User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Welcome back

It is good to see that you are back. I hope all is well. Constant314 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Everything is fine, I was just finding Wikipedia too stressful for a while. SpinningSpark 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I did check the obituaries, but there were no good matches - it seemed unlikely that you were a southerner for instance. Apologies for not reverting the multiref edits; I had supposed that this was merely a template technicality. catslash (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point that I might have been dead. I'll have to put something in my will next time I have it updated to make sure somebody posts a notice. You're not wrong that the template thing is a technicality, but I'm annoyed that the editor hijacked the template name to do something else and then moved the original to a new name. They don't even seem to have used the new function in an article as far as I can see. SpinningSpark 18:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Template breakage

Please fix the changes you made to the articles I edited where I replaced {{multiref}} with {{multiref2}}. Multiref is supposed to have a line of text at the top describing the grouped references; as it was not being used in this way, I made Multiref2 which simply displays a list of references, which was what was desired. It took me a long time to replace all the incorrect instances and you have undone all of that work. In future, please don't mass-revert non-vandalistic changes without discussing with the person who made them first. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed you're the person who made the Multiref template originally; however, that doesn't mean you own it. The initial non-indented reference (if the template is used in the way most were using it) doesn't look right at all. That should only be for descriptive text, followed by the list of references. If people want simply a list of references, they can use multiref2. I already did all the work for this. It's not like I changed Multiref, added Multiref2 and then didn't change instances in articles where multiref was used with no initial descriptive text. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way the template currently works. There never was a prescription requiring a line of text at the top. It can be a list of unbulleted cites or it can equally well be used with a line of text in the first field. I don't understand your objection to that. Your change to the template requires that the text is entered explicitly with a text= field resulting in more to type. In addition, you removed the template on multiple articles where it was being used to add a line of text to a single cite. There were definite reasons for that text and you removed it. SpinningSpark 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hover over any reference in an article using multiref which is simply a list of references and you'll see that it doesn't look right. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What am I looking for? Waveguide filter looks fine to me. SpinningSpark 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

When you hover over a reference without the reference list in view, the first in the list isn't indented and the rest are in the popup box. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a fairly minor issue imo and not worth bothering with. Even if we have to have a separate template where text is required, {{tl:multiref}} should remain serving the more common case of an unbulleted list and use {{multiref2}} for the ones using text. I would have thought though, that if you can fix the indenting in one template then you could make text= optional in the same template so no need for multiref2 and no knock on effects in existing articles. SpinningSpark 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you start a reference with a list, there's a blank line at the beginning. That's why Multiref2 isn't actually a list. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, instead of having two templates, Multiref could just have a switch function so that if the |text= parameter is present and not empty, it uses an unbulleted/bulleted list (depending on whether or not |bulleted= is passed) with text above it, and if not it just uses the code from Multiref2. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you sandbox that first please so we can test it before going live. Thanks. SpinningSpark 08:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just glad that this discussion hasn't gone terribly, especially considering I was frustrated when I sent the first message. I'm sorry about that. I'm going to use Multiref2's sandbox for the test since I already have a testcases page set up for that template. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be working fine: Template:Multiref2/testcases DesertPipeline (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hold on; there's that space at the top again for the no-text version. I'm not sure why that's happening. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I can't get rid of the space. Keeping the templates separate may be necessary. I understand your point about the "text" parameter being more to type, but is that a significant problem? I don't really want the text parameter to just be the first unnamed parameter, because then people might use it like it's a parameter for references. How about |t= as an alias? DesertPipeline (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you feel about my above proposal? DesertPipeline (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what proposal you're asking me to comment on. If it is "t=" as an alias for "text=" then that's fine. But I'm still not convinced that a text field, or a second template, is needed. If you can fix the indent issue, then what is the problem with using field 1 as a text note instead of it's usual purpose as the first ref? If you can't fix the indent, then a second template is not going to fix it. If you've got something written, point to it and I'll look at it. SpinningSpark 12:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks better if the text note is non-indented while the references are. But we could use the non-list format for the Multiref template (to fix the indent issue) and put the text parameter in Multiref2 if you prefer. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about the indent in the popup on mouseover, right? I'd want the cites in the references section from multiref to be exactly the same indent as a standard ref. It would not be possible to have both that and outdent the text field. SpinningSpark 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So Multiref2 should have the unbulleted or bulleted list and Multiref's references should be separated by paragraph breaks, including an optional |text= parameter with an alias of |t=? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds ok, but let's have a draft to test first. I still don't understand why you are proposing two templates. One is a list and one is paras I get, but why is that distinction needed? SpinningSpark 14:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

When I tried making it so the two display types could be switched between with a parameter, the blank space appears even with the code which doesn't even use a bulleted or unbulleted list. You can see the problem on the testcases page for Multiref2: Template:Multiref2/testcases#Sandbox That's why to have one with a bulleted or unbulleted list, it needs a non-optional text parameter. Multiref can have an optional text parameter (because it's not using a list) and Multiref2 will have a mandatory text parameter (to stop the weird display problem). DesertPipeline (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Are there any articles using bulleted or unbulleted lists? If not then multiref2 is a waste of effort and I have no interest in testing it. I'm only interested in what you are doing to multiref. If that retains the ability to add text then that is all I need. SpinningSpark 07:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That's okay; you don't have to worry about Multiref2. I'll be its maintainer. Multiref will have an optional text parameter with ten unnamed parameters for references and Multiref2 will have a mandatory text parameter with ten unnamed parameters for references in a list. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you happy for me to make the changes I mentioned? DesertPipeline (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen a draft yet. SpinningSpark 05:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It was very painful but I got it to work: Template:Multiref/testcases. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What immediately leaps out there is that the first ref is not left justified with the rest bacause the linking carat takes up a space. Bearing in mind that the whole reason you gave for changing it at all was that the first line was not aligned in the mouseover popup, this is not an improvement at all. In fact it is worse since this is now visible on the page itself. I really think you should stop putting a huge amount of effort into such a trivial issue. SpinningSpark 22:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We're either going to have an initial reference (or text) which is offset in the reference list, which does have a visible cause, or we're going to have every reference except the first one indented to the right in the hover box, which has no visible cause and looks weird. We're not going to be able to get a perfect solution here, unless there are changes made to MediaWiki; but I think this change is for the better. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The visible article page format is more important to get right than the hover box. I'm also pretty convinced that this could be done in a Lua module without any need to have the Wikimedia code changed. But as I said, from my point of view it is fine as it is and not worth the effort. SpinningSpark 07:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What could be done with a Lua module to solve it? DesertPipeline (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know much about modules, but they are freely programmable whereas templates are not (by deliberate policy). I imagine that the CSS identifiers for the reference formatting and the hover box formatting could be used to define formatting for each independently. SpinningSpark 08:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be worth a try, then. So if I can find someone to get this to work where everything is aligned properly both in the hover box and reference list, will you accept it? DesertPipeline (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I would like to see a draft first before it went live so I could test it in my own sandbox on articles of my choice. Can't say in advance what problems might be thrown up. Things like this tend to have unforeseen consequences on apparently unrelated items. SpinningSpark 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Keep local and Now Commons

I sincerely apologize. It was my first time on Commons, I didn't want to cause problems. Gigggino (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it's all good now. SpinningSpark 22:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I didn’t pipe to a redirect. That target was changed post my edit. Mark83 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary was a bit bitey; I didn't need to do that. Having said that, you took part in the move discussion and made these edits at the same time the move discussion was going on. You must have realised that this situation was going to arise (probably on a lot more articles than are on my watchlist), but chose not to do anything about it. SpinningSpark 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Optical telegraph

Conversation moved to Talk:Optical telegraph#Optical telegraph

Bandwidth throttling

I added WP:PTM bandwidth throttling to DAB page bandwidth because finding that that article existed was key to solving a DABfixing problem in an area outside my technical field (I'm a chemist not a physicist). It took me several minutes of creative googling to locate it and thereby the solution. PTMs like that aid searching. I was pleased to be able to fix the DABlink myself rather than stick on a {{dn}} tag and hope that a specialist noticed sooner or later. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What article was this in? I'd like to see what made this so difficult. Bandwidth throttling is often just called throttling in context, but never bandwidth. If you had the former term then the answer is on the throttling dab page, but if you only had the latter then how did you know throttling was meant? Linking bandwidth to Bandwidth (computing) would have been good enough, the throttling term is given there with a link. SpinningSpark 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this

Re: this edit, of course it's not obvious, which is why we should mention it. It barely even gets stated in the article body itself. —howcheng {chat} 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've self reverted. I thought your edit was what I was reverting to, not reverting from. I don't seem to be all there today. SpinningSpark 22:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to create local account for Q28bot

Q28bot is my robot account. Because of GFW, I have to use a proxy to access Wikipedia. So I'm asking you to create a local account for Q28bot.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 05:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I made my opinion clear on that when you made the same request at WP:ANB. So no, and I also support you being denied access to AWB. SpinningSpark 12:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Ramsey‎

Hi Spinningspark, I'd like to request that you reexamine your close of this AfD. I understand that numerically it's a split, but if you weigh the arguments against the NSPORTS guideline and the complete lack of sources, I think it's clear that it would be more in line with guidelines to close as delete, or even relist for another week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The close was not on the basis of a numerical split. Closes are done on the basis of consensus, not on the closing admin's reading of policy (but with more weight given to policy based rationales over others). The relative status of GNG against SNGs has been a controversial debate for years. Whatever the guidelines may currently say, imo there is still no widespread consensus amongst editors on this question, and the arguments put forward in this debate just bear that out. Whichever side of the debate you are on, and whether or not you agree that the keep argument is correct, it is unarguable that it is a rationale referring to policy. No consensus was the only possible decision here, and relisting is not going to change that. SpinningSpark 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cruiser rules and redirects to Prize (law)

When you were writing the (quite useful, thanks!) former article, you forgot to check all the redirects to the latter, and three years later there are still plenty:

I propose we start a discussion about them somewhere, but as an exopedianist I don't know where would be a good place. Ain92 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The right place is at Talk:Prize (law) I would have thought. I presume you are thinking or retargetting some of them to Cruiser rules, in which case you should also leave a note at Talk:Cruiser rules with a link to the discussion explaining that that article may be affected also. There is also WP:RFD, a page for discussing redirects, but it is probably less useful to go there unless you have some sort of policy issue with the redirects. The impotant thing is to only start one discussion – parallel discussions coming to different conclusions is not helpful. SpinningSpark 12:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ain92 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging

Hello. Thought I might message to say I had read your comment re: succinctness on the East Asian History AfD and understand. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) (Sorry, reverted by accident...technical difficulties).

List of Playboy Playmates...

Hello, Just to be sure. With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX: It is ok to restore all the articles which at the moment are redirects? Christian75 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes for ones that became redirects during, or immediately before, the AfD. If there are any long standing redirects circumspection is required – I'd advise against restoring old uncited information. If you do restore those ones that would be WP:BOLD and if you are reverted WP:BRD requires you to then discuss the issue in the normal way. SpinningSpark 09:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am always late. But thank you for the clarification :-) Christian75 (talk)

List of Playboy Playmates of the Month

I saw your comment on top of the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month debate and felt the need to respond. I completely disagreed with the decision to redirect the pages. What is the point? It is literally just named on a page. Also, since why was the pages redirect then the article result was no consensus? They were only a "slight majority" who wanted them redirected but there was also enough peoples who feel they should be kept and those who wanted them to be deleted. Regardless do not think anything is going to change. The decision had always been make and despite being the wrong decision it is the politically correct decision.

"It has be said that some of the keep participants made a similar mistake, arguing that since Playboy was notable, the models were notable and thus the list was notable. This is a failure of WP:NOTINHERITED of course." First, this is not the argument being made. Its argument is that Playmate of the Months are noteworthy because they are individually selected and rarely compared to the overall number of people, just like Heisman winners. You are using this as a justification just show me that this "policy" should be changed because it becomes problematic. Notability requires verifiable evidence, is playboy alone not enough? What is verifiable evidence? No such thing. Reality stars, outside of being reality stars are not noteworthy but most of them have their own articles. Allenknott3 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize that the pages had been restores before I post my previous comment. Allenknott3 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you complaining about? My decision was to not redirect, which is what you appear to want. I don't care what your idea of notability is, I am required to close discussions based on Wikipedia policy and plainly Playboy cannot be used as evidence of notability because it is not independent of the subject (i.e. Playboy Playmates) per WP:N. You wrote in the debate "they are notable in the fact they were in playboy". That is exactly a WP:INHERITED argument and Playboy's selection criteria are neither here nor there. SpinningSpark 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong initially that I did not realize your decision was to not redirect. I thought that your decision was to redirect/delete. That was an error on my part and for that, I do apologize. Let me explain, "they are notable in the fact they were in playboy," mean that if someone appeared in playboy, as a playmate of the month or even years that other things like magazines, newspapers, etc. would report/mention them. However, this eventually faked when Playboy became less important and more mainstream.

As for notability, the WIKi policy could be wrong/in error. I understand independent sources from the subject/topic but do not always seem to be the case. It seems to vary depending on the topic. In my humble opinion, for example, I had noticed that anything negative had seemly been removed from some celebrity's wiki articles. Almost like the wiki are being rewritten to make the celebrities come across better. Now some of that I understand, inflammatory for example, but it seems more to not wanting to upset anyone same with the playmate lists.Allenknott3 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Another article from the The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy

As I am writing Space travel in science fiction now, I have access to all but one encyclopedias with relevant entries - but that one. Volume 2, which seems totally not digitized even on Google Books, should contain an entry on space travel. Any chance you could help me here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It's on gbooks here and the article you want is on pages 742 to 744. Let me know if you need screenshots, the pages gbooks is willing to serve is strongly dependent on how you got there. SpinningSpark 13:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice, I missed this somehow. I can access them, so it's all good :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: No, you didn't miss it, the google search engine missed it. It's not perfect and occassionally does things like this. I got there by clicking on one of the other volumes, then clicking "about this book", then the otheer volumes are listed under "related books". Sometimes you can also find editions offering preview that way when the search engine only found no preview editions. SpinningSpark 06:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Henry Nock

I have placed an explanation of my edit on the talk page for this article. Please review it and restore my edit.

Since you are interested in the history of technology, I have noted the absence of an article about the Fullerphone: http://www.wftw.nl/ful.html

Foster's reactance theorem good faith edit reverts

Hello. I have noticed that you reverted my recent contribution at Foster's reactance theorem. To avoid further conflict in the contributions tab, I would like to discuss this on your talk page. Short descriptions starting with "A", in my opinion, kind of break the overall tone of the item. "Reactance theory of electrical circuits" is more fitting to the tone of other short descriptions, and the use of A sounds very unprofessional. It fits in the first sentence, but does not fit in a short description. I cannot describe the full feeling I get from the thing, so sorry for lacking clarity in some points I made. Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There is already a discussion open on the article talk page, please go there. It is not appropriate to discuss here where other concerned editors cannot see. SpinningSpark 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Discord

Hi, can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that 4 has consensus (and why it's not a "no consensus" result)? Did you weigh all votes equally or some more than others? Thanks. Levivich 13:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs much explanation. Just on the numbers, participants were for option 4 by quite a margin. Since this is a proposed change/addition to policy, it's not reasonable to weight the views against compliance with current policy, except where some overriding principle or policy is being breached. Since most of the rationales raising those sort of issues were in favour of the strictest interpretation, then option 4 was the only sensible close. SpinningSpark 14:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

By my count 20 in favor of 4, 16 not in favor of 4. Is that the count you have? If we're not weighing votes and counting everyone's vote equally, 20-16 seems like no consensus to me? Or in other words, 55% of voters in favor of 4. That doesn't seem to me like the strong consensus needed for a global policy. Levivich 14:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were only two options, but there were actually four. My count was 21, but in any case, to get to 20:16 one has to assume that all 16 who were not in favour of opt4 would all agree to something else as a second or third choice. Very few participants expressed a willingness for a second choice, let alone counting how many for each choice, so it is not open to the closer to make that decision for them. The count against the next highest choice is actually 21:9. And by the way, I did not say that I did not weigh the arguments at all, just that they could not be weighed against current policy. SpinningSpark 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you agree with me about this fundamental fact: of all the editors who participated in this discussion, about 55% supported option 4, and 45% supported one of the other options. If this statement is true, then I think that is "no consensus." The fact that the 45% who didn't support option 4 were split amongst the other options, making option 4 the single option that gained the most votes, does not mean that there is consensus for option 4, because "it's not a vote". When almost half the participants disagree with a choice, that choice can't be said to have consensus (especially for matters of global policy). Your argument about second choice presupposes that a choice must be made, but "oppose everything" is a valid option as well. So if 4 is preferred by 55% and 45% prefer something else, the 45% don't need to agree on the "something else", simply the fact that 45% of participants disagree with 4 is enough to prevent 4 from gaining consensus. (And by the way, if you weighed votes as part of your close, please explain which votes you weighed and how you weighed them. It's not fair to keep me in the dark about that during this discussion.) Levivich 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AFCH

Sorry about that, I knew you were active again and I could have sworn I left you on the active list but I must have had a momentary brain fart. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I just reviewed one to make sure I don't get taken off again. SpinningSpark 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-minor

Hi Spinningspark! I opened a discussion and pinged you on the talk page so that we can find consensus on the wording, but I also wanted to leave a note further clarifying my edits. My initial April 2020 rewrite of the template was WP:BOLD, something that I felt comfortable doing because it's not a super high-profile template (it's unprotected). I didn't notify Twinkle because, per the notice in the documentation, the changes were not breaking changes. In the ~16 months that the edits have stood, many editors have used the template, and the new version has clearly acquired status quo status, making your proposed rollback moreso a proposal than a reversion. I therefore reverted you per WP:BRD because I disagreed with the proposal. I hope that helps clarify, and again, I'm happy to discuss wording in the thread I just opened. I would've preferred if you hadn't reverted a second time to force your proposed rollback, but hopefully we'll reach consensus soon anyways. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: It does not matter how long ago the edit was made, it is still a breach of WP:BRD if you re-revert it. I don't see anything in BRD about the age of edits. I expect better of someone who has been given the template editor permission. We only give that to editors who are expected not to do anything controversial. Restoring text you know has been disputed is certainly controversial. In any case, to me it was new. I have been on a long Wikibreak and this was the first time I used the template since coming back. SpinningSpark 13:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither WP:BRD nor WP:STATUSQUO have policy/guideline status, so they are both equal here. There would be some wiggle room between them if the edit had stood for only a few weeks or was on some obscure article where it might not have been noticed, but for more than a year at a template like this? At that point, I think WP:STATUSQUO pretty clearly takes precedence, and when there is disagreement, the status quo should be retained in the absence of consensus to change.

Please retract your "expect better" statement, which I'm sure you didn't intend to be vaguely threatening but which comes across that way. This template isn't even semi-protected, let alone template-protected. We appear to have differing understandings of proper process in a fairly niche circumstance, and I came here to see if we can get on the same page about that, not to accuse you of edit warring and challenge your competence as an administrator. I would like to see that returned in kind. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_16#All_Z-number_templates

I'd like to know on which grounds you come to that reading. The discussion was controversial enough that an unexplained "delete" is not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no detailed explanation because there was nothing complicated by this close. The majority were for delete and it wasn't close enough to call no consensus. None of the keep arguments cited any policy or guideline so could not be given more weight. Indeed, the rationale was essentially that they preferred a category to an insource search. That's essentially an ILIKEIT argument. Under those circumstances, it is not for the closer to judge whether or not it is a preferrable system. SpinningSpark 07:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So nothing about Special:WhatLinksHere? Nothing about the "it ain't broken, don't fix it"? And more importantly, nothing about the fact the deletes are also ILIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT arguments? The proper outcome, taking in mind that no, it's not just a vote count, would have been no consensus. I'll be taking this to DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pro forma, notice that this is now at DRV, link. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Saragarhi

You stated that "So sources using the word "victory" do not support a claim of victory? That's just ridiculous". Can you show me the line that used the word victory in below two references from the site?

[[1]] [[2]]Canon8 (talk 12:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead." Now take this discussion back to the article talk page where it belongs. SpinningSpark 12:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What reference was that from? Can you please be specific? I just want to make sure what you stated is actually there in the links I provided. Canon8 (talk 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ctrl-F in nearly every browser out there will allow you to search for specific text. It's not hard to do it yourself. SpinningSpark 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

When I looked at this link [[3]]. It has no such statement. That is what I am directing you too. Also historyextra is considered not an approved use of the mallet after what I got from when searching the archive of WP:RSP. Canon8 (talk 13:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two links. Saying one link doesn't say something when the other clearly does is tendentious in the extreme. Historyextra.com has been discussed once at RSN (as I've repeatedly told you historyextra.com is the BBC, look at the website). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#BBC HistoryExtra / historyextra.com where everyone said it was reliable. I suggest you stop burying your head in the sand. FDW777 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It did before the live article was doctored to remove it. "In sum, Saragarhi turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans." SpinningSpark 13:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So how can the article that can be doctored considered reliable? Or even if its reliable then why isn't the updated version of the article being given the weight which has no mention of such line "Phyrric Victory". Maybe that is why it was removed because it wasn't.Canon8 (talk 13:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the article talk page. Bringing your dispute over here is not going to achieve anything. SpinningSpark 14:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

OP CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoax

Why are you sending G4 eligible hoaxes to drafts/AfC? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are certain it is a hoax then tag the draft with {{db-hoax}}. Right now to me, hoax looks possible, but it may also be an editor with an usubstantiated POV. SpinningSpark 08:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Done: POV and hoaxes are not mutually incompatible. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Grandmothers and eggs

In that case, I would have expected you to know better that I would how to deal with disruptive editors. I'm afraid your cri de coeur came across as a relatively recent editor being bullied by a Wikilawyer, so I was trying to be encouraging. I appreciate that, since you are WP:involved, your freedom of manoeuvre is limited but surely you are aware that nothing this editor does has any permanence? It doesn't matter what they do because it can all be undone by others if it fails npov and rs.

Anyway best we leave it at that, it's getting flogged to death --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: You misunderstand, I wasn't asking for any action or advice from you. I was merely letting you know that I was not just being awkward in the debate for the sake of it, there were reasons behind it. You don't have to agree with me, I was just letting you know. SpinningSpark 19:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

George Lazenby

I've never seen any edits from Mr. Lazenby that indicate that he has ever claimed that he's the actor/model, and I have no doubt that it's his actual name. I'd like to unblock and move on, but am consulting you first. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I blocked because he had studiously ignored requests to clarify for years. I'm happy that he has now explained, but I think as a minimum the user should place that explanation on his user page as originally requested by OrangeMike (see first thread on his talk page) and as required by the WP:REALNAME policy. SpinningSpark 13:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that since they've offered a more detailed explanation, and since the policy simply recommends that a permanent explanation be placed, rather than requires it, they can be unblocked. They can't edit their userpage while blocked, of course. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The policy does not "recommend", the policy says "should", but I will unblock and emphasise that to the user. SpinningSpark 17:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ipotane

Thanks for doing the legwork on this article today. When I saw that you had de-PRODded it, I couldn't see a clear explanation, but I'd already looked in the cited source without finding anything (as you subsequently noted). I did see Mandeville mentioned on the talk page, and although I couldn't find this spelling using Google Books, I did find a citation to Mandeville in Fictitious and Symbolic Creatures in Art (1906) that did give it. When I finally located the passage in Mandeville, the version I found gave "Hippotaynes"—and I just didn't have the time to go back and revise the article with alternate spellings and different sources. I kept them open in case I had time tonight or tomorrow (doesn't look like I will). So I wanted to thank you for doing what I meant to—and probably doing a better job of it, too! I might give "hippotayne" as an alternative spelling in the lead, as opposed to just listing it in the body—but I leave that to your judgment, as the one who actually got the job done! P Aculeius (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with you putting alt spelling in the lead if you want to. I didn't do it because only ipotane is found anywhere other than editions of Melville. I'm especially dubious of the Penguin edition where Pollard has got hippopotamus, apparently suggested by Melville's statement that some are found in water. What is still an open question is whether this originated with Melville (highly likely imo) or there is really some ancient mythological origin we haven't yet found. SpinningSpark 08:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworked the text a bit based on your investigation and mine. I don't believe there's a Greek origin, or at least one distinguishable from the centaur (note that the illustration in Vinycomb is that of a centaur, although in modern fantasy they're the reverse, as the article said). I felt that we could make the attribution to Mandeville more explicit, and that the lack of a precise description was important precisely because the only illustration I saw prior to modern works of fantasy seemed similarly uncertain. P Aculeius (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Page blanking

Norton amplifier (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

"The IP is right, this is an entirely inappropriate redirect"

Maybe the IP is right in that it's an inappropriate redirect, but blanking pages is never the way to deal with such issues. It's what AfD, RfD, etc. are for. Still, thank you for your work on this page. — Smjg (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well first of all, I didn't deal with the issue by page blanking. I dealt with it by blanking and writing an article there. Secondly, blanking is not wrong in a number of circumstances as the Page blanking guideline clearly lays out. One of which is blank and redirect; what I did is just the reverse of that process. In any case what I did was far more useful than restoring a heap of bollocks as you did four years ago when you reverted the IP – a Norton amplifier is not a transconductance amplifier (it's exactly the opposite) and it is not even mentioned on the transconductance page. Your edit, as well as failing the WP:REDIRECT guideline, misereably fails our core policy of WP:V, so please don't come to my page complaining that I am improving the encyclopaedia.

And when you do come back again, please read the instructions at the top of the page and link to the article you want to discuss. SpinningSpark 17:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you claiming that one or more of the scenarios on Page blanking are applicable to redirects? If so, which? Moreover, I still can't see that anything that page says justifies blanking a page completely as opposed to replacing the content with a CSD template.

By reinstating the blanking, it looked to me like you were trying to defend the IP's action of blanking it. That you put some content on the page 6 minutes later doesn't significantly change this. It would have been better to go straight in and put some content on the page. Just something to note for future reference. — Smjg (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Give me a break, six minutes is not significant compared to four years of wrong information. The bottom line is that I did something useful here and you did not. It is always incumbent on the person restoring material to take responsibility for the material they restored. It is always worthwile to consider the reason for blanking. In this case, unusually for an IP, they gave an edit summary that could not have been clearer. The least you could have done was leave a note on the electronics wikiproject to get the attention of someone who knows wwhat they are talking about instead of just blindly reverting and then walking away. Or you could have taken it to TFD yourself on the IP's behalf. And yes, I WAS defending the IPs action – it was a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 14:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"It is always incumbent on the person restoring material to take responsibility for the material they restored." I disagree. Usually, yes, but not always. In particular, when reverting vandalism, frequently it just isn't practical to verify everything that the vandal removed or altered. OK, so maybe that argument doesn't really apply to this instance, and taking it to RfD (is this what you meant to say when you said TFD?) would have been a more sensible course of action. Sorry about that.

So the IP is right but only in that it's an inappropriate redirect. Blanking the page was probably just a case of the person not knowing better. Furthermore, I still don't comprehend your reason for hitting 'Undo' and 'Publish changes' before putting new content on the page. It's true that it was only blank for 6 minutes, but the effect was that I received a notification and, when I opened it up, the first thing I saw was that you blanked the page. As such, it came across somewhat as an attack on my action from years ago. — Smjg (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed intended to get your attention, but that should not be read as an attack, just information. SpinningSpark 16:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice closure

Nice AfD closure today. Addressed and explained the AfD well and so avoiding any need for DRV whilst avoiding the AfD being usable as any kind of precedent. Nicely done! Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AfD interference and allegations.. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination). Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is notification I have to make due to your mention at the that ANI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Origin of 'dabba'

I was looking for the first instance of 'dabba' being used to refer to the partial derivative and I came across your edit of the wiki page on ∂. Your edit was removed 29 June 2019 under 'Removed Dabba due to false citation,' but it was readded 10 October 2019. Was your citation legitimate? Ever since I read the article 2 years ago I have been referring to the partial d as 'dabba' anyways :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.218 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The citation is correct, but the link went to the wrong page on gbooks. This seems to take you to the right place. Google has obviously got confused by the page numbering; the page really is 10.2 as stated, but the google snippet says it is page 9.35 and putting that in the url actually goes to page 10.2. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I had stopped watching that page years ago. SpinningSpark 06:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy revert

Hi,
I think your revert of my edit was wrong, because even though the first part of my edit probably wasn't a "grammatical" improvement, it definitely was a "phrasal" improvement: "The most famous of them used" sounds like it's referring to a person, and not 'one of a series of experiments'. Then there's the second change which was definitely a grammar fix: "by the weight in descending", sounds really bad. Sorry if you can't agree.
Looking forward to your reply,
Emdosis (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there's a note at the top of my page asking you to link to the article you want to discuss. I'd like to understand why people repeatedly don't comply. Do you not know how to make a link or did you just think it was not important? For a busy editor dealing with a lot of pages it is really helpful. If you want to discuss a particular edit, even better is a Diff.

On the substantive issue, giving a fuller version of your text – The most famous of which involving the "Joule apparatus": is a sentence fragment. Not only grammatically poor, but quite confusing to the reader. The whole phrase amounts to a nominative, that has no verb or accusative. The original was The most famous of them used the "Joule apparatus": which not only is grammatically correct but could not possibly be mistaken as referring to a person since the antecedent is a series of experiments. In English "them" is the plural pronoun for all genders, including neuter applied to inanimate objects so it is perfectly fine here. On the second issue It showed that the gravitational potential energy lost by the weight in descending was... is not bad grammar. The phrase "in descending" is equivalent to "during descent" or "caused by its descent". Admittedly, the "in" is redundant in this case, but the first issue was enough for me to revert. SpinningSpark 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologize for not linking to the page. I thought the message on top refered to just "discussing an article or other page" and not an 'edit revert' but it's noted for next time. On the topic of "The most famous of which" being a sentence fragment, I might agree, but on the assessment that it's "confusing" I don't agree: "which" clearly refers to "experiments". On a second note the issue I had was really with the word "used": The most famous of them used: doesn't sound at all like it's referring to an experiment. Experiments don't "use" things. An experimenter uses things in his experiments. If the sentence had been: "The most famous of which using the Joule apparatus" that would have been fine, it's the combination of the word "them" and "used" that makes it confusing to me.

Admittedly, the "in" is redundant in this case,...

Yeah, so I just realized that the "in" is not redundant (because 'by' goes together with 'lost' in explaining who (or what) lost gravitational energy) so I'm leaving it there.

October 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Microwave. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Re [4]. VQuakr (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? We're going to talk in templates now? SpinningSpark 22:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Rock Cup

Hello, I think the content could be merged into Football in Gibraltar per your suggestion. I'm not familiar with the subject but could simply make a new section in that page with information from the deleted one. Could you please restore the page as a redirect? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. SpinningSpark 17:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! NemesisAT (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)