thoughts. Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No case was made in the RFD that the sources in the article were sufficient to establish notability. Against that, arguments were presented that the sources did not suffice and this was not challenged. The existence of a category is not a valid argument. Anyone can create categories, same as anyone can create any page. If the category or the pages in it had previously been reviewed somewhere, that might indicate a consensus, but mere existence does not. If you believe that I did not properly assess the consensus of the discussion, the deletion can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you have new sources that were not in the original article, you can also take that to DRV, but if you let me know what new sources you have, I might be willing to put the old article into draft space were it can be updated. SpinningSpark 22:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

the following link to newspaper articles from three Utah newspapers detailing the plans for, construction, completion, and importance of the different housing accomodations at Brigham Young University. These are not the only sources, merely a sampling. Thanks for your time. Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.newspapers.com/image/6667106/?terms=Stover%2BHall
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/6631984/?terms=Stover%2BHall
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/6470123/?terms=Stover%2BHall
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/13048748/?terms=Stover%2BHall
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/9150261/?terms=Heritage%2BHalls
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/25603950/?terms=Heritage%2BHalls

@Alexislynn(BYU): I have restored the article as a draft at Draft:List of Brigham Young University residence halls. I have also put it under the scope of the Articles for Creation project. Please submit it for review there (button in template at the top of the draft page) when you think it is ready. SpinningSpark 10:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your time. Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Mayer Slugs - More information and demonstration

hi,

I was sent four of the Mayer Slugs from a viewer in Russia to demonstrate. We had little information about them but a number of viewers referred me to your Wiki page about the slugs, and a few Russian viewers referred me to the Russian Wiki page about these slugs.

We had very good success with the slugs, they were very stable in flight and accurate. We found that the internal vanes and even the fact they were hollow, had little effect on the actual flight of the slug. I had loaded the slugs with a rubber wadding behind the slug to help spread the load of the blast evenly across the slug, etc, and during the flights of the slug, the rubber disk stayed stuck to the back of the slug due to riding in the wake of the slug. This is common, and once the slug behinds going subsonic at about 50 yards, the disks just drop off. No airflow was going through the hole in the center or it would have just blown the rubber disk off. (we filmed the events on 3 high speed cameras) So I believe the shockwave at the nose of the slug simply caused all airflow to flow around the slug.

Upon further research, I learned that the internal design of the Mayer Slug was stolen from a German design from around 1905, a design called the Stendebach "Ideal" slug

Anyway, I thought you would be interested on our results since I have never seen any videos about these slugs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNwXukKlerA

Jeff - Taofledermaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:4101:4660:8C83:CE0D:7E0D:5342 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to calculate.

The skew can be compensated by varying the length of pairs in the termination box, in order to introduce delay lines that take up the slack between shorter and longer pairs, though the precise lengths required are difficult to calculate and vary depending on the overall cable length. Seems to me that there are different ways to read this. I was reading it that it was obviously difficult to calculate precise lengths, as precise anything is usually difficult. Also, it seems pretty obvious that the delay varies with overall cable length, if the signal travels at a uniform speed, or even a non-uniform speed. On the other hand, the actual calculation itself could use a reference, but I was reading it that the statement given needed a reference. The delay should be close to linear in cable length, that seems obvious enough even for EE101. (Though I actually learned most of this from physics labs.) I suspect in the usual case, the delay is measured, not calculated. Gah4 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The only thing in that paragraph that is genuinely self-evident is that more cable means more delay. It is not self-evident that engineers use this as an equalization technique (as an ex-broadcast engineer, I am perfectly aware that this is a common technique with coax in television studios; but that is beside the point), nor is it self-evident that video cables use varying rates of twist, nor is it really self-evident (at least to general readers) what the effects of uncompensated differential delay are going to be. The final claim in the paragraph is particulary troublesome, "...the precise lengths required are difficult to calculate and vary depending on the overall cable length." That seems to me be saying that the same length of additional cable will add a different delay to a long cable as a short one. If that isn't what it is saying it needs clarifying. If that is what it is saying, then not only is it not self-evident, but it is an extraordinary claim needing top class referencing as well as an explanation as to why that is so. SpinningSpark 14:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen VGA to CAT5 boxes, but never felt like using one, and haven't seen anyone else use one. As far as I know, CAT5 cable always has different twist pitch on the pairs for reasons that you know. Easiest way would be to use two cables of about equal length, and exchange the pairs such that they average out. One solution is to just remove that sentence. But as I said, I was only claiming that it was obvious that it depended on length, and that it is difficult to calculate (especially if you don't know the length), not that it was obvious how to do the calculation. I believe that the data sheets will give the twist pitch for each pair, but that might be manufacturer dependent. As well as I know, such boxes are used for remote monitoring with KVM boxes, where quality isn't so important. Real video cables should use coax. Gah4 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Here: http://www.belden.com/techdatas/english/7852A.pdf is what Belden says about their CAT6 bonded pair cable. Among others, they say maximum of 38ns/100m of skew, but not which pair has how much delay. Gah4 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not the correctness or otherwise of the paragraph. Nor is the issue what you did or did not claim. The issue is that you removed a citation needed tag without providing either a citation or a rationale in terms of Wikipedia policy why a citation is not needed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core content policy and requires that "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. The material has been challenged, so a reliable source discussing the issues is required. A manufacturer's data sheet is unlikely to suffice. SpinningSpark 16:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Are you against removing it? But also, you still didn't answer my question. Does it need a reference to show that it is hard, or to show how to actually do it? In CS terms, direct or indirect addressing. But as you note, it might be that no-one does this, in which case it will be impossible to find a reference. For an actual VGA through CAT5 device see: http://www.hdtvsupply.com/vga-plus-audio-over-cat5.html which says Perfect image quality , strong anti-interference performance , image clarity and brightness is adjustable the video & audio signals on the receiver are Real-time. With 38ns/100m skew, that would be over 100ns. The pixel clock on many displays now is way over 50MHz, approaching 100MHz, so won't do well at all with 100ns skew. The ad doesn't mention this, though. Gah4 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing the text, but it is open to anyone who believes it is actually wrong to remove it. My concern was preventing you from removing the citation needed tag. All of it needs citing. SpinningSpark 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. . I sent e-mail to the company that sells the VGA-CAT5 box, but no reply yet. From: https://e2e.ti.com/support/interface/high_speed_interface/f/138/t/267205 the skew requirement are pretty strict for HDMI, though it isn't analog. Though in digital domain, it shouldn't be so hard to retime the bits. Also, you still didn't say which statement needs a citation. Gah4 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Stripline stub matching (v1).svg

Hi.

I am calling about the question you asked in your edit summary of revision 734494796.

Undid revision 732488659 by Codename Lisa (talk) In what way is that a circular link?

It was circular when I removed it. As you can probably tell from the file name (and certainly from the history!) this file was once called "Stripline stub matching.svg". I later renamed it and had admin delete the "Stripline stub matching.svg" redirect left behind.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the utter confusion caused by people copying local files to Commons using the same name and the subsequent mess trying to de-eclipse them. In my opinion it would be far smoother to copy to commons using a different name from day one. There would then be no need to change anything subsequently either locally or on Commons. But if something does need de-eclipsing, it would cause far less disruption if the newer commons file was renamed rather than the established and in use local file. SpinningSpark 06:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How very true. And my request for rename on Commons was twice declined. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Amanda?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.168.191 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 

Revisit close please

Hi. I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chaetophobia as a redirect. I really don't see any consensus for that. I think you should reconsider your close as "no-consensus." Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just on numbers, there were three for keep and five for merge or outright deletion, but we don't just look at numbers at AfD. The strength of arguments with respect to policy are also important. Several people claimed that there were sources available that met GNG, but I am not seeing a single source offered that provides the direct and in-depth discussion required by GNG. The keep argument is therefore very weak in its policy basis. The article and its history have not been deleted, just redirected. It is still open to anybody who can provide such in-depth sources to recreate it and expand it from the sources. SpinningSpark 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Image usage

Hi there,

I've not done this before so just wanted to check I've got everything right.

I have used an image from the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_fuming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuming_chart.jpg

on our page:

http://www.jordanwoodfloors.co.uk/smoked-oak-ammonia-fuming

which I haven't quite finished yet but you should be able to see.

I think I have the attribution links correct? Let me know

webmaster (at) floorsave.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.37.70 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.37.70 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, glad you found the image useful. SpinningSpark 13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Brightman anti aircraft machine gun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brightman anti aircraft machine gun 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/Brightman anti aircraft machine gun 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 notice from the top of the article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Static relay

Any idea what a Static relay is/was? Your assistance would be useful here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Spinningspark. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

block

Why did you block User:Loose eel? I don't see any block worthy activity on the account. Did I miss something? 24.71.33.220 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And what is your interest here? This account is one of an army of sockpuppet accounts that have been conducting a decade long edit war over date formatting making changes on an industrial scale using automated or semi-automated processes. This is highly disruptive and I now have zero tolerance for the behaviour. If you want a consistent date format across Wikipedia, get a consensus for it first, don't start a war over it. SpinningSpark 05:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That explains the block, the edit summaries, and the lack of any non-mainspace edits. But why wasn't he blocked until January 2016, despite having used the account since 2014? 24.71.33.220 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Children in Need 2016

Hello can I ask you to get rid of Children in Need 2016 page please because it should not be here on wiki. The reason is because its not November and the stuff in which the user created is unsourced so I would like it deleted as soon as possible thank you. 82.19.95.171 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I have already explained to you why this cannot be summarily deleted on your talk page. Please keep the conversation there. SpinningSpark 16:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Buttered cat paradox

Hey, could you tell me what parts of my edits did you find unsatisfactory beside changing the title? Still new to the site. X7 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply to you on the article talk page. SpinningSpark 23:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Request in October 2016

Without any real justification, User:Diannaa reverted all of my edits to Newburgh Raid. It appears they did so based on a mistaken and erroneous belief that the material was copyrighted by the Newburgh Museum [12]. First, the material on that site is released to the public domain under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. See the website's footer for proof. I know this is the case because I am a director with the Newburgh Museum and authored the material on that website which was used in the Wikipedia article. I authored it and allowed it to be posted on the museum's website solely on the condition that it could be used anywhere else, like Wikipedia. Therefore, the removal of my revisions were in error and I would kindly ask that you restore all of the edits.--YHoshua (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't spam multiple administrators with the same problem. Diannaa has replied to you and seems open to discussion. SpinningSpark 07:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Level (logarithmic quantity)

Hello , Spinningspark.

I know that 10 and 20 dB are well Known!

But the comparison between "Decibel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel and "Level" put in evidence some differences.

May be the same concept is in "Level" as for "Decibel" but in "Level" is hidden and not clear , please , check ,if you want examples. according to me there is something confusing a bit. Thank You alessandro Abandera61 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

alessandro, you should sign at the end of your post with four tildes, not in the edit summary which puts it in the heading. I have moved it for you. There is a difference between the way decibels and nepers are defined. Decibels start with a definition of power ratios, nepers start with a definition of field quantity ratios. So in one the field ratio must be multiplied by a factor of two, and in the other the power ratio must be multiplied by a factor of a half. In fact, nepers were originally just a ratio of numbers without reference to the type of unit. This was obviously unsatisfactory because one obtains different results depending on the quantity being measured. Nepers are most frequently encountered in mathematical treatments of voltages and currents on transmission lines because the equations are simpler as compared to decibels. Because these are field quantities, it is natural to define the neper as a (log) ratio of field quantities. SpinningSpark 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Even more dB is often used for a power ratio, but with a field unit. There is dBu and dBmV, referenced to one microvolt or one millivolt, respectively, usually when the impedance is known. Gah4 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New page

Spinningspark,

If you were to make a new page of a person who is becoming more and more notable every day, how would you go about doing this?

PL34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politiclover34 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the central criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability. See WP:42 for a short explanation and what you need to do. If you are associated with the subject of the new page then I suggest that you do this through the Articles for creation process rather than directly in the main encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 21:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Username

Hello, thanks for notifying me about the username change. It is all taken care of. --Streetfog (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25