User talk:Spike-from-NH

{{NoACEMM}} For older correspondence, see:

January 2018

You recently removed maintenance templates from Violation (basketball). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at Wikipedia:MOSDAB (or more likely alternatives like WP:SIA and WP:LIST - both of which require sources) to learn more about it. Regards. Widefox; talk 16:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roller derby

You've added a passage on "Intentional fouls" in the roller derby article, which states a fourth foul leads to a one minute penalty, "not 30 seconds". This seems to be about minors and majors, which were done away with some years back? Echoedmyron (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Echoedmyron: You seem to have more detailed knowledge than I do; I only followed the link on Walling to other strategy articles, and this one was from "some years back." The article surprised me, as I saw nothing about one-minute penalties in the rules. If you're sure, please revert my edit. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article on Derby News Network from 2014, which is when penalties were changed to 30 seconds: [1] Still looking for the writeup for when minors were eliminated. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found the news about minor penalties being removed for 2013: [2]. With that in mind, I did revert your good faith edit, noting these two DNN links in my edit summary. But you're doing a lot of good work on that article, keep it up. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Echoedmyron: Your links were interesting reading. Now I have a question: Last week at Manchester, N.H., I said I had seen, the previous month, a jammer behind the pack pass the star to a pivot ahead of the pack. That can't count as a "legal pass" of all the opponents in the pack, could it? The person I asked said it does. I can't find that in the WFTDA rules anywhere, and the assertion in the rules, that the new jammer carries forward the game status of the old one, seems to imply that the star pass doesn't score points. Spike-from-NH (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A star pass only transfers the jammer role to the former pivot. It can count as an initial pass - required before points may be scored - but removing the helmet cover removes that team's ability to get lead jammer status (if still open) and the star going through the pack in this fashion earns no points, if it happens to be a scoring pass. To make things more complex: let's say it's in the midst of a scoring pass but the jammer hasn't completely evaded the pack yet. Jammer has earned points for those the jammer has passed, but the ref hasn't awarded them yet, because they wait until the completion of the pass. In midst of this scoring pass, star pass happens - new jammer emerges and puts on star, and is shown as getting a couple of points. Those points would have transferred with the helmet cover as it were, as they were earned by the original jammer. The new jammer only starts getting points of their own for passing opponents after putting the helmet cover on. Make sense? I'll be at a tournament in Montreal this weekend, so I'll be offline from now until Monday or Tuesday probably. Echoedmyron (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And surely the new jammer would not get points for passing opponents whom the old jammer already passed, but could earn points for passing other jammers, though might have to skate back behind them in order to pass them. This makes more sense than what I was told, as it is more complete. If there is something that could be cited, it would be good if the article could state that this is the case. Thanks, and enjoy your bouts! Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Grounding

I would appreciate it if you would revert your recent edits to Intentional Grounding and then create a section on the talk page so we can discuss it there. If you do not do so, I will. --Sm5574 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so now. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia's Wikia service is closing down soon

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:A_message_from_Fandom 184.18.204.128 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leary Field

Are File:Navs warm up in short Leary RF.JPG and File:Leary Field--Rockland Street gate.JPG your own work? Please remember to specify a source and author when you upload photos; the upload wizard can help with that. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Didn't my choice of Licensing make that clear? Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing templates can be ambiguous about the source of a file. As a result, the image use policy requires a clear statement of origin such as {{own work}} for all files. I have added this information to the file description pages and copied them to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help at Talk:Uncyclopedia

We need your help to establish consensus that the fork is not noteworthy and that uncyclopedia.ca is the only legitimate Uncyclopedia. BFDIBebble (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Spike-from-NH. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Uncyclopedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please do not make any further edits to the article or its talk page in order to avoid administrative action being taken against you. Senor Laughs (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. Oklippn (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no interest nor expertise in badminton. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PDP11 architecture

In your revision [PDP11-architecture|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDP-11_architecture&oldid=932465395] you seem to have reverted my change not to mention "(Rn) signifies the contents of that register." -- please note that the statement is *incorrect* with respect to the table of the addressing modes that follows.

When we talk about instruction mnemonics (as the remainder of the article does), "INC Rn", for example means to change (increment) the _contents_ of the register "Rn". If one writes "INC (Rn)" that would mean to increment the contents of memory, whose address is kept in "Rn" -- yet the value (contents) of "Rn" would in fact remain unchanged! So your returned statement only brings in confusion, as it does not apply to anything that follows.

If anybody was to follow the reinstated statement, "INC R0" would mean to do something with the number of the register, like to refer "R1", and "INC (R0)" would be to increment the _contents_ of R0 (so if R0 was to store a value of 0, the it'd become 1 after the instruction). But obviously that's not the case!

Processor handbooks do use the "(Rn)" notation (and that was very confusing at that time because of the indirect addressing modes that too use the parentheses) but only to show the effects of instructions. For example, for "INC Rn" they would use something like "(Rn)<-(Rn)+1" as "microcode expansion". That is because they also need to refer to the registers themselves, as in "Rn" and "R(n+1)", for example for instructions that implicitly operate on a pair of registers, like "MUL" or "DIV", so they need the distinction of a register name and register contents. But that's different and is not discussed in the article. When an instruction (in assembly language) refers a register, it _always_ refers its contents. And "(Rn)" refers contents of a memory location, pointed to by the register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.9.135 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Gains article

What is the point of injecting politics into an article about a subject that is not political in nature? And why did you find it necessary to insult me in your edit description? Eegorr (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Capital gains tax in the United States Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Violation (basketball) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violation (basketball) 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/Violation (basketball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied on the Afd page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]