This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spinningspark. 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.
Sorry, I did not think anyone cared about this. I was removing that extra space left by this and just cleaned up the rest. You know those double spaces are removed when the article is rendered. You could put dozens of spaces between words or sentences and it would render the same. I do not see any use for them, but if you want them there I will leave them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me right on that! As I say, I don't have a strong feeling about this as I don't believe in Wikipedia as a concept. In spite of people like yourselves who obviously care about getting it right, it seems to me that it's basically a recipe for misinformation in any fringe cases like this. I will make some changes and see how they go over the next few days but it's a real pity to see facts being replacedSaineolai (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC) with non-facts.
Jiffy
I was wondering why you didn't sign your name under "Support", since the removal of Jiffy was originally your idea. The only thing I did was changing the headline to make it a formal request for removal. I'm also pretty new to the "vital articles" project, but as far as I understand it, everyone, including the one who started a request can sign. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Well strictly speaking, I didn't propose its removal (although I do support that), you did. Deletion debates usually assume that the proposer supports their own proposal and having a bolded !vote as well is considered potentially confusing leading to a double count. My original post merely asked how it's inclusion had been decided, a question that has still not been answered. It's really hard to come to a firm conclusion on whether an article should be included without some firm inclusion guidelines. If this project has such a thing, it is well hidden. By the way, it's really useful if you link to the discussion you are referring to when you post on someone's talk page. Not always easy to identify it. SpinningSpark11:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wigwag (flag signals) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought the first telegraphs used earth-return and that during WWI the Germans listened in to the British telegraph from the earth signals. Or have I misunderstood? --TedColes (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the earliest commercial telegraph, the 5-needle Cooke and Wheatstone didn't use it, at least not for a few years, and many of the early experimetal systems were small scale and didn't really need to do it either. Not sure if Morse did it right from the beginnng – probably-maybe on that one. If you have a source for the Germans listening in, please put that in the article, but are you sure this wasn't related to a wireless telegraph that used ground propagation? That system is not the same as earth-return. SpinningSpark18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest
I had received a message from you regarding Conflict of Interest in regards to adding a link to finding aids from the Indiana State Library on the Mooresville,Indiana page. I have added a COI declaration to the talk page there. I am not intentionally trying to link spam or vandalize, and apologize for any confusion. If there are any further issues with my editing of pages, please let me know.Dlawrenceisl (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
One-way wave equation
Hello Spinningspark,
have you understood the background, why I link impedance to One-way wave equation?
As outlined on the other wiki page the well-known impedance equation is equivalent to a wave equation.
I thought that this might interesting to the readers of your page. All the best.
Cheers, HJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJRAIDA (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Waveguide maths
Hello,
You have deleted my modifications on the page related to waveguide. I don't agree with the given reason.
The mathematical developments given on the pages of Maxwell's equations and transverse modes are much more general. I deal with them in a specific context. Links exist between, but nothing prevents me from adding some more.
In addition, I was adding the final results specific to the rectangular waveguides (cut off frequencies, losses, induced currents, etc). They are not written anywhere on wikipedia in the context of waveguide. I think it's a pity. I tried, month's ago, to understand the mathematical analysis of rectangular waveguide from wikipedia. It's impossible for the moment, you need other sources. Thats the reason why i wrote the development i was adding.
Then, i don't understand why you deleted my work. And, I must admit, I'm a little disgusted. VK Vivien (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@VK Vivien: Please don't take this so personally. In point of fact, the information is not deleted, it is still available in the page history, so can easily be restored or moved to another article. Please take this discussion to the article talk page where other interested editors may have an opinion. You never know, others might agree with you. SpinningSpark15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, i was little disappointed in your modification. But I'm a big boy, I'll get over it. Will start a discussion there. Thanks for your work VK Vivien (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth-return telegraph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have been left with no choice but to withdraw from reviewing this article, because I simply don't have a complex enough knowledge of the topic to assess it at this level. I wish you all the best, and it does seem like a well done article! Sorry about that Eddie891TalkWork14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but your tick implies that everything is in order with the nomination. I know it's a pain to have to re-review the article just for a hook, but in this case, as you see, it was necessary. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You really need to take this up with the original reviewer who declared there were no policy issues. It's not unreasonable to AGF someone else's review. SpinningSpark21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
If you look at "my" articles, such as St. Kolumba, Cologne, you'll see that I usually use comma dab for places. The only reason not to do it here was symmetry to the other house. I didn't create a dab because it's only 2 which point at each other (or will do so), - therefore someone searching will be presented those options anyway, and it may save them a click ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If there isn't a dab page, one of them has to take the primary title and is given a hatnote to the other one. Either way, the primary title is obliged to exist. SpinningSpark13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Vacuum tube
I did not vandalize the page "vacuum tube". All i did was fill in a spot with the word "who", which seemed necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.40.86 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Compliments to you on having a thoughtful and well thought out talk page section. I haven't even seen this type before.
There are major problems with how things are being done in regards to deletion of articles, bias against performers on this site and in particular tv performers. Momentum7 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a big notice at the top of this page requesting you link to the thing you are talking about. I will, of course, always reverse an action if I believe I was at fault. SpinningSpark10:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a good thing. AfDs are often problematic. I don't feel anyone thinks you or other admins always have an easy way of being involved. In this case users or editors on here are causing problems. You can see that on their talk pages, etc. Even if I double the size of the article they will still have their biases. I would welcome the chance to show you this. Momentum7 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe this. They closed (or one admin closed) the deletion review before I could even edit. I have nothing better to do in a weekend then stand up to admins run amuck? Ok, I can try to go over this with you and maybe we could agree. First, this site is overrun with problems. As soon as you try to get involved in something like new page patrols or similar stuff you will have difficulties. Bias? It's all over. I didn't want to go to deletion review but you seemed to be staying out of things a little. Then that travesty of a proceedings? No wonder people are quitting involvement with this site. Momentum7 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That was a bit harsh, but it was never going to end any other way so closing early has saved you effort and frustration. You were told this would not go in your favour before you did it. Same goes for your thread on WP:ANB. Both venues are only going to look at whether I acted within guidelines, and since I did that there is no case to answer. What you seem to want is to have the guidelines changed. Such a thing is possible, but it is a waste of time telling you how to go about that. The notability guidelines have now been established for many years, they have been debated in great depth, and they have very wide consensus. There is zero chance of persuading the community to make the kind of significant changes you are looking for. Sorry, but that's how it is here. SpinningSpark15:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is proof you are in error. You could look at everyone who has been on AGT or Idol and has a page on Wikipedia. You could see for yourself that it's arbitrary who deletionists go after. Address things I ask you. I think we could solve this so we're both happy. I can expand the article even to some extent. That goes to a previous point; she is 15. How many articles do you think there are for fifteen year olds that can be cited? Keep in mind that privacy is important; there's not going to be as much information to put into an article. Still I could expand it. Go look at the people who have been on the show. Also look at the biases on here against that show, other shows, other performers particularly younger ones. Notability is one of the hot button topics and like most things on this site it is not understood. Momentum7 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It's hardly arbitrary. The reason I nominated Angelina Green for deletion is that sources only covered her in the context of America's Got Talent. She has not been covered in independent sources since then, so WP:BLP1E was a factor. Green does not meet any of the criteria for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and there has not been sustained coverage of her, so I think deletion was the appropriate outcome in this case. Regarding whether you could expand the article, you were given a chance to do so in April when it was restored to mainspace, but you did not make any substantive changes. I think the best option at this point is to wait and see if Green goes on to have any notable music accomplishments before trying to recreate the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"How many articles do you think there are for fifteen year olds that can be cited?" not many that's why we don't have that many articles on fifteen year olds (although we do have a fair few). If you can't find references, that's an indication we shouldn't have an article. Whether people aren't writing about the person for privacy reasons or whatever else ultimately isn't our concern. We are here to write an encyclopaedia largely based on reliable secondary sources and in the absence of those sources, we shouldn;t have an article. Also "before I could even edit" is inherently false. You opened that DRV so you clearly had the chance to edit it. However you failed to provide an actual valid reason. Funnily this is the second time today I've said something like this, but you need to try and make sure you get things right the first time. While you may not be able to predict all the issues that will be raised, you should be able to predict the lack of an actual rationale will doom your request. That said, I cannot imagine anything you could have said which would have been enough for an overturn. BTW, I suspect one reason besides the lack of a rationale, why your DRV failed so quickly is because before you opened it, you drew attention to yourself and the article by making those silly comments at AN. Definitely there's little chance I would have seen it were it not for AN. To be clear, I'm not saying people !voted endorse because of what you said at AN. I'm saying they became aware of a DRV they would otherwise either not have come across, or not have come across so fast because they saw what happened at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Australian currency license template
Greetings. I saw you were wrestling with {{PD-because}} on one of the AU bill images. You may wish to bring over Commons:Template:PD-Australia-currency, or just move the files to Commons and use that license there. If you do move them to Commons, please delete the local copies afterwards (as opposed to tagging them CSD F8). There's a backlog of almost 1,500 items at F8 and it's been over 1,000 since at least March. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I did try and bring over the Commons template, but it is not simple. It is buried in a very complex template coding system that goes down at least four levels of transclusion. For now, I've copied over the wording into PD-because. I'm reluctant to move the files while the XfD is open. That needs to wait till we have consensus on the issue. The last thing this needs is a parallel discussion going on on Commons. SpinningSpark09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Respected Grandpa!
Two Years Back, I Quit Using Wikipedia Because Of Your Rude Attitude And Was Very Hurt Then. I Don't Expect Any Apology Or Anything From You But Kindly From Now On, Treat Others Like You Wants To Be Treated By Others.
Hope You Understood It In A Positive Manner.
ThanksRaja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani(Gakhar) (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
On 18 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Network synthesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that interest in network synthesis research is now greater than at any time since the 1950s due to its new applications in mechanics, particularly in Formula One? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Network synthesis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Network synthesis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
My name is Ernest Lee. I own Confederate Motorcycles and was invited and asked to post pages on each model of motorcycle models on Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/New Articles. I was planning to first post the current models that Confederate Motorcycles is building and then to work my way back to models that Confederate Motorcycles has produced over the last 29 years. End of the day, I spent several hours providing information on six models of motorcycle that Confederate is currently producing. I first submitted links to the specifications on our official website. I was advised that the links needed to be to external third party sources as well. I then submitted links to two external sources in addition to the official website. I was advised that the information on the external sources (two notable motorcycle journalists) "regurgitated" the information on the Confederate Motorcycles official website. To the extent that they stated the exact engine size and other specifications they had copied such stats and information from Confederate Motorcycles press releases but the sources are in no way connected to the company. I thereafter peformed google searches for third party material and cited several sources for each sentence in the articles for each of the motorcycles currently manufactured by Confederate Motorcycles. I was then advised that the text in the article needed to be my own summary of the information in the articles and not direct quotes. I would like to submit these models of motorcycle to this project but humbly ask that you verify my sources and submit the information in my stead. Thank you for your time and consideration. Earnestly (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Earnestly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earnestly (talk • contribs)
Note: The same message has been added to three user talk pages, and the user has been blocked for two weeks. This is essentially admin shopping and does not necessarily require a personal, detailed reply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Earnestly: You were invited to create these articles? I don't think so, at least not at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/New Articles which is a simple list of articles to which you have added these titles to yourself. My involvement here was in patrolling the requests for speedy deletion. I declined them because you said you had contacted OTRS (but if I don't see an OTRS ticket number soon I will delete them anyway), and then did you the courtesy of reveiwing the articles so you would know they were too promotional. Your response to that has been to make them even more promotional. I was not intending to do more than decline the CSDs, but now that you have drawn my attention to your activity, I intend to revert everything you have done to the Confederate Motors page. You cannot hijack a page in this way. You company is a different company. Ok, you have bought the IP, but a page about Confederate Motorcycles LLC still needs to stand or fall on its own notability, not on the notability of something it has inherited. I strongly recommend that you make no further edits to that page because of your conflict of interest. SpinningSpark12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On 26 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pavel Schilling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Pavel Schilling invited Tsar Nicholas I to touch two wires together, the tsar was greatly surprised by the resulting distant explosion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavel Schilling. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pavel Schilling), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Spinningspark, I was hoping you could return to your DYK review here and see whether Mary Mark Ockerbloom's edits have addressed your concerns. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Spinningspark, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Hi. You recently concluded this rfc. Based on your conclusion no new testimonies from former members can be included in the article without consensus. My question is whether you sensed any consensus on removing previously added long-standing text of that same nature. To give you a background some of these contents date back to years ago and there is serious objection towards removing them as you can probably see in the page history (and the fact that there are sanctions applied to this page.). Thanks.--31.2.155.95 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you are misreading my close. The RfC was about four specific quotes and my close related only to them and was based on the consensus I could see in the discussion. It has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes. Of course, if these other quotes are objectionable for the same reasons as articulated in the discussion, then it would be unwise to add them. My role here was merely to formally close the discussion. I have no interest in becoming involved in any way with editing the article. SpinningSpark17:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Follow up on the IP's question. Given the fact that those four sentences were in the article from long time ago (upon including which there was consensus back in the days) did you sense any consensus in the above mentioned RfC to remove them? I guess what I am trying to say is that sometimes there is no consensus towards either inclusion or removal of a content as a result of which you do not touch the long-standing text. I appreciate your response.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought I had made my position clear – I am not going to give an opinion on issues that were not part of the RFC. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions on were consensus is for similar quotations. SpinningSpark07:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you. In the interest of time, here is my final question. Someone removed those 4 quotes from the article thinking your conclusion of the RfC implies there is consensus towards removing those 4 sentences. I just want to know if his action is in line with your conclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
"Once notable, always notable" -- I'm not going to contest your dePRODding, just wanted to let you know that 43,112,609 is NOT the largest prime then. The largest prime back then was 2 to the power of 43,112,609 minus 1. I don't see how being a mere exponent on a notable number makes it notable. Plus, one single fact that it is "the degree of four of the twelve largest primitive binary trinomials over GF(2) found in 2016" isn't that enough to make it notable -- it still fails NNUMBER or the GNG. Just a friendly note, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43,112,609 (number) 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. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
PROD error
Hi Spinningspark,
About this, apparently I made some sort of error while reviewing the page and my deletion rationale wasn't saved. Sorry about that! What is the correct protocol in this instance -- in particular, is it appropriate to restore the PROD with the missing rationale? (As you can see, the article is nearly incomprehensible, and the sources consist of a facebook page and a reference that does not have enough information to determine if it's a real thing.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If you had prodded it as incomprehensible I would still have declined it, so no, you can't restore the prod. Sure, it's not well written and the sourcing is worthless, but it is (mostly) understandable. You can always take it to AFD, but articles on populated places are almost never deleted except when even existence cannot be established. Legally recognised populated places are always kept regardless per WP:GEOLAND. Other communities are on a case by case basis, but at worst they get merged into the next highest administrative level – in this case that would be Gujar Khan Tehsil – if there is insufficient material for a standalone page. The Population Census of Pakistan lists a village called Paimal in Gujar Khan tehsil (and you are really expected to look for that yourself WP:BEFORE proposing a page for deletion) so there is no valid rationale for deletion on any grounds. SpinningSpark21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spinningspark, Thanks for your comments. As a novice new page reviewer I have been coming into contact with articles in areas I don't usually work on; the constructive feedback is very helpful as I endeavor to improve. All the best, JBL (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Davemoth, in his analysis of the Two-part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes prior to your close, indicated that both parts of the RfC pertained to a) the individual state pages and b) the main page. He wrote: "The initial scope of this as noted by the submitter was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article." I wanted to confirm that was your understanding as well. (I have tried to reach Dave to confirm but his account has been dormant since April.) Thank you, Humanengr (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The close was "impossible to determine consensus". I don't see how pronouncing on the exact scope of the close is going to be helpful. Although I read it, Davemoth's analysis did not form part of my close. I did my own analysis and came to my own conclusions. I do not necessarily agree with anythign stated there. SpinningSpark09:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"impossible to determine consensus" was your summary for the later RfC. I'm referring to this earlier one — where, FYI, the maker of that RfC, Smith0124, has now been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user.$ While the RfC was poorly framed, you properly ascertained for part B: "In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B [per MrX: 'After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest?'] with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote."
A close reading (below) of the votes and comments actually fortifies your conclusion — fully 18 of 22 were unconditionally for inclusion of any candidate who had earned 'a delegate'. If after reviewing the following, you could update your close to reflect this, that would simply matters going forward. The breakdown is:
4 for 'a delegate' as the sole criterion:
Trillfendi: "Delegates lead to the nomination which is the most important thing. …"[1]
David O. Johnson: "I think all candidates should be included in order to meet WP:NPOV, though only candidates with delegates should be listed post- primary/caucus for each article, as that's the method of gaining the nomination."[2]
Nixinova: *voted 'Yes (Option 2)' [referring to 'Must get a delegate' from Smith0124's earlier cmt]. "I think only candidates who get delegates should go in the infobox because that is the only metric that 'matters'."[3]
Mirek2: "… it does make sense to me that only those that won any delegates are shown, as that's what primaries are about"[4]
12 for '[either] a delegateor 5% of popular vote':
Staberinde: "… For results, a delegate or 5% of votes is a good cutoff point to be informative for readers without getting overly crowded."[5]
Gnerphk: 'Yes (Option 3/4)' [referring to 'Option 3: Must get EITHER 5% or more of the popular vote or a delegate' or 'Option 4: No threshold' in Smith0124's earlier cmt][6]
Davemoth: delegate or >5%; "In the case where there are 9 or fewer active and eligible candidates they should all be included. We should not start making judgement calls on what should be counted. Keep it simple and use a criteria that is less likely to be seen as manipulation or subject to abuse."[7]
Smith0124: "… As for B, 5% or a delegate works in my opinion. …"[8]
Darryl Kerrigan: "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote. … If more than six candidates receive over 5%, then after delegate receiving candidates, the remaining slots …"[9]
Jiminyhcricket: "delegate or >5%. Yes. … only the candidates who win delegates should be included, and only the delegate counts should be listed. … Clarification - B: … (delegate or >5%) more closely matches my preferences."[10]
Jjj1238: "B: No, per Darryl" [i.e., "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote"][11]
Danish Expert: "… criteria after election should instead be "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote. I largely agree with Darryl. … So the B criteria needs to be: 'Delegate or >5% of the popular vote.' …"[12]
Devonian Wombat: "… Darryl Kerrigan and Danish Expert have already provided fantastic arguments for why it should be the case. …"[13]
Gambling8nt: "per Danish Expert. … I think it would be a mistake not to include any candidate who manages to get a delegate."[14]
Wikiditm: "I have found Danish Expert's comment convincing for B. …"[15]
power~enwiki: "delegate or >5%. … After the vote, I don't think that "winning delegates" should be the only cutoff. It's not like getting second place in a first- past-the-post election wins you anything either, so simply 'not winning' isn't reason enough to exclude people."[16]
1 for '[either] a delegateor 15% of popular vote':
MJL: "Yes … if you can't get a single delegate then why do you need to be in the infobox? 15% is the cutoff there for most primary states, so having just 5% really doesn't mean much."[17]
1 for 'top 9 by delegates, then by popular vote'
MrX: "In both cases [A or B], I think the most WP:NPOV compliant option is [criteria for prior to the contest]; and then top 9 by delegates; and then by popular vote after the contest.[emphasis added for clarity] We do not "need" a cutoff, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended if we wanted). 5% is arbitrary, and could distort the information in these times when candidates polling at less than 5% have shown that they can jump to the lead in subsequent polls or primaries"[18]
Two others supported 'a delegate' either as a sole or alternative criterion with a cutoff of 6 delegates (Onetwothreeip[19] and WMSR[20]); 1 voted no (Michelangelo1992[21]); and 1 was unclear (Arglebargle79[22]).
$ There is good reason to doubt the intentions of Smith0124 in proposing the RfC you closed as "impossible to determine consensus". Note that S Marshalldelisted and closed another RfC by Smith as "This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry." Smith's efforts arguably distracted others from seeing what I documented above. Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to revisit this, and I'm not going to reanalyse it (or check through your analysis). The wording of the proposal is perfectly clear on its scope Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if... That's "articles" plural. No further clarification is needed. SpinningSpark08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you re clarification. Would you be willing, given the new information that 1) the proposer of the RfC you closed here as "impossible to determine consensus" has now been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user and 2) that S Marshall began his close of this RfC to indicate "This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry", to preface your close with "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet of a banned user."? Thank you, Humanengr (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I have no interest in smearing the reputation of the nominator (he seems to be doing a fine job of that all by himself) and it does not materially affect the close in any way. SpinningSpark16:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foy–Breguet telegraph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunate close. Sadly too many AfD closers put more weight on the wordiness of certain editors. This one looks like an easy no-consensus. An editor can renominate it at any time, instead the article got the death penalty based on the delete rationales of less editors. I ask you to reconsider your close. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course I didn't give weight to the length of the comments, and I take umbrage at the suggestion that I did. Long posts that say nothing relevant or make me wade through a wall of text before getting to the meaningful point just make me want to groan when closing something like this. On the contrary, it was the lack of credible evidence from the keep side that there were sources showing notability. Merely asserting that is not enough, especially when a source has been challenged in detail. And a close is not no consensus just because some, or even the majority of, participants disagree. Policy based arguments are required before any weight is attached to them. SpinningSpark08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand what's going on here. By trying to get people to disregard substantial analyses as being too "wordy" the goal is to gradually move AfD from a detailed examination of article contents and sources (which tends to favour the delete position) to a mere count of heads (which tends to favour keeps). Deletion discussions governed by emotional rhetoric like "death penalty" would also go in that direction. ReykYO!09:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reyk: please watch your language. substantial analyses may now be referred to only as "wall of text", "bludgeoning", "bullying", or "intimidation". The more through the analysis, the greater the offence. Please try to keep up with community trends. <bitter sarcasm /> --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou for reasonable explanation and of this close which if had it been made by the admin on the earlier close at 07:44, 19 June 2020 would not have been acceptable. These explanations are important. #i don't think I have access to the offline resources in covid-19 lockdown ... but without anyone doing that it was likely not a lost cause. The WP:COIN issue with someone self outing has been a problem also. Re-opening without formal listing by a neutral has also been a problem, though doing this without leaving an audit on the visible record but just sacastic comments in the history is is not a great example of admin behavior. But this in my view glaring loopholeis permitted and I dont have the energy to propose an RFC or whatever is needed. And without a fixed guarentee of any time without a possible possible close is a nightmare. Anyway as demonstrated this operation is a WIP and movements are afoot so WP:REFUND to draft please, userify if necessary or permission to ask at WP:RFU. I'd like to work over those audio contributions with a little more time that I have on Sunday between lunch and taking someone to a treatment centre for an X-ray; and generally look at this with more detail at a time of my own choosing. Thamkyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm open to draftifying, but I suggest that you first find additional sources, or show that there were sources already in the article that were overlooked in the AFD. I don't see the point of reworking it with exactly the same material. Without something new it is just wasting everyone's time. If you need the list of sources from the article I'm happy to provide that. SpinningSpark08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The audio resource is (possibly) time sensitive and contains significant information. My time is limited and I'd like to work on the article when I want to and some of my edits were backed out on the latest version any I need to fully understand what was going on there. I will need talk page as well. I think I've I might just have identified a viable merge also; might need to try and pick up a book from Chi though (might be there today or Friday or who knows). I can request this via DRV if absolutely necessary. Userify if you like. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Forgot to say would like the talk page as well, I am of the firm belief talk page and acticle page are bound together. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Either you have new information or you don't. If you don't, rehashing the arguments over and over is going nowhere. You have already tried admin-shopping, you are now suggesting forum-shopping until you get the answer you want. If you take it to DRV I will strongly oppose, and I will oppose draftifying unless you are bringing something new to the table.
The BBC program is available here and the deletion or undeletion of our article will make no difference to how quickly the link goes dead (they seem to stay up for three months after the broadcast date). Besides which, I find it completely unconvincing as evidence of notability. It is an interview with the company owner lasting less than five minutes in a four-hour lightweight music programme. The host had virtually nothing independent to say beyond asking questions other than something like "it's nice that these old railway sidings have come back into use". SpinningSpark10:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I am taking this as a refusal to draftify/userify in order that I blocked from developing a possibly too soon article or to prevent consideration of a possible merge of some attributed content to Great Yarmouth Railway Station. The admin conduct of the prior close and failure to explain reasoning (as you did) was poor; silent re-opening with sarky comments set the tone for the rest of the AfD. I have proved successful at re-introducing articles when new information comes to light, as I am pretty sure you have seen me do before. and I expect new stuff from ORR within the month. Quite frankly this is probably a printworthy re-direct with possibilities / merge as it is probably too soon. Pathway may end up somewhat similar All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama; though with a merge included and may need to go via DRV. Userify please. This is east Anglia, you need to think different angles. A pilot landing on the sidings would aid notability and aerial photographs appreciated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I find that consensus is a policy and it should be followed. There is no limit to the AfD process being repeated. Consensus is how things are done here. editors may not agree with me, however I must call it out when consensus is ignored.
I changed an instance of 'analogue' to 'analog' on this page, and it was reverted for conformance to the English usage of the original author. I have no argument against that, and will not interfere further.
'Analog', however, is a term of art in electronics, specifying a continuously variable signal, as opposed to 'digital'. The meaning is distinct from 'analogue' in common English, and the distinction is in my experience preserved between British and American usages. That was the reason for my edit.
I'm going to copy your comment to the article talk page and answer you there. Discussions relating to specific articles belong on the talk page for that article where other interested editors can see it. SpinningSpark13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
A minor point: Per my reading of Template:Old_XfD_multi documentation section "Four AfDs, all collapsed, 1 external link, small version" that template does cater for DRVs. That said I omitted the caption2=DRV option which was a problem and also should have added the section "#Deleted_article" to the link. I will however leave the Template:Olddelrev you have applied. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with you rolling them into one template if you want to, but the way you had done it didn't look like a DRV result. SpinningSpark23:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I've done that; using caption2=DRV which I missed before. That was totally my error (I remember feeling at the time I'd missed something when I did it before but I think I possibly distracted myself moving date= parameters first). If you're not happy with the result for any reason feel free to revert to your version. Thnakyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreement with your articles
"How to disagree" and "What not to say."
Both so relevant in the new mob days of Black Lives Matter which apparently has little to do with black lives. New morality totally unfamiliar with the eras they denounce - when, for example, many besides non-"whites" had slaves including indigenous Indians and even many blacks themselves.2605:6000:1713:A2A0:2514:B3A2:81C2:7EDC (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
English variant
Re: your recent tussle with Wtshymanski at Ground loop (electricity) over the spelling of analogue; this seems to be a case of yet another American determined to hammer American English and spellings come what may. I (and others) are having exactly the same problem at Safety lamp. Though in this case Wtshymanski is attempting to cite a policy that does not apply. Being somewhat new, I have no idea what to do about this. -RFenergy (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A canter through his edit history shows that this is going on elsewhere. Another recent example is [here]. Note how he tries to claim that 'aluminium' is an archaic spelling when in reality most of the English speaking world uses it. It is also the IUPAC standard spelling. -RFenergy (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Shymanski has a reputation for opinionated posts. They usually lack any kind of research, evidence that references have been consulted, or reality in policy. He's a knowledgeable chap in the engineering field, and is sometimes right, but if you think he is wrong he can safely be reverted. SpinningSpark14:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive criticism on the United Macedonian Diaspora deletion page. I tried to do my best to find as many sources as possible and edit the article but my edits kept being deleted by certain editors. I was wondering if you took note of the two books and two journals and several government agency sources I provided? There was a lot of debate and may have been drowned out. Do you believe these sources can help in recreating the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I looked at most of the sources presented in the debate. But, you need to understand that it is not the closer's role to assess the sources. My role is to assess the consensus of the discussion. That is, it is what the participants think of the sources that matters, not what I think. I look at them to check that what people are saying about the sources is true (or otherwise), not to make my own assessment. As it happens, I only really disagreed with the delete side on claims that the Australian Diaspora book was not significant coverage. That claim was rowed back somewhat during the course of the debate and I consequently noted it in my close.
Frankly, I think you would be unwise to recreate the article. You would be swimming against the tide. That's not to say that information on the UMD can't exist somewhere on Wikipedia. For instance, a section on diaspora organisations could be created in the Macedonian diaspora article. If you do that, don't give WP:UNDUE weight to the UMD. Cover the other organisations as well. It was clear to me from the sources that other organisations exist and the UMD may not even be the largest. Once that is done, a redirect can be created pointing to the relevant section.
Thank you User:Spinningspark, fair enough. It's my belief there was a consensus that several of the sources were reliable sources. Certain users drowned out the discussion and kept interpreting their own definition of rules. As you pointed out in your closure feedback, this organization could potentially have its own page. While I do not dispute your findings, I believe the page should have been allowed to exist and with a disclaimer that the page needs to be improved. I discovered in my research other diaspora-like organizations have similar pages with no deletion but with improvement-needed disclaimers. The editors should conduct research and aim to improve these pages, rather than flat out calling for deletion. I personally felt attacked for trying to edit articles and I define it as WP:BULLY. Certain users went after my edits on other pages. The external editors argument is not an appropriate reason to delete a page, as all of us are external editors to a certain extent except the one who created the page in the first place. Some of these users have been warned for edit-warring and outing private information of other users because they disagree with these users. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and should not be tolerated. Wikipedia was founded in a democratic country, not in a Communist fascist one.
I happen to have a strong research interest in Southeast Europe, including diaspora groups, soccer, and more, and why I joined Wikipedia two months ago (even though I had an account in college), and even offered to help with the WikiProject on organizations, and have recently submitted a soccer athlete page to be considered. This is what we all on Wikipedia should be doing, instead of targeting and harassing a charitable organization due to biased political views by certain users who are viral on anything related to ethnic Macedonians.
Wikipedia is about democracy and freedom of speech, not bringing hundred-year-old oppressive policies from Southeast Europe onto Wikipedia. My apologizes for venting on your talk page. I'll do more research on diaspora groups and see if I can help improve the page you suggested. In the end, all of this makes Wikipedia the best encyclopedia out there. Macedonia1913 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
No, your sources were not overlooked, and please don't post any more rants like this on my talk page. I'm not in the least bit interested in your imaginary persecution. SpinningSpark13:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Needle telegraph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The4lines -- The4lines (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Needle telegraph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Needle telegraph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The4lines -- The4lines (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
SpinningSpark, I won't include links, because it's about outing. I commented on an article talk page where, earlier this year, you removed a user's personal details. The next day I realized that even a simple denial is a wrong answer to outing, and I reverted my brief comment. You may delete the history of my edits to that article talk page on 14 and 15 July 2020, if appropriate, or leave the history, if reverting my comment was enough.
If you felt déjà vu when you removed the user's personal details, it's because you removed my personal details in 2016, outed by the same person. Thank you for adding a reminder about outing to that person's talk page. - Scenography (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spinningspark. 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.
