User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 22

Three years ago ...
spinning sparks
	... you were recipient; no. 719 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 15

←

Message from GeorgeV73GT

I enjoyed you user page!

I once got to tune up a BBC 500 000 watt shortwave transmitter on Ascension Island in the early 1990's. At the time I was George ZD8GT and worked at the American Weather Station, sharing our daily synoptic upper air data with the Met Office.

GeorgeV73GT (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you George. If you are going to any of the local Wikimedia meetups (London or Cambridge) let me know and we can have a chat. SpinningSpark 09:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

10Fund

Could you give exact instances as to why you though that the 10Fund page was an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anup1mohan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You asked the same question of Sarahj2107 who has given you a pretty good answer. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might give you some more pointers. The page has now been nominated for speedy deletion on four separate occassions by four different editors and deleted by four different administrators. That's eight people here who thought the page was fit for immediate deletion. That should be telling you something, and the something it should be telling you is that persons associated with a subject (particularly in the marketing department) are completely unfit to write an encyclopaedia article on that subject. They are completely incapable of writing from a neutral point of view, one of our core content policies. If the subject is truly notable then eventually an independent editor will write the article. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid editing.

And please learn to sign your posts. SpinningSpark 09:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And then you deleted my message to Floqenbeam.

By deleting my talk page under G5. Wow... 2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Talk:Washington Huskies women's volleyball.
Message added 15:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi can I have Lanwar restored to draftspace? Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article at Draft:Lanwar. I have also put it within scope of the Articles for Creation project. When you think it is ready, please submit it for their review by clicking on the link in the template at the top of the draft page. SpinningSpark 16:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hey Spinningspark,
I apologize for adding promotional content to the now deleted page "HUTA Group", I sincerely forgot to neutralize the content before saving the changes.
I'm hoping you will undelete the page.
My apologies.
Thanks and regards,
Wikipeditorofficial (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not prepared to restore this article, and I find it hard to believe that you "forgot to neutralize the content" is a good faith excuse. The nomination for speedy deletion should have been a timely reminder of that, but instead you just deleted the template to try to escape deletion. There is nothing encyclopaedic worth saving in the deleted article and it provides no independent reliable sources from which information could be taken. If it is to exist at all, and I'm not suggesting for one moment that it should, it needs entirely rewriting from scratch. Please also read our conflict of interest guideline and paid editing policy. You need to comply with these. SpinningSpark 13:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom

I had a look at your closing comment and I would be glad if you could clarify what you mean by "I would have closed this delete if the article had not been stubbed during the course of the debate." The article was not edited at all during the deletion discussion. Most of the arguments were about the fact that the sources are promotional/redressed PR and thus are not helpful for establishing notability, not that the article itself is promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I mistakenly thought the editing had occured after the AFD nomination. I have retracted my close and relisted the debate. SpinningSpark 22:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct. The original article was submitted to AFC, I then reviewed the submission, fixed many NPOV issues myself, and what remains was the resulting stub which I accepted to mainspace due to significant coverage in indy reliable sources. History of the article will clearly show this. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Spinningspark.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Spinningspark,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Passband filters

I was reading your article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passband_schematic3.png.

I'd like to know if the second graphic is corret. HPF and LPF aren't inverted?

Thank you.

Denio Costa deniocostadgc@gamail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.36.178 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The hatched areas are meant to show parts of the band that are rejected by the filter. There is also File:Passband schematic2.svg, an svg version which may be clearer, and easier to modify if you want to use it elsewhere. SpinningSpark 19:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

New York Genome Center

Dear friend,

I am writing to respectfully ask you to restore the page for New York Genome Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Genome_Center), at least to draft, so we can correct any of the issues you pointed out. It would be great if you could be more specific about what you saw as promotional and/or copyright infringement. You can reach me at jshatan@nygenome.org. It would also be helpful for our internal process if you could let me know if you attempted to notify anyone here that our page was marked for deletion.

Thanks, Jeremy (Wikipedia user name: Jshatan)

Jeremy Shatan Director, Development New York Genome Center 101 Sixth Ave., 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 646.977.7271 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshatan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, copyright violations cannot be restored. The material was directly copied from the websites named. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which should tell you where we are coming from on the promotional language. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you or any of your staff are considering recreating the page. It is customary to notify the creator (in this case User:Kosmocentric) of a page nominated for speedy deletion on their talk page. Apparently, this was not done in this case, but failure to do so does not invalidate the deletion. SpinningSpark 15:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. We have begun rebuilding the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Genome_Center. Like many organizations, we are creating our own entry - I'm not sure precisely where to indicate that we are "connected contributors," as everything I read seemed to refer to editing a page rather than creating one. Should we simply follow the connected contributor protocol when adding any new material from this point? Thanks for your help. Jshatan (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you should declare when you create the article. You can do this on the article talk page, other options for declaring are explained in the paid editing policy. I should also point out that we advise conflicted editors not to directly edit the encyclopaedia themselves because almost always they are not able to write neutrally. It is not exactly forbidden that they should do so, but we advise they limit themselves to making suggestions on talk pages. To create an entirely new page you can use the Articles for creation process. SpinningSpark 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help - I think we're doing everything right now! Cheers. Jshatan (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spinningspark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Johan yude

Hi SS, hope you don't mind me stepping on your adminly toes a little, but I've extended Johan yude's block to indefinite because I believe them to be a pretty duck-y sock of Kzaroon95, and very probably a sock of Vicky12333. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The only reason I did not do that myself was that I didn't want to spend time looking into the sock report. SpinningSpark 23:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your long-term attention to the institutional review board article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Editnotice CSD

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that you and User:Gilliam seem to have different opinions as one is removing the talkpages and oce of you is not. See for example Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group C (declined) and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group D (deleted). I am not sure why the talkpages are deleted? Qed237 (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Chautauqua South page

I'm going to re-construct this page for a class I'm taking. I'm going to re-write sentences, find some different sources, and as usual, I'll be citing everything (as the class I'm taking is a Library-related course). if anything is wrong, please let me know. JengiFox — Preceding unsigned comment added by JengiFox (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@JengiFox: You might like to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing before you start. By the way, when you talk to an administrator about a page, it is best to provide a link to it, even if the page has been deleted. Admins deal with a large number of deletions and it can be difficult to work out which article is being asked about. You did not even give the exact title of the page that was deleted. SpinningSpark 16:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am looking the Chautauqua South page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chautauqua_South:_Martin_County I think it can be developed.Kmccook (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Help on credible page content

Hey Spinningspark,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me with some page content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:1102:5F00:C9D5:2717:57B0:DC2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. It depends what help you want. Please explain. SpinningSpark 14:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Comet appearances in china

Thanks for all you did for Comet appearances in china. I know AFD isn't cleanup, but I honestly didn't think there was anything worth pursuing (that wasn't already in other locations). On the one hand I hate being proved wrong, but when it comes about due to the betterment of Wikipedia I suppose I can't complain too much. Have a good one. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A TEMPLET IS.JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

HI, YOU SEEM TO KNOW HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA. IS THERE A WAY I CAN EDIT OUT ANYTHING/EVERY THING WITH MY NAME ATTACHED TO IT? JOHN MCKINNNONJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) HONESTLY, I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER OFF BY READING THE NARRATIVE SCIENCE PAGE AND JUST CALL IT A DAY. SORRY TO SAY; PERHAPS, THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SAVED.

SINCERELY,

JOHN D. MCKINNON JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the reply to you on the Help desk where you asked the same question. And please stop posting in all caps. SpinningSpark 13:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for my silly behavior and I shall stop it from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexEMPblast234 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoulda Been There, Pt. 1

Can you tell me why that article was deleted as I added a lot more information plus sources just before you had deleted it and there was more than enough information and sources. I don't understand as to why it got deleted. KieranWard9421:48, 9 December 2016 (GMT)

Primarily, it was deleted because it was a recreation of an article deleted at a deletion debate (AfD). It's usually safer in these cases to create a draft first and get it reviewed by WP:AFC. Secondarily, you get a lot less careful consideration when you delete speedy deletion tags yourself (I'm assuming it was you) as you did here. That just makes it look like you have something to hide and it's not worth looking in detail at your newly added references. Anyway, I have restored the page and sent it back to AfD for a new consideration. SpinningSpark 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steam devil

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Steam devil 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Steam devil

The article Steam devil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Steam devil 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Elastance

Hi Spinningspark, maybe you remember, I am an expert of capacitors, a little bit older (74) and must say, that I never have heard something about "elastance" and "daraf" up to now. Maybe in Germany it is not so well known as in English speaking countries. So, sorry, that I deleted this term, best regards --Elcap (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elcap: Have you heard of Wilhelm Cauer in Germany? You might like to look at Life and Work of Wilhelm Cauer on page 4 to see why elastance is so convenient for mathematical expression in analysis. Admittedly, it does not see a great deal of use for practical electrical engineers, but there is no doubt that the term exists, is defined and is used. SpinningSpark 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

...and here's a definition in German [1]. SpinningSpark 14:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark, yes I saw the German articles. However, you are right, I am coming more or less from the practical side. Thanks for teaching me new terms. Greetings --Elcap (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your age userbox

I just noticed that your user page says you're 63 years old based on the calculation from the birth date, but on the left it says 57. You can just remove the |57= parameter and it will automatically fill in the correct one (and the userbox below is also incorrect now, assuming you're 63 and not 57 now.) nyuszika7h (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but 63 != 3×19. Besides which, I no longer care how old I am. SpinningSpark 14:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB-related RfC

Hi Spinningspark, as you're dealing with Yobot, would you consider closing a related RfC? See RfC: AWB bot ref reordering.

One of the AWB edits that has caused problems is ref reordering: moving refs so that they appear in chronological order (which is determined by ref name). Rjwilmsi said he would remove it from AWB if there was consensus. I opened a discussion at WT:CITE, and another editor turned it into an RfC at the pump. That was nearly a month ago, so it's about ready to close.

If you'd prefer not to, that's fine. I thought it worth asking given that you're dealing with similar issues, but please don't hesitate to say no, because I know it can be time-consuming. I can ask for a closer at WP:AN/RFC otherwise. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really need another style controversy on my plate right now, so I'll say no. Besides, I'm getting accusations of a grudge against AWB being thrown at me in the Yobot discussion so I might not be viewed as perfectly neutral. SpinningSpark 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, understood. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis

I see you've blocked Magioladitis indefinitely without even a note on their userpage. That's hardly normal, especially when blocking an admin. Did you have a special reason? Bishonen | talk 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

I think I explained myself sufficiently when I posted the standard block template. The block arose after the block of Yobot (which Magioladitis controls) and is extensively discussed at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates and my summary of the situation is in this edit. The issue is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Yobot and Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#General fixes and cosmetic edits is also relevant.

If you still think I need to make further clarifications or explanations to Magioladitis, then please indicate what it is you want me to expand upon. SpinningSpark 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I managed to miss the block template, I suppose because there was so much stuff below it, and because I was careless. Actually, it seems to me it would have been useful for other admins if you had included in the block template some or all of the explanatory links you have now given me; you might consider going back and adding more information. People who see the block notice don't have any way of knowing where you summarize the situation, even though Magioladitis themselves no doubt do. But as I said, the main thing was I missed the block template altogether, which was my fault entirely. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

Redirects

Hi. Just a heads up. WP:AWB/TR was almost restored. This is because it serves a vital functionality, at least for that period of time i.e. from 2010 to now we have not found a better solution to address things without it.

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates are also manually built and both used by AWB bots. The later is also used by AnomieBot. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos is also manually built.

Moreover, AWB is open source. Anyone can create another software using the same code.

AWB-script is unrelated to AWB and still uses the same pages to function. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yobot's tasks

You can see and review Yobot's tasks. They are User:Yobot#Approved_tasks. "Fix WikiProject banners with deprecated or invalid parameters" is BRFA 25. For 4 years I also had log files that were created manually daily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you incorporate a task identifier to your edit summaries? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux Sure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I wish we find a way to calm down the entire situation. I think the things are a bit tense. Not someone's fault necessarily. Wikipedia loves drama. I wish you all the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Air stripline structure.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Air stripline structure.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Core bug fixed

Hi. I let you know that a core AWB bug that was causing most of Yobot's side-effects has been fixed. Bypassing redirects is now considered a "cosmetic change" i.e. this won't happen as sole edit by Yobot anymore. For more information you can read T132286. Rjwilmsi even run manual tests to ensure this is true. This was one for the most longstanding issues of AWB. I would like to ask you to unblock Yobot. Moreover, I removed all CHECKWIKI errors for which AWB fails from my list i.e. Yobot will run in a vert limited number of errors till we find a better solution. In addition, I won't run the bot for the next 5 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my block rationale, I do not think that Yobot should be unblocked until the reauthorization process at BAG has concluded. It really would not be a good idea to resume edits that may possibly soon have their authorization revoked. You are welcome to appeal and have another administrator review the block, but that remains my position. SpinningSpark 14:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

OK let's wait a little bit. I have skip checks for 3 or 4 errors. Bgwhite seems to cope till now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Electric current

I'm not sure I understand your revert here. Your edit summary seems to indicate that some material I added to the article is off-topic, but all I added was a hatnote to a related article. I was closing a redirect discussion in which there was some evidence that users searching for "ac/dc" are interested in the differences between AC and DC power transmission systems, and so I thought that adding a "see-also" link to that discussion would be useful. I don't think anything about my edit implies that power alternates in an alternating current system. It's been a while since I did a few university courses in electrical engineering but I think I have a bit of a grasp on how it works. I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm sure you're not) but just checking to make sure you didn't mean to revert something else? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you had added the text underneath the redirect, which I do have a problem with. I have undone my edit and restored yours. SpinningSpark 20:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I thought that was probably what you had a problem with. I just now tried to give the section a bit of a polish, but now there are no sources. I also noticed that this exact text is re-used verbatim in the alternating current and direct current articles, and I'm not sure how big of a problem that is. I don't have my EE textbooks any more so I might not be able to help much with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Unimaginable :)

Hi Spark, thanks for defending the word "unimaginably" as an adverb for Graham's number. I'm not sure if anyone else had put it in before me, but I do remember saving it as a casual edit some years back and I'm pleasantly surprised to see it is still there. I am by no stretch a mathematician, but my head exploded when I realised just how huge this baby is. Graham's number truly is "unimaginable".

Cheers. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yekshemesh: Some people interpret guidelines like WP:WTW in a very mechanical bureaucratic way without stopping to think what the actual purpose of the guideline is and what it is trying to achieve. Just because a word appears in WTW does not mean you should never use it. It just means you should carefully consider its use. Such people can be a nightmare to argue with and we usually just end up giving up. But this is one small victory for the brilliant prose we are supposed to be aspiring to. SpinningSpark 13:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Band-pass filter

I reverted your Engvar revert because it looked like mostly AmEng. But looking at history, I see this edit where the "ize" words came in when it already had "ise". So, fix it all back to BrEng if you think it's worth the trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. SpinningSpark 09:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Coupling factor and coupling coefficient

Could you please verify the coupling factor in more detail? According to the IEC 60050 (Publication date: 1990-10) Section 131-12 IEV 131-12-41, the value of k is 0 <k <1, but value of the coupling coefficient is -1 <k <1. How should we do?--118.236.170.129 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

{\text{Coupling factor}}=\left|{\text{Coupling coefficient}}\right|

--118.236.170.129 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well first of all, you should not be explaining anything on disambiguation pages. That is not their purpose. Any explanations needed, and references, belong on the article pages to which they link. Secondly, your source does not say anything about coupling factor being different from coupling coefficient, nor does it say anything about its range. I am baffled why you now want to distinguish these. You were the one arguing that they are the same thing, and there is no shortage of sources confirming that. Some sources say 0 <k <1 and others −1 <k <1. The minus sign just recognises that a coil can be connected in antiphase to the measuring circuit does it not? SpinningSpark 17:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand well about the origin of the coupling coefficient, even when the windings are reversed. I think that similar term the coupling factor has different origins, although their absolute values are equal. In some cases, definithon may be different in each country. I have no information on the origin of the coupling factor now. The　solvation of this problem should be postponed as homework.--121.2.183.152 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's call "left as an exercise for the reader". Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert your removal of my edit of battery types

Why did you remove my addition of the phrase 'This is by no means a complete list of battery types.' on the battery types page?

To list all battery types would require an almost infinitely large list. Therefore it must be shown somehow on this page that this is not a complete list of battery types.

Wiki is there to inform. Someone who wants to learn might look at that page and believe that it has every type of battery possible, without the inclusion of my change.

Maybe you believe this is a list of all battery types ever manufactured, well even then, how can you claim this is a complete list?

New battery chemistries are being invented / discovered faster than ever before. If it is claimed that this list is a complete list, it will never be up to date.

For example, some missing battery types:

Zinc Ion, Aluminium air, Calcium ion, Magnesium air, Dual carbon battery (uses lithium or other metal chemistry, but there is a Wiki page on it), Aluminium sulphur, Zinc polyiodide flow battery, Hybrid iron flow battery, Zinc-Iron redox flow battery, Etc.

Please explain yourself.

I have added new text to say a similar thing which may be clearer. 'Note that this is not a list all possible batteries.' Reversion is not required now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take this issue to the article talk page. That is a more appropriate place where other interested editors can take part. The scope of the page needs to be specified before any statement about it being incomplete can be made. SpinningSpark 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No need, your reedit of my change has improved it, does what I wanted to make the page say better than I expressed it. Sorry I forgot to sign before. Lkingscott (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Circa and born

Per our discussion on Template talk:Circa, you think it's better to wait for comments on that existing thread, or do you think a full-on RFC would be better? Either way we might not get much input, but at least with the latter we have a somewhat-hard deadline. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in getting involved in yet another soul-destroying interminable discussion of formatting issues. I'm just going to remove them whenever they pop up on my watchlist. SpinningSpark 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Old url for Hameyer

Old url for Hameyer is http://materialy.itc.pw.edu.pl/zpnis/electric_machines_I/ForStudents/Script_EMIHanneberger.pdf/ As in for Hameyer, Kay (2001). "Electrical Machine I: Basics, Design, Function, Operation" (PDF). RWTH Aachen University Institute of Electrical Machines. Retrieved 11 January 2013.page=133 in Induction motor.Cblambert (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Cecil Kelly

Spark,

You recently undid some edits by another editor to the article Cecil Kelley criticality accident. You will likely have noticed that I sent you thanks for both. I do not WP:OWN the article, of course, and am always glad to see others expand and improve upon it, but I did create it some time ago and wrote most of it; the whole incident remains one to which I ended up becoming somewhat attached (esp. after having interacted via email with Cecil's daughter when I informed her that I had written the article on her father-- she was pleased, and told me even more of her own personal recollections of the day the accident happened. Just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes, even now. Horrible business). The changes were ones I was pretty indifferent to, but I am contacting you to say that I am glad someone read over the changes and decided that the article was maybe better off the way it was. That probably happens a lot. Probably not a lot of people get thanked for it. I am thanking you. Thanks-- just for, well... for paying attention to things. I appreciate it. KDS4444 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Link

Regarding the block on Yobot, please see [2]. I am pinging you because you placed the most recent block on Yobot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block him for making trivial edits that make the edit window less cluttered. That is going in entirely the right direction. SpinningSpark 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a block is warranted, but I'm also not sure that continuing the same kind of editing that the bot was blocked for, while evading the block on the bot, during an arbitration case, should be characterized as going in the right direction. In any case, you're aware of the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of references in Taihu pig

Hi! Thanks for your effort of writing Taihu pig. I am translating it back to Chinese, and I would like to clarify the exact essays of the referencing refers to. They are listed as follow:

Are "Taverner and Dunkin 1996" refers to "Taverner, M.R. and Dunkin, A.C.(1996), Pig Production World Animal Science, C10, Elsevier Science Publisher"([3])?

Which "Zhang, 1986." are you referring to?

And finally, which "Flanders, 2009." are you referring to?

Apologies for any inconvenient made, and if my poor English clouded my expression, please let me know. Have a nice day!

--Chan.russell (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't seem to have done too good a job documenting the refs on that article. I can't help you too much because I no longer have access to the sources. "Flanders, 2009" I think must be the Gillespie and Flanders book. "Taverner and Dunkin 1996, following Zhang, 1986" means that Taverner and Dunkin say the information came from Zhang, but I got it via Taverner and Dunkin, not directly from Zhang. You will need to get Taverner and Dunkin's book if you want the full cite for Zhang, as I say, I no longer have access to it. SpinningSpark 12:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I would try finding it on the University's database. --Chan.russell (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ohm's law

Some of what you reverted at this edit seems contrary to your edit summary (like variable bolding, still lots of nonstandard image sizing), and some improvements were lost (Like capitalizing German metalle). I haven't read the bulk of his contribution, but there's probably an opportunity here to get some good from it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your right about the German noun, I had spotted that but forgot to go back and fix it after reverting. But honestly, that series of edits was far too much of a mess to unpick it piecemeal. SpinningSpark 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it was a mess. Sometimes a mess is an opportunity, but I'm not saying you have to take it on. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical comet observations in China

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historical comet observations in China 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Historical comet observations in China

The article Historical comet observations in China you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Historical comet observations in China 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark for turning this into such a wonderful article. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)