User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 26

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 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Regarding this comment, please note that as demonstrated on the talk page, neither {{Cool Air}} or {{Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works}}} are being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Template:H. P. Lovecraft and the outcome there would not have any bearing on this navbox or vice versa. I do however understand your confusion, due to a number of similarly named Lovecraft templates, and the fact the navbox creator also seems confused by this on the talk page. --woodensuperman 12:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, the bottom line is that deletion would not be uncontroversial and speedy deletion is not appropriate. In my view, navigation templates should not be deleted while they are still in use on articles. Your claim is that the template can adequately be replaced with another. Doing that does not require deletion to proceed. If you can achieve that uncontroversially, then I'll be willing to delete the template as unused. SpinningSpark 12:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I already did that, but the navbox's creator added the template back (example). Both navboxes are currently present on each article. The problem with not speedy deleting a navbox while it is still in use is that you have a "chicken and egg" situation. "Unused" is not a required condition for a navbox to meet WP:CSD#T3. --woodensuperman 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Take it to TFD. SpinningSpark 12:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You said "The units used in the source and the historical period should be stated first with the modern units in brackets, not converted to something else to feed into a conversion template."

Where is this explained in wikistyle or any other guide? Ninjalectual (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

For page watchers, the article in question is Transatlantic telegraph cable. Next time, please link the article you are discussing. It is not always obvious to busy editors. SpinningSpark 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The guideline is at MOS:CONVERSIONS. It is fairly obvious that a small degree of WP:OR goes into a conversion. For instance, if the source contains the figure of 200 nautical miles, we must decide whether to show the conversion as 400 km, 370 km, or 371 km. To pick the right one, we must make a decision on the degree of precision the source was using. They may have rounded from 190 nmi, 150 nmi, 199 nmi, or even 200.1 nmi. In many cases you just don't know and would be guessing. By putting the km conversion first and converting back to 200 nmi in brackets, you may be misleading the reader over the precision of the figure, or even completely distorting it. WP:STYLEVAR also comes into this, and that guideline is repeated at the end of MOS:CONVERSIONS. There are times when converting everything to metric in an article is appropriate. This was not one of them. SpinningSpark 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

With regards to your reversion of my redirect: the target does mention Suwayfah. As to whether or not Suwayfah is a part of Dibba Al-Fujairah: if you Google Suwayfah or check Google maps for the area, you get a bunch of hotels, all of which have addresses in Dibba Al-Fujairah or talk about being in Dibba on their websites. Radisson Blu's resort explicitly uses the word Suwayfah on its Google result, yet on its website under location states it is within Dibba, and has an address in Dibba. This job-hunting site shows jobs in Suwayfah, Dibba. Google maps shows the boundaries of Dibba Al-Fujairah inclusive of the area Suwayfah maps within. Per Suwayfah at GEOnet Names Server, Suwayfah is a locality, not a legally recognized separate entity. All in all, that's a pretty reasonable indication that Suwayfah is the name of an area or neighborhood within DAF. Since there aren't any substantial in-depth sources discussing Suwayfah, per WP:GEOLAND it was reasonable to redirect one to the other. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've self-reverted. SpinningSpark 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electrical telegraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadruplex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: What exactly is your objection to the referencing style, and how does that infringe DYK rules? SpinningSpark 10:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Distributed element circuit at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 22:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have access to Haigh which you use as the principal reference in the article? Miramar which is usually a RS for ships gives a continuing history for the ship after 1915 with it finally being wrecked as the Norham in 1932. Furthermore it gives the renaming year as 1901 and Graces guide gives it as 1894. I've loath to change anything as Haigh might well be correct Lyndaship (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "do I have access to Haigh"? Are you implying I am citing a source I haven't read? I paid real money to get it on interlibrary loan. SpinningSpark 13:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean it in an accusatory fashion, you might have only had some google book sections to look at so the later history of the ship might not be included. If that was the case Miramar's info could well be correct. Lyndaship (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Haigh doesn't give any later history. He says categorically that the ship was scrapped, but then, he is only interested in submarine cables. Maybe both are true—the ship was scrapped as a cable ship and its cable gear transferred to another ship (as Haigh said), but the hulk was sold on and used elsewhere. SpinningSpark 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thats what I suspected. Haigh's interest would end when Alert ceased to be a cable ship. Also its possible that when he saw sold in some record he synthed that to sold to be scrapped. Further checking on the plimsoll line site (which has online copies of some Lloyds registers) confirms Norham's details as to builder, launch and previous and subsequent names corresponding to Miramars record (with the strange exception of Alert being missing!). Norham is listed on the List of shipwrecks in 1932 here on wiki. I feel safe adding this detail now. First year of name I'll stick with Haigh - Miramar must be wrong, and Graces fails in light of Haigh as a RS Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Haigh doesn't give the year of rename. What the article currently says is the GPO took over the ship in 1890. The rename may, or may not, have been immediate. I think you're probably safe in adding that also. SpinningSpark 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Are you intending to do anything with this? I'm about to nominate it for DYK, it would be helpful if it was done before it gets reviewed. SpinningSpark 12:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Done my best. Its possible one of the merchant ship specialists at WP:SHIPS can flesh it out some more - I don't have access to the Times reports of the casualty and it is possible when she was re-engined the paddle wheels were removed and she became a conventional twin screw. I suspect she was PS until then and MV thereafter Lyndaship (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an appropriate way, but as you have worked on the dissipation factor and dielectric loss pages that I find well written (in particular I like the introduction of the reactive power concept), I will like your opinion and, if possible, from other selected contributors, regarding the appropriate introduction of the Q factor page, see the last two threads in the associated talk page: Talk:Q_factor#A_suggested_new_order_for_the_presentation_and_inappropriate_illustration_picture and talk:Q factor#A_proposed_“modern”_introduction_to_Quality_Factors. Henri BONDAR (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all. I was mostly making sure I didn't miss something. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not good to keep reverting, but there are records with National Rail and Thwaites & Reed which show the original clock. It is much smaller than the later copies, about 6 foot diameter, not 23 as now, and there is documentary evidence that the numerals were put on by the current owner, a retired railworker. The clock unveiled by the Queen on the opening of the station was the 1960's clock totally refurbished to English Heritage Specifications by Thwaites & Reed, and taken down when London and Continental Railways commissioned the new Dent advertisment from Smiths of Derby a mere few months later. Later the 1960's dial which was the one authorised by English Heritage was painted black as an art display, totally masking the painstaking conservation work done by Thwaites & Reed. This was reported in the British Horological Institute Journal. Perhaps you might consider reverting your edit as it does not give an impression of the original as intended. If you would like photographs of the original just email and these can be sent to you.Turretclocks (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Turretclocks: please link to the article you are talking about, preferably with a diff. I remember reviewing an edit that removed an image of the St Pancras clock, but afair, I didn't revert it. SpinningSpark 14:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of researching semaphore and telegraph issues, and came across this reference: https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph-henry-project/telegraph/The_Telegraph_Manual_p114.pdf

Which includes an image of Bain's code. I'd love to see it added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morse_comparison.svg but don't have the time or SVG editing skills at the moment to do so. It would be really cool if you were able to update the image! -- DE K6WEB PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to change the table as it is associated with article text, but I might be prepared to make a new diagram for you. What page is the code on in the document? What Wikipedia article is this improving? SpinningSpark 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You voted to keep this list during the AfD discussion, ass did I. I am working on editing the list, but it is massive. I would appreciate your comment on the talk page of the article. Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I added another source to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_61#F. C. Webb. —Bruce1ee^talk 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, got it, but I've only got snippet access to that. It will be good for confirming the accuracy of the online web version though. SpinningSpark 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed you the article (4 pages) from this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to match what appears in the web version. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. This is a much later article than the series of articles from the 1880s reproduced in http://atlantic-cable.com. The last two pages you sent me (758 and 759) seem to be corrupt, they are showing as zero bytes. SpinningSpark 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've resent the last two pages. —Bruce1ee^talk 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time signal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A fine article, well deserving FA status. Congratulations. I look forward to whatever you may be writing next. catslash (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now I am writing Telegraphy in the United Kingdom (draft at User:Spinningspark/Sandbox#Telegraphy in the United Kingdom) but my next attempt at FA will probably be Distributed element circuit. I'll likely put that up for peer review soon. SpinningSpark 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The title Telegraphy in the United Kingdom is very specific (and strangely reminiscent of a popular ditty from the 1970s). Perhaps it should be the even more specific Electric telegraphy in the United Kingdom, if optical telegraphy is to be excluded.

In order to satisfy the (1b) comprehensiveness FA criterion, the Distributed element circuit should perhaps mention tapers in the Circuit components section. At present it says Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare, yet in the lede picture there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns, vivaldi antennas, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers.

The Gutta Percha Company article was nice to see. Can the water between Dover and Calais properly be described as an ocean (recent developments aside)? catslash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Distributed element circuit/archive1 and copied your comment there to keep it on record. I'll look at updating the article when there are a few more comments. You're welcome to put something in yourself now if you feel so inclined. SpinningSpark 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the difficulty of differentiating the Skyway scam from the actual science behind it. As a result I've really attempted to find any references that show how they aren't inextricably linked. The very fact that it SEEMS to be scientific in and of itself shadows meekly behind the fact that you can't find any clear attempt of the engineer to distance himself or at least explain why his theory got connected to the scam. As you seem to be well-informed about historical scientific information, I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know if you can find any references which actually do explain how Yunitisky is not at best indifferent to how his theory is being abused in multinational and complex scams, and at worst profiting from it himself. Maybe then you could create two articles, one about the theory and the other about the dangerous scam. But I can't find any and as much as I'd love to support his engineering concepts I can't find a single reference distancing the two and I'm extremely worried about the references I do find as part of the scam to the STRING TRANSPORT Wikipedia article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Kind regards, Zachar Laskewicz February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes I've made to the introductory section to the STRING THEORY article creates an unfortunate dissonance between my possible changes and the contents of the article which refers to the track structure and the 'rolling stock'. If you can find anything to backup this theory, maybe you could either review the validity of the technical information, edit it or adjust the introduction to include valid scientific information with a real reference that isn't either self-referential or circular. If you can't find any valid references maybe you could reduce or contextualize the 'rolling stock' references. It has to be clear because there is a real risk of people being duped by a scam if excessive technical information is not contextualized as abuse within a real existing scam. I know people who have lost money in it and I've seen scammers making changes to this page. I have friends who've lost money in this scheme because they found the Wikipedia article. The user 'Kmarina86' has also made corrections to the article and they also seem to be informed about science without being necessarily biased so I'll try to contact them as well to see if they can help. I'm looking forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about what article you are talking about, and why you have started two different threads on my talk page. I deal with hundreds of articles every week, so next time please link to the article you are talking about. If we are discussing string transport, I have little interest in doing any serious work on it. String theory is an entirely different subject with no relationship whatsoever. It would be inappropriate to write anything in that article. SpinningSpark 20:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about polluting your talk page with extraneous information.Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019

(UTC)

Really sorry for misnaming 'String transport' as 'String theory'. It's so confusing because 'String transport' was presented as the SkyWay theory and it is very easy to confuse it with an already existing scientific theory you hear about so often. I find myself typing it all the time. I mean to type 'string transport' but I type 'string theory'; when I check it quickly before posting it I suppose it looks sufficiently okay. I'm kicking myself for making this mistake again and again. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 15, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark, thank you for the kind welcome and the advice at DYK! Very kind of you to reach out and I appreciate it. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the Russian entry ru:Телеграф is already linked to the Wikidata unit d:Q6987428 (including a link to the enWiki entry Telegraph). So apparently people consider them to be two different things, don't they? Double interwikis to the same article are misleading. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what problem Wikidata is having with this; that's for that project to sort out internally. It's the same subject and putting the interwiki on a redirect page is useless to the article readers. There is no double interwiki on the article page. SpinningSpark 13:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Is there a way to get this table;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(resistance)&oldid=864372314

back into the ohm page? It is a useful tool to show people how the names and values thereof relate to the Ohm. I just had this today where I informed a fellow that his electric motor windings had zero Megohms of resistance.

Heavymetal308 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Before doing anything with that table, you should look into how you are going to source it. The lack of references was the primary issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (resistance). Once you've identified reliable sources you can think about recreating it at its original location, or (probably less controversially) as part of another article. Alternatively, as stated by the closing admin, you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review to get the discussion reopened. SpinningSpark 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Heavymetal308: SpinningSpark 12:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marianna Yarovskaya. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The deletion review unsalted the title, and I accepted a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The edit I made on Reed Custer High School’s Wikipedia page has nothing to do with promotional or advertising use, thank you. MusicHead24 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Profssor Li(Jian Li) is my tutor,she called me to create an entry on wikipedia that introduces her.All the information I found from Google and her university homepage.As for the previous photo,I found it from her homepage.As for the photo that was just deleted,it was taken with her mobile phone,and with her consent,there was no infringement.So I hope that you will be able to pass the review and not to delete my photo.Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guangxidiyimeinan: As I explained on your talk page, you must not create this page by overwriting other information. This is not the only person of that name who has an article here. A new page must be created. You uploaded the photo at Commons:, which is a different project to Wikipedia. You should take up the issue there. According to the log at Commons the file was copied from here. That page says "Copyright 2018 IEEE - All Rights Reserved" so on the face of it, it was a correct deletion. SpinningSpark 08:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that what I have done has caused you so much trouble.I have realized that I have made a mistake and I am trying to re-create a new page.Since I am building a entry on wikipedia for the first time,there are a lot of unclear places,and I apologize again for the trouble that have caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guangxidiyimeinan: No problem, I understand how difficult this can be for new users. The golden rule here is that if you are reverted, go and discuss it first and get an understanding of the problem before you do anything else on that subject. SpinningSpark 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! What you mean is that I need to create a new page,When someone clicks on the link in the disambiguation page,does it jump to the page I created? Besides,regarding the picture,I uploaded a photo of my teacher who took my own mobile phone,can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guangxidiyimeinan: The order you should do things is this;

1. First, consider how you are going to prove notability for this person, particularly WP:PROF. Read both those linked guidelines. There is no point going any further unless you can meet them. If you do not, ultimately you contribution will be deleted.
2. Create a draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Follow the instructions there.
3. When ready, submit the draft for review. If it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the main space. If rejected, the reason will be explained and you can then improve the draft and submit it again.
4. When you have an article in mainspace, only then can you add an item to the disambiguation page. And yes, the link will then automatically take the reader to the page.

Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 13:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey,friend!I have created a new page, but why is my link on the disambiguation page deleted again?Is it necessary to wait for my newly created page to pass the review before it can appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It must wait until there is an article in mainspace. Disambiguation pages must only list Wikipedia articles, nothing else. Drafts do not count as articles, pages in other namespaces do not count, pages outside Wikipedia do not count. SpinningSpark 14:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that mess starting before you had to open the RFC. Absolutely clear cut case. Thanks for the 3RR. Meters (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, are you intending to expand this at some point? Thanks Cls14 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The article \Frederick Charles Webb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

edit summary said the person was moving this between the sandbox and draft space. This article does not Ned to be stand alone but connected to another article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the article to Draft:Frederick_Charles_Webb since it obviously isn't ready for mainspace and per your move summary you intended to put the notes in draft space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please restore Talk:Enterprise marketing management as soon as possible. I have already raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management but forgot to check the talk page was restored. The CSD G12 for Marketing operations management seems like a good spot (I'm assuming that article pre-dated the Wikipedia one). Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: It wasn't a website, it was this book from an apparently reputable publisher which has near identical text. But your comment has caused me some doubt now. The book does not predate the article (2009 against 2005) and other articles such as Product management (apparently not by same editor) also appear copied in the book. I'm considering undoing my close – your opinion? SpinningSpark 11:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article but what I'm assuming your saying is that the article content at 2005 pre-dated the book at 2009. I had simply a gut feeling that might be the case. It is actually quite possible the person who authored the wikipedia article also authored the book. Or maybe someone got hold of his drafts and published them. Or maybe the book was taken from Wikipedia. Or whatever. Simply undoing is not good as if you get it wrong its a copy violation which is worse, although attempting to follow Wikipedia:BACKWARDSCOPY would likely mitigate. Overall this probably makes a deletion challenge at DRV reasonable (where a hidden copy can be kept for viewing during the discussion) and you might consider self-referring to DRV. Alternatively (try to) apply Wikipedia:BACKWARDSCOPY to Product management and see what happens or does not happen. In my view marketing is a mess, copyright reporting is a tightrope, and I am pretty tainted at AfD & DRV. But all said and done I will in general support any reasonable good faith removals of a possible copyright violation even if that is subsequently found to be incorrect. This probably doesn't help much. You might consider it safer to fly off and get an image for commons of Blackrock Island (Mayo) before Brexit stops you (I am not being serious .. small aeroplanes scare me!). Back on subject I could take the article to DRV myself but that would probably be seen as obtuse. Thankyou for restoring the talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

More eyes on this is probably a good idea. I'll self-refer to DRV. SpinningSpark 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Brownhills West railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I agree the reference doesn't support the dates but it does explain why the station had to move and that is why I included it as my last edit summary indicated. Nthep (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It also doens't support the map reference, and it doesn't support the claim that the original location is actually underneath the motorway. Sorry, you can't write unsourced information in front of a reference citation. Most especially since the unsourced dates were challenged in the AFD as being inaccurate. The paragraph I inserted pretty much implies that the source covers the reason for the move so there isn't really a problem. Every single specific fact in the sentence you added the cite to fails verification in that source. This was the whole reason I was very careful to write the sourced information as a separate paragraph. You are attempting to mix that up again. SpinningSpark 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No the reason for the move was cited but frankly I'm not bothered and I've marked the insertion as citation needed and I'll leave it at that . If you want to delete the dates, the map reference etc feel free. The AFD decision was to merge the meagre amount of text that could be asserted as not completely untrue which was everything about a prior MR station existing and that's what I did. There is nothing that stops subsequent edits removing the merged material as unverified and/or unverifiable.

PS I agree that merge was not the best AFD result considering how little of the deleted article was possibly correct hence my not leaving a redirect in place. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, I think you accidentally put outside of your comment something that was either meant to be part of the comment or not to be there at all. Mind cleaning it up? Nardog (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tool XFDcloser appears to have performed actions, in particular I notice the removal of the redirects to Marketing operations management and Enterprise marketing management, namely Enterprise Marketing Management and Marketing Operations Management. This is causing other content to be deleted due to redlinks on these redirects. Can the redirects be restored place. ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Both articles are still at AfD. I would say wait for the conclusion before deciding what redirects, if any, are needed. These are incorrect/alternative capitalisations that break our guidelines on caps. Any article using them should be retargeted to the extant articles. Alt capitalisation redirects are not really needed any more for searching. The search function has been sophisticated enough to find the article anyway for many years. SpinningSpark 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice article. Perhaps you are planning a complementary article on the Rotman lens? catslash (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that one's all yours. If it isn't on my work in progress page, then I have no plans for it. At any one time that page represents about five years of work to complete and I'm always adding to it. I have no requirement for additional suggestions. SpinningSpark 15:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have noticed in the past you have deleted articles relating to Tommy Wright III, before, and that is the current topic I wanted to add information to. Is there an indication of why those pages were deleted so I wouldn't get mine deleted as well? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugsPalacios227 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@AugsPalacios227: The deletion log is here which gives the reasons for deletion. The original deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Wright III. I strongly recommend you submit any new article as a draft for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for instructions. This page has previously been deleted four times, which makes it much more likely that any new article created directly in the mainspace will be deleted quickly. Hence my recommendation to write as a draft. Please also read this advice. SpinningSpark 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I appreciate the response, and will defiantly take your advice and continue drafting. Thank you so much for the help mate.

The article Electric Telegraph Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Electric Telegraph Company for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Re your GA nom, the article is incomplete. Infobox is missing such items as names/dates, flags, official number/code letters. Article itself needs a description section giving details of dimensions, engines etc. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't a GA requirement so even a complete absence of an infobox is not "incomplete" from a GA perspective. I don't have any more information on the specification of the ship so I don't see the point in repeating the bare data from the infobox in a prose section. Frankly, if it comes to a choice, I'll dump the infobox altogether. I've never been a fan of them. SpinningSpark 18:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You had no direct involvement in the AfD apart from suggesting me to relist it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

‎Cswquz is edit warring again on science [1], despite clear consensus against his edits. I wanted to alert you since you had experience engaging him and I believe having input from an administrator in this instance might be helpful. danielkueh (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not see what you are talking about. Was it factual and truthful information, if so, what's wrong with posting it? Can you be more specific or enlightening?

Regarding Full translation of the Behistun Inscription: When a mainspace page redirects to wikisource, the appropriate specialized soft redirect template should be used. Plain {{soft redirect}} is not used in the article namespace. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The template you tried to put on the page certainly isn't appropriate. It invites readers to search for the page on Wikipedia under alternate names. That is wasting readers' time – the recent AFD decided that this should not exist on Wikipedia anywhere. The template invites readers to create the page – not an appropriate thing to do given the AFD decision. Where is the guideline that says {{soft redirect}} should not be used in mainspace? The lack of other entries in the category does not prove there is any such consensus. It only proves that pedantic busybodies have been enforcing a guideline that doesn't exist. Please try and think of what is of benefit to the reader rather than complying with some arbitrary non-rule. SpinningSpark 12:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi I just looked and realised that you moved Doli Armaano Ki to an English title. Why have you done that when it is an Indian television and the WP:COMMONNAME used it Doli Armaano Ki please move it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.44.18 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It was requested by User:Onel5969 and asserted to be non-controversial in this (now deleted) edit (only viewable by admins). Since you have raised a requested move, it will be better to let that play out rather than me taking any action. SpinningSpark 00:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the ping, Spinningspark. I think the most apt guideline is WP:TRANSLITERATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. For the page File:5-cube 7x7x7x7x7 solved.png... you wrote, "I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

Out of curiosity, why did you word it this way? "Any entity", "any purpose"... I've nearly convinced myself that either you are god (as everyone else is), or you are part of the team that helped create this coded reality, or simply you're a smart guy who believes e.t.'s could possibly find your work useful. Which is it? If you don't mind me asking... I'm an uneducated 21 year old American female so if you don't see it important to respond I understand, I'm just curious. 75.134.211.17 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The wording is simply the standard wording of the Wikipedia public domain template, not anything I concocted myself (although that does not preclude me from also being God). I was in communication with the software creator about the copyright at the time the article was written. His position was that images created by me by choosing positions, views, and colours were my creation, not his, and that copyright should be assigned to me, not him. In his opinion, this was no different from an artist creating an image with Microsoft Paint. The copyright of the artwork lies with the artist, not Microsoft, the maker of the tool used to create it. SpinningSpark 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Our editors on Chinese Wikipedia use your file to translate this article. However, this file can move to Commons. I considered that you are worried about that the complete history of the local file cannot keep on the Commons. Wikimedia Foundation recently created a tool, FileImporter, can completly move the local history of your files to the Commons like this. So, I wish that we can get your permission to move this file to Commons first. Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 08:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the issue, and the file can be copied to commons anyway. It is just requested that the local copy is kept. SpinningSpark 10:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for straightening out my bollixed Afd. I am such an inclusionist that this is my first ever Afd in over 10 years in WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shootdown. Since you had some involvement with the Shootdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

When I wanted to check user article creations I would go here but that no longer works. Could you tell me where this is now? Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You can do that with a built-in feature nowadays. Go to your contributions, select the article namespace, check the "Only show pages that are page creations" box and enter. You should get this list. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 13:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. It helps a lot. Otr500 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I am AE6TY. I have further references to add regarding the statement that |Gamma| can be greater than 1 in passive systems. The implications are far reaching as many the formulae concerning SWR or Return Loss are based on this assumption. The serious reader should be made aware that the assumption of purely real reference impedance has far reaching consequences. Further, the statement that all references should be purely real is untrue as related in: "Scattered Reflections on Scattering Parameters-- Demystifying Complex-References S Parameters", Amakawa, Shuhei, IEICE TRANS. Electron., Vol.E99 No.10 October 2016.

A further complication is that if the reference impedance is not purely real then the traveling wave voltages do not correctly predict the power transferred. It is a messy topic, I only wanted to make sure the serious reader was warned.

Can you recommend how I would proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AE6TY (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you have noticed that I already opened a discussion on the article talk page. The issue needs to be thrashed out there. SpinningSpark 22:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Indian heat waves 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/List of Indian heat waves 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For bringing selected technical articles to highest quality standards. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Distributed element circuit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attenuator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed your comment here [2] as I felt it was unneeded with the hat removed. I felt the hat (not by you I know) was inappropriate placed as the first answer at least was somewhat on topic, and in fact the hat itself was mistaken as the question specifically talked about coal and not graphite. Perhaps the followup including your comment was slightly less on topic, and I admit I probably would have left the hat be if it was only covering the follow-ups to the IP or even less so if it was only covering after BB's first response. Not that your and the other responses were that bad but while they may have been somewhat ontopic to the followups they were less so to the original question so technically the hatter may have been right. Still while I wouldn't have agreed with the hat, it wasn't severe enough that I would have removed the hat in that case. But this wasn't what happened and I since the hat was IMO unjustly placed I just removed it completely. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that. If the RD wants to start removing unhelpful dumb comments by BB entirely and immediately, I would support that, but if they are left to stand, so should the replies, especially if they are actually informative. SpinningSpark 15:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Pean powerline span, where you tracked down an air navigation source.

Can you do the same for this no-permission link, which is the only source provided in List of tallest structures in Turkey and in Denizköy VLF transmitter?

• http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight/LKBVVV5JVZLQA/EN/AIP/ENR/LT_ENR_5_4_en_2010-09-23.pdf

Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't get access to that. I only have a basic access account, you probably need the Pro account to see it. The url has ENR 5.4 in it. AIP 5.4 for Turkey [3] is the air navigation obstacles AIP, but it does not give any data directly. It refers to an "electronic file" (probably a spreadsheet) on http://ssd.dhmi.gov.tr, but you need a login for that site too. It's in Turkish, so I can't navigate it very easily. The AIP says it is under the "AIP Turkey" tab in a folder named "Obstacles". You could also try a request at WP:RX. SpinningSpark 10:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CS Alert (1890) 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 RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The article CS Alert (1890) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CS Alert (1890) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do think passing mention in a self-distributed book by a defunct publisher of self-distributed books authored by a dog fancier is enough to justify the inclusion of a stand alone article in WP? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Who said it was self-published? And publisher defunct is entirely irrelevant. SpinningSpark 17:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Believe me, I have struggled with this issue and have spent a great deal of time researching. BTW, self-distributed is not self-published, and there can be contractual contingencies when dealing with publishers - I used to be one. Regardless - the issue I was trying to bring to your attention (and obviously failed) was passing mention in that particular book (trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV): 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.". There is also WP:NRV and WP:FRINGE at work here. It doesn't matter if the 2 paragraphs about that particular crossbreed had been published in a 200 pg Elsevier or PLOS One journal, it is still trivial mention that requires OR because there are no RS or valid documentation that passes WP:V. It is all anecdotal. I included more detail (probably too freaking much) at WP:RS/N - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Bully_Breeds since you appear to be interested in the topic. Getting the dog articles right is rather important to us at WP:WikiProject Dogs but it is hard to find editors willing to do the research unless they are truly interested in the topic. We have a mess on our hands and I probably wouldn't care were it not for innocent people being scammed and relieved of their hard-earned money.[4], see the comments. Hopefully things will smooth out now that the disruptive sock has been removed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The passage is short, but IMO still more than trivial or a passing mention since it directly addresses the topic. SpinningSpark 09:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NRV - failed. But I actually don’t care anymore. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You might can have that opinion, but despite forum shopping in multiple places (AFD, DRV, RSN) none of them seem to be agreeing with you. SpinningSpark 15:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

1. AfD is not forum shopping. Where did that come from? 😳
2. DRV is not forum shopping - it was your the closing admins referral for Pete's sake.
3. I don't need to forum shop - I've been editing long enough, and have been through plenty of GAs and FAs as both a nom and reviewer to know what GNG requires - I did not fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday.
4. Your opinion is as valid as mine, so I'll keep mine and you can keep yours and we'll both be happy. Now that is a KEEP consensus. Oh, and consensus can change and usually does when the wrong one has been asserted. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with the unwarranted accusations. I have gone beyond the limits one might refer to the patience of Job with that editor. He has been highly disruptive beginning before me, forward to when I was in the middle of a GA review, and onward to my being forced to file this, and while he spoke threateningly to an admin here , there was a concern raised about socking which he downplayed and was clarified here. His disruptive screeds and PAs lead to this 31 hr block, but the t-ban discussion is still ongoing. It is certainly not the hill I want to die on, SpinningSpark, but I will not tolerate being bullied any longer by an obvious SPA and potential COI editor. All the information you need is in his edit contributions and at the ANI. Please don't encourage him further. It is turning into harassment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Straightening out the FACTS: The warning for edit warring by editor Magog the Ogre was accidentally put on my Talk page [5], was intended for editor IAmYourNemisis [6], and was reverted immediately by Magog [7]. Magog's edit history that day: [8] I was one of three editors 7/13-7/14 [9] reverting repeating vandalism by IAmYourNemisis. (ClueBot NG and PearlSt82 were the other two.) The other events are a series of snapshots glued together to seem like "cause and effect". Normal Op (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I am so sorry that Atsme has dragged this onto your Talk page from the board it started on. [10] It's uncalled for. Normal Op (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's better off here than on the DRV page where it is an utterly irrelevant distraction to the meaningful discussion. SpinningSpark 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your generosity Spinningspark. Apologies if I grabbed the wrong link - see this one and this one both of which are more on point with regards to behavior. There are plenty more at ANI in both the prior and current cases, and of course, taking a moment to review user contributions is also helpful. Bottomline with regards to the article is that in the first AfD back in 2013, only 2 editors participated, both voted keep and there was no further effort. It was actually a pathetic AfD that was listed in here. The 2nd AfD, motivated by a clean-up effort spearheaded by Project Dog participants, closed with “no consensus” and that is the only reason the article remains. The prevailing consensus now is that Roy’s close was a correct one, despite his closing the discussion the same day another admin extended it with hopes of reaching a consensus. Life goes on, not a big deal. In the interim, editors can try to find RS, despite years of inability to find any, or try to fix the article. I predict that if the latter doesn’t happen in a month or so, another AfD is highly likely. I think we may have potential for one RS in the works, thanks to RS/N, but for an article to pass GNG, multiple RS are required. We need to focus on fixing the article or deleting it if it cannot be fixed rather than denigrating or targeting hard working editors who are trying to clean-up a neglected topic area that has fallen victim to disruption by SPAs and advocacies. Thank you for your consideration and participation in trying to resolve the issues, Spinningspark. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The article CS Alert (1890) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CS Alert (1890) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion moved to article talk page where it belongs so others can take part. SpinningSpark 16:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Spinningspark: I plan to GA review this article. This will be my first review. I've read the instructions and fairly confident I can do it. It is a fair old size but it will give me something to get my teeth into. Since it is my first review, its a different kind of skill, hopefully you can keep me right. Thanks scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on. I'm sure it's the length that has been putting off more established reviewers. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice for a first review! So best of luck, and I look forward to working with you. SpinningSpark 19:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm now read it a few times and will start reviewing it tonight. Interesting article Spinningspark. I see there is a whole block around Telegraphy including the biographies you have completed. Excellent work. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom 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 Scope creep -- Scope creep (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The eighth article to achieve featured status for which you are the sole author (unless I overlooked any) - congratulations. catslash (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Dunno how many, but you can count them here, although that last one is not on the list yet. SpinningSpark 20:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ucamco, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Banner talk 11:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi SpinningSpark, I have left a comment on the talk page of the article, as I want to replace the current style with the template {{cite book}}. It won't take long to do, and will improve the article and help me check the refs more quickly. Can you let me know what you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not systematically change double spaces to single between sentences. (I've been accused of "systematically" removing thats – but that's another story.) MOS neither prescribes nor proscribes; I must, however, bitc omplain mention what you did to a couple onlys and an innocent nbsp.--Brogo13 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, as you asked my opinion, I don't much care for nbsp either. It is more code clutter making edit view hard to read. If it really has to be done, I prefer the nowrap template which at keeps the text being modified readable inside the template. SpinningSpark 16:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello SpinningSpark, That was one heck of a revert you did today, considering how much there is to do on the article to get it up to GA. That Bibliography section needed sorting. If you don't mind, it might be worth me withdrawing from the review. Your opinion would be valuable here. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've given a detailed reasoning for the revert on the review page. You might want to read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, which definitely do not include "Bibliography section needed sorting". Sorry that you feel that you need to withdraw, but I have no wish for that to happen. I fully understand that my revert has caused you annoyance and accept that you may feel you can't carry on. I tried to only do a partial revert, but their was just too much there. SpinningSpark 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, which was appreciated. I 'm not at all comfortable with pulling out, and we are disagreeing on issues that are easily resolved. I'll look carefully at your revert, and see what I think is still not right, with a view to continuing to review the article. It's a really interesting and informative one, and carefully written, with some great resources to back it up, but it's not GA yet. I can of course pull back from making changes myself, but I'm used to being bold and amending the article when it needs minor edits. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with "bold" so long as you're fine with "bold revert". But you might be better off on matters of citation style to ask me to do it myself. Or else ask me what I did like about your edit. SpinningSpark 16:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, we're back on, Ill make some suggestions! My assessment should be finished in a day or two. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The article British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The article British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Montgomerie 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 MX -- MX (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gutta Percha Company 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The article William Montgomerie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Montgomerie for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Gutta Percha Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gutta Percha Company for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The article William Montgomerie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Montgomerie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30