Jump to content

User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Coaching

Hey there Spinning, Just noticed that you archived the coaching page, did you notice that I had added a new "homework" assignment yesterday? Are you still interested now that the holidays are over?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, entirely missed that, I'll put the exercise back on the page. SpinningSpark 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for voltage doubler

Updated DYK query On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Voltage doubler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello there Spinningspark. A while ago we had an encounter on Rubik's cube. I recently happened on the discussion you had with Balloonman about the changes I made to the article. I just wanted to let you know that as a relatively new Wikipedian, I can easily make mistakes just as much as anyone else. I have been predominately dealing with articles that fall under the New religious movement category, and sourcing standards tend to be fairly stringent due to the controversial nature of some of the material being cited. As such, I appreciate any comments that can be made about my edits so that I may attempt to become a better editor. David Gerard noted somewhere that Wikipedia is not consistent, and that is a feature. The more I branch out and edit articles in new categories, the more I realize this.

I posted the excerpt from the Rubik's Cube article on the talk page in hopes that it could be used, not removed. I also hadn't considered that simple mathematical calculations do not fall under the same sourcing standards that much of other material does. I actually made mention of this fact on the draft for a policy on plagiarism, seen here (contribute if you wish).

And finally, I also echo some of your thoughts on not forcing any editor to do something that they don't wish to do; there is no reason why anyone should have make edits they don't want to make. However, I'd also like to point out that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and if anyone made any edits I disagreed with, I'd make the edits I see as necessary while stating my case in the edit summary and/or talk page.

At any rate, I hope we've both been able to learn something of this situation and move on. ←Spidern→ 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not taking the position that the size of the Rubik cube group falls under simple mathematical calculations not requiring a reference. Some of it is quite unintuitive and the authority should be cited. My position was that references for the centre cubie group can be had and it is therefore verifiable and not OR. SpinningSpark 08:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for General mn-type image filters

Updated DYK query On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General mn-type image filters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph map

Are you sure about this? The chart appears to show a major route across continental europe also. I would have said a more apt qualification to the legend is that it is showing early telegraph routes to Britain. SpinningSpark 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya got a point, pardner! That is, about the cross-European line (although its being shown in bold suggests that it might have been depicted as "proposed" or something). However, there are also lines shown from Marseille to North Africa, not connecting to GB (at least not shown). This is a knottier question than first appeared... How about "major international routes in Europe" or something like that?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Spinningspark,

Thanks for correcting my mistake. Your right, I should use the preview button more often, but I often just forget. Woe is me! :) Anyway, thanks for putting that picture on there, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to do it.

—Iudaeus (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


File:Paleo-cosmic flux.svg

Hi SP is there any chance to get that picture licenced for german wp as ell? It nt at the moment. BR --Polentario (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention of excluding German (or any other) Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned it is fine if my work is used there, I am delighted you want it. I have licenced it as CC-BY-SA 3.0; what is the problem with that licence? SpinningSpark 13:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me say it doesnt come up if I use it in the German WP, think it has to be moverd to Commons. I am however no expert on this.
At the moment my browser doesnt show anything on the pic - can you confirm that?
Same effect as if I try to use File:Erdgeschichte.jpg in the english WP.
Thats a picture I would love to see here as well btw. BR --Polentario (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. You have to upload it to German Wikipedia or to Commons before you can use it in a German article. There is no problem with the licence as long as you correctly state the source and credit me when you upload. Ask if you need help, but I don't have time right now. SpinningSpark 10:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
done so thnx BR --Polentario (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Dam it wont work, I dont get the licence. Its a pity, thats a rather old classic (wirtten by a stron global warming advocate btw), and Shavivs calculation fit completely for the whole 4,5 Billion years
let me do a short edit, lets see how to coe further BR--Polentario (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What is your opinion about the paläoclimatolgy article now? You have an interesting way to argue for your point and work and avoid conflict, I appreciate that very much. If were talking about pictures, I would love to have the 2003 Shaviv diagram (in [1]) combined with a scheme using the overall climate evolution in File:Erdgeschichte.jpg. It would be a very strong illustration of the overall view, not only the phanerozoic you already have done. What you think? BR --Polentario (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am going to move this discussion to talk:paleoclimatology where it can see wider debate. SpinningSpark 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is your talk page

Hi Spinning Spark, I am the person who asked for help in uploading photos from Flickr. I have the photographer's permission, and he has marked all photos as 1- Attribution 2- Non-commercial, and 3- Share alike. He has uploaded to Wikimedia Commons before, but it was some time ago, and is unsure of where exactly they'd end up. I always check with the photographers out of courtesy, even if they have the proper GFDL copyright clearance for Wikipedia use.

I left a list of the performers and the exact URL to find the photographs from Bob Sanderson (the photographer) on my User page, beginning with Rick Danko. If you can help with this, I will owe you a million favors. Another user first uploaded four photos from there to my talk page and then to the Wikimedia Commons which was great since I would never have been able to find the pics at the Commons-- which is another issue, I don't know where to upload them to anyway! Please, if you need more information, to get this done, the only Admin I know is also unfamiliar with images altogether also. Please help me. Thanks. leahtwosaints (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No that wasn't my talk page, but I've now moved it here. SpinningSpark 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you cannot upload any of those photographs either here on Wikipedia or on Commons. They are all marked as having a CC-BY-NC-SA licence, which means that they are not allowed to be used for commercial purposes. Wikipedia requires a licence which allows any purpose. SpinningSpark 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read your reply now. Which photos do you mean? All of them? Bob Sanderson's photos? Or the ones from my talk page (the 4 there)? In both cases, I have the explicit permission from the photographers emailed to me, and if you have an email you trust me with, I can send you their response. Sanderson has uploaded to Commons before, and is only trying to recall how to do it again. And, the author of the Counting Crows photos not only gave his permission, but also his thanks. Previous photographers also uploaded directly to Wikipedia Commons. Tell me what they must do. They sure can't figure it out beyond what I understand on the Flickr Creative Commons licenses. It is why each time I've asked an Admin to do the uploading if the photographer can't figure it out, so no copyright is violated in any way. --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you meant this list:
They are all marked with which means non-commercial use only. As I say, Wikipedia does not allow this unless you can make a "fair use" case, and Commons does not allow it at all. If you are in contact with the owner of the photograph you could ask them to change the licence to CC-BY-SA on Flickr. This is by far the easiest way to deal with this. Another way of doing this if they can't/won't change the Flickr licence: assuming that the e-mail permission you have do allow commercial use, you can send your e-mails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and ask them for an OTRS ticket. When you have the ticket tell me what the ticket number is and then I can upload them. Your e-mail to "permissions" should ideally include a standard consent form from the photographer, but as I say, having them change the Flickr licence is far easier than fighting through the OTRS system.
I know this is all very difficult and obscure, I have had some of my own images deleted through not doing it right, but these are the rules Wikipedia wants us to follow. SpinningSpark 10:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Spinning Spark-- Bob Sanderson just wrote and said he uploaded them himself- they are at Commons now! Thank God! WHEW! Here's his email with some links to Commons too. This is his email responding to my last one, so his words will be really indented and mine not so much:
[Flickr] Hello from the WikipediaSunday, January 18, 2009 12:05 PM

From: "Bob Sanderson" <bob AT bobsanderson DOT com>Add sender to Contacts To: leah2saints AT yahoo DOT comAt 09:56 PM 1/17/2009, you wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Thanks again. It's amazing some really famous people don't even have a photo in the Wikipedia. Oh, and by the way, the Wikimedia Commons is actually preferable for you to upload so perhaps some poor soul in say, Germany is trying to add the photo to the German language Wikipedia and if he needs a photo, it is still there to share under the same conditions. > > Your photostream here was like a treasure trove for photos I've been seeking. There may be more, but these are the ones that really were wonderful to find, mostly from the 2nd Woodstock Festival. I think the photostream is at least partially:

Here's some more for you.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sebastian_79.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Countryjoe_79.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Blondie_chaplin_79.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ani_difranco_2008-01-17.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Jealous_2007-08-25.jpg


> If there is any way to separate the photo of Danko and Butterfield, so that they can be used separately, please do. Both are really rare and important.
Here's a couple more. This is all from that era until I get the ambition to scan some more.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Danko_79.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Butterfield_79.jpg
Bob
SOO. Spinning Spark, now is it OK? I hope so. I just gotta locate the rest of the links to his photos if they are now... how to do that.? Is this OK now? Let me know. Do you have an email address I can use to send all of his emails to you? Can you leave it here for me (or him) or?.. tell me what to do to avoid the bots? --leahtwosaints (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The list of images above uploaded by Bob Sanderson to Commons all have the proper licences and are ok to use. But none of them are the same as pictures on your list except the one of Blondie Chaplin. I would still recommend asking Bob to change the licence on Flickr as there is a risk of an accusation of copy violation if someone finds the picture on Flickr. As I said above, if you want to do it by e-mail instead, you should send your e-mails to "permissions" (address above). You are welcome to e-mail me if you want (toolbox on the left, e-mail this user) but it will not do you any good, only "permissions" can give you an OTRS ticket. They will need to see Bob Sanderson specifically say that he is releasing the images on Flickr under CC-BY-SA, or some other acceptable free licence. The e-mail you have pasted above does not say this. SpinningSpark 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is my correspondance with Sanderson today:
--- On Mon, 1/19/09, Bob Sanderson <bob@bobsanderson.com> wrote:
From: Bob Sanderson <bob@bobsanderson.com>
Subject: Re: [Flickr] Hello from the Wikipedia
To: leah2saints@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 5:40 PM
Leah
I changed the licenses on Commons and Flickr. Let me know if there is still a problem. All photos should be included.
Bob
I told him that unless we hear from a bot or something, I thought that finally, all should be OK. What a lot of work for such a thing!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's all fine, except for "The Jealous Girlfriends" which is still showing the NC licence. I will post a list of the image links on your talk page. SpinningSpark 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Karen Weldin Stewart

Hi - it's good to see someone else tracking that article - I first came across it at the BLP board and it was a big of dog. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't tracking it, representatives of the subject complained here. SpinningSpark 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Orthogons and Design

Hope this is your Talk Page. Thanks so much for your willingness to help newbies. Re: images from the book, is linking to Photobucket an acceptable way or you to access the information?Valriejensen1 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Photobucket is nothing to do with Wikipedia, but they do not allow you to upload copyright material either, so legally speaking, you cannot do it. Are we still talking about the possibility of creating our own graphics? I am not really sure how complex the illustrations are you are looking at. If it is something simple, then why not do a simple pencil sketch and upload that to Wikipedia. I can then produce something more professional from it or help you to do it yourself. If it is too complex to sketch, then send me a photocopy by e-mail. SpinningSpark 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I can upload my own drawings (or those done by a friend), which is a great idea if artists and designers can access them without getting swamped in math (no numbers are necessary to construct the orthogons although some are quite complex). Where would I upload the drawings if the article has been deleted? A new title would need to be accessible for those interested in how to use the orthogons. The real value of sending you this info is translating portions of the German text, which may establish verifiability for keeping the article (under a term that can be readily accessed by artists/designers). I can send you Wersin's Footnote references, photo credits and "explanations of foreign expressions" (terms for the orthogons). The images will include these items.Valriejensen1 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is permissable to upload images without immediately using them in an article. They can be left where they are until we decide what to do with them or they can be displayed in userspace. Did I give you the impression I could translate German? Ich spreche leide nur ein bischen. Unfortunately, just a little, but I will have a look and pass it on to someone else if it is too hard for me to manage. PS, SVG format is preferred for diagrams. SpinningSpark 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it was Dicklyon who mentioned having access to German translation. I'll have to check out the SVG format recommendation, Thanks. Valriejensen1 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, I don't have time to figure out how to save images in SVG--what do I do? I could list the link to photobucket images, would that be a reasonable way to upload?Valriejensen1 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, just upload to here whatever you have already. We'll figure out afterwards what we need to do to them. SpinningSpark 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to include the link but am still figuring out how to do so. They've been saved to image files on Wiki, but I'm not sure how to make the link accessible. Tried various links but the image comes up very huge!!Valriejensen1 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

thumb|250px|Thumbnail of image

Try something like [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|thumb|250px|Thumbnail of image]]. Which will get you this:
But I wouldn't worry about it too much, all those images will get deleted pretty soon. I thought you were uploading your own drawings, not non-free drawings copied from the book. Never mind, I've got them stored locally now and will look at them tomorrow. SpinningSpark 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I already have images that were included in the article, hopefully you can access those. They were created in autocad and permission was secured.Valriejensen1 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your images, they are in png format which is what prompted me to mention that svg format is preferred for diagrams. It is not in any way against the rules to use png format, it's just that a vector format has advantages for diagrams: it does not lose any resolution when scaling and the file size is usually a lot smaller so the page will download faster (remember that there are still some people out there on the internet using slow dial-up access). No issue at all with copyright though, and I don't see any reason why those diagrams cannot be used to illustrate the construction in the dynamic rectangle article.
So, if you don't want help producing diagrams, what did you want from me? You mentioned translation. The footnotes page and the medieval document facsimile are pretty much unreadable in those images, but I can read the main page of the Orthogons. If you want me to start a translation, then create a page in your userspace for doing it and I'll have a go. But if your motive is simply to establish the notability of the term orthogon so you can use it as an article title, then I don't think a translation is going to help you. One of the issues raised in the deletion debate was that there are no english sources using the term. Wikipedia should use the name most commonly used in english. I don't entirely go along with Dicklyon's view that it is a mistranslation of the german for rectangle. The german for rectangle is "Rechteck", a word von Wersin uses in his book whereas he is clear that "Orthogone" is to be used as the name of the group of rectangles under discussion. I do agree, though, that the word appears to have been invented by von Wersin, so it can be used when we are discussing von Wersin but otherwise should use the common terms used in English.
As I said at the top, if you want to send me copyrighted material in the future, please use e-mail, don't upload it to a public site like Wikipedia or Photobucket. SpinningSpark 12:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone along the way mentioned having ability to translate the text, which would go a long way towards clearing up the origin of the word Orthogon for these rectangles. I thought it might have been you. The title of the book includes the words, the Orthogons but it's possible that Wersin coined the term--I can't tell for certain from the text. Artists need to know how to apply them to a work of art and it seems reasonable that instructions be included. Do you agree that instructions on how to use them be included under the current article (Dynamic rectangle)? By the way, did the term "Dynamic rectangle" originate from Hambidge? If that's the case, why can't a term for the set of harmonic rectangles be given an acceptable name by Wersin? "Die Orthogon" directly translates to "the Orthogons."Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, if you want me to help by translating chunks of text, please create a page in your own userspace to use as a working space. I did mention translation, but only to say that there are German speakers on Wikipedia who would be able to verify that a German reference did actually say what is claimed. My own German is quite a low level, so you won't get a top quality translation, but I am happy to help if you want, I could use the practice.
Do you agree that instructions on how to use them be included under the current article. No, I do not agree, at least with the sources we have at the moment. There are two reasons; firstly Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, this kind of material is specifically excluded by policy, see WP:NOTHOWTO. More importantly, even if it were written so that it was not in a "how-to" style there are no verifiable sources discussing this, with the exception of the golden ratio. If sources can be found the situation is different, but at the moment it would be WP:OR to write such an article, and that was probably a big contributor to getting the old article deleted. SpinningSpark 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, very informative. Providing information on how they are used is of exceptional importance to artist, architects, etc. Much more is available verifying design system use than simply the golden ratio, although that would be reason enough. Paintings have been evaluated according to root rectangles as well. Rather than "how to" do it, the information could focus on what has been and is currently being done in relation to art--which is the point of the original article. Still seems like what's at issue here is the perspective of the person reviewing the article--math or art. In this case, the interests of art should be of primary concern. Valriejensen1 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy

Hi SpinningSpark. I noticed you threw in a couple of comments a while ago in the discussion page for the Ken McCarthy article, so I'd appreciate your perspective on the sequence of edits there. The current state of the article is not too bad, but it does seem to me to have been the target of some pretty obsessive editing by Jettparmer. He's also repeatedly re-inserted Ken's name in the list of conspiracy theorists in the article on that topic. This seems completely inappropriate as that is not a reputation he has at all in the public conversation about him, or in any significant sources. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel you really need someone with knowledge of the subject, but uninvolved in the article to review this, and that really rules me out, I have no knowledge of the subject at all. I would have suggested asking at WP:WikiProject Journalism but it does not seem to be a very active project. So sorry, I don't think I am really in a position to comment on the article; the only thing I would say is I can detect a degree of obsessiveness on both sides. It might be appropriate as a next step to list it at Wikipedia:Third opinion. SpinningSpark 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Node

Hi, you marked my article Node for a speedy deletion, I again marked it hangon, and wrote why it should be kept. Just wondering what happens now :) Hreinn (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply... Will read more on it, and start by doing a page about the Band itself instead of the album.Hreinn (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Permutations

You reverted the section i wrote on permutations. can you kindly give me an explanation. joe (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)joe

Have you been reading the article talk page? SpinningSpark 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Got another request

Hi Spinning Spark,

I found the Cat Stevens photo I've been seeking, but need your help uploading it. It's here: [9] We've had NO PHOTO for HIM, so this is great. Let me thank you again for your time! --leahtwosaints (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! There may be another batch of photos coming. If you don't mind, that is... this Cat Stevens photo was so sorely needed. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The next two are ready

Yusuf Islam in Flickr- [10] Hopefully, the others can be edited out? If not, it's the man on the left, and the photographer is in the middle, the young one.. Zain Bhikha - [11] Both pics are from Haroon Q. Mohamoud --leahtwosaints (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles B. J. Snyder

Spinning, thank you for your help on the Charles B. J. Snyder entry. The ways of Wikipedia are deep and wide. Scratch the query about the photograph - my error.

Christopher Gray MetHistory at aol.com 69.86.226.55 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome on user page

I guess [12] was not intended. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How did that happen? SpinningSpark 22:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic

Hey Spinning Spark, I took a look at the Wikimedia Commons and that photo of Yusuf Islam is really good, but there's a message there that it was uplifted by a bot, and if someone doesn't verify that the upload was OK, we could lose the photo! [13] Also, I guess I wasn't clear enough. This photo of Zain Bhikha still needs to be uploaded-- it's from the same guy who provided the Yusuf Islam photo. [14] Can you "OK" the photo on Commons and upload the Zain Bhikha photo? Thank you.--leahtwosaints (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Last time

Hey I guess you are sick of this. Can I ask one last time photo upload? After that, I promise not to bother you anymore, but two photos I've been seeking for the Longest Time: Will you help me upload: Camper Van Beethoven- (they have NO photo at all thus far)[15], Tal Wilkenfeld!! -(she has no photo still)![16], Greg Lisher [17], Jonathan Segal : [18] Victor Krummenacher: [19] (these last three are individual members from Camper Van Beethoven) If you don't have the time, or don't want to do it, then, that's Ok I guess. I just can't. Thank you for all the help you have given me in the past. --leahtwosaints (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I signed up for a Flickr Licker upload tool but it hasn't come yet.

I'm not sure what the best way is to upload pics. The upload stuff confuses the actual photographer back on Flickr. This woman, Louise Palanker has photos of Waddy Wachtel with The Cowsills:[20] And Waddy Wachtel: [21] (that one may need cropping? I don't know how to do that either). The Cowsills: [22] Anyway, I'd love to see them get photos. Can you help to upload them? Also, I wonder, people have mentioned some kind of consent form that can be mailed to the person on Flickr, to allow them to just change the attributions, and let us upload stuff. Is that true? Please teach me this stuff! Thanks- --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To hell with Commons

Spinning Spark, After all the work that poor lady has done for several days almost non-stop, those 3 photos are now doomed. If you can bring them in, it would be a kindness. I'm not cut out for this stuff. I'd planned to sell this computer anyway. I don't like feeling so irritated, stressed out, and for WHAT, really? Tsssss. I feel bad for her, but I'm done with this shit. If you want to help upload the Cowsills and Waddy photos, you'll make her glad at least. --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To SpinningSpark Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam, vandalism and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Electronic lab notebook spam Vandalizer. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Foolishly I felt ready to upload a photo

I keep to your directions. When I put in my user name at the Flickr upload thing you left on my talk page, and then I am supposed to place the link to the photo I want in the other long open thin slot, right? I've been ASSUMING that means, the URL to the photo I want at Flickr. Am I wrong? So, I typed in my user name, which is the same in Commons as here: leahtwosaints and then the photo I wanted of Waddy Wachtel. The LINK, (I mean, the URL I entered was this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisepalanker/3249316435/in/photostream/

So. I hit save, as you said, and put Music and under it, Musicians from the United States. Or something. I found myself back with the blasted Commons upload thingy with all the damned buttons and red words talking about if I don't tell the life story of this file and how I came upon it, please understand that it'll be destroyed. Or whatever. Same thing. You see why I get so upset? What do I do that is so wrong? Is it because Louise's picture was part of a Flickr Photostreamgod knows what that is or what. I dunno. Makes me feel like a 3 year old who can't reach the crayons and everybody else knows just what they are doing and I don't even know the assignment, but I'm terrified if the teacher finds out, I'll be sent to jail or something at 3 years old. What am I doing that is SO WRONG???leahtwosaints (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot. On two separate screens, these are my results: [23]

[24] and

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me

Yesterday, I successfully uploaded a photo of Mark Knopfler. I was so thrilled! However, today, I have a bunch of great images to upload, but after trying, both say that no image was uploaded and to check the deletion file! What?! Will you help? My username is the same on Commons as here. These are the images I'd like to upload:

[25] Vinnie Colaiuta Jeff Beck's drummer--he has no photo, either.

[26] THE BEST Tal Wilkenfeld photo ever!

[27] Wayne Krantz, Keith Carlock & Tal Wilkenfeld -This is the Tal Wilkenfeld Trio now, which we don't have an image for..

[28] Tim Finn of Split Enz and now, Crowded House

[29] Neil Finn with Split Enz, currently with Crowded House

[30] The Angels

[31] Doc Neeson, of The Angels

[32] Mal Webb

SIGH. I don't know why it worked yesterday, and not today! Thanks, I'm still trying, but the owner of these pics, Mandy Hall was very nervous about sharing them, so I wanted to get it done; show her we are honest souls. Thank you so much. --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 


  WAIT A SEC!!  YOU WERE SO RIGHT!!  THE PHOTOS ARE SHOWING UP! CHECK TO BE SURE, OK?  I MAY BE AGING, BUT YOU CAN TEACH OLD DOGS NEW TRICKS!  WHOO-HOO!leahtwosaints (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Electronics

Hi SpinningSpark. Sorry I missed your message last November regarding Wikiproject Electronics collaboration. Glad to see you're reviving it and I'd be happy to help when I can. -Roger (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the negative resistance article and its talk page? The article is on the verge of being completely removed (and hopefully rewritten) and we'd appreciate more opinions. Thanks. -Roger (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve the negative resistance article. This electrical phenomena that this article is about is generally termed "negative resistance" by Electrical Engineers. I have found no case where this effect is called negative impedance. In general negative resistance is a quasi-DC phenomena and the impedance of devices ( ie: scattering parameters ) is a separate matter. Originally this article was titled Negative Resistance. In May 2008 I remarked on it's talk page (now archived somewhere) that the article was a real mess, was technically incorrect and mostly OR. Others agreed and so I asked for a vote to allow me to improve the article. A couple of editors agreed. My attempts to improve this article just get reverted immediately by Circuit-fantasist, who after awhile has spun off parallel articles called Negative_impedance and Negative_differential_resistance. So I restored Negative Resistance and have started working on it. From your discussions it appears you value the contribution of Circuit-fantasist and don't want to see it changed. I am not one to fight an uphill battle so I will leave you to your world of Cargo_cult_science articles and go back to doing what real EEs do.Zen-in (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really the place to be discussing this stuff. Let's please communicate via my talk page. -Roger (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) (to Zen-in) Please do not be insulting. If you disagree with the name change you should discuss this on the Negative impedance article talk page. If you disagree with the split of the article, you should discuss a re-merger on the talk pages. This is the right way to proceed. Re-creating the article as you like it at Negative resistance is the wrong way to proceed, this is a fork, there should be only one article. SpinningSpark 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you find my directness to be insulting. I have tried to improve the article and have seen all my changes get deleted. Do you believe that C-F owns the rights to this article? I don't see any effort on your part to convince him to allow others to edit it. Instead you have criticized me on a number of small matters. C-F's writings do not belong in the electronics realm. They are just a product of his over-active (over-helping?) imagination. It all needs to be expunged from Wikipedia and re-written by competent authors. If you are not willing to support this you have no credibility with me. I don't need Wikipedia for anything if it becomes filled with Bizarro Cargo_cult_science articles as written by C-F.Zen-in (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is a lot wrong with C-F's writings but this needs tackling head-on, not by producing a fork article. The first thing that needs to happen here is that the fork article is removed and all the discussion and effort is centred around the one remaining article. I am willing to help but I do not support forking the article and it is against Wikipedia guidelines. Are you willing to return the negative resistance article to a redirect and move all edits and discussion to negative impedance?, (which can include discussing changing its name). And please stop accusing me of cargo cult science, I am a trained electrical engineer and fully understand the difference. SpinningSpark 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and do what you want. I have washed my hands of the matter for the time being. If I see any improvement in the situation my interest in Wikipedia may be restored.Zen-in (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of what I want, I had nothing to do with this article until a few hours ago when Roger asked me to look at it. Your help is needed too to get this improved. This is only going to work if everyone collaborates. Washing your hands and leaving it to me is not going anywhere. I am not about to fight one edit war by starting another and undoing your edits to negative resisitance. I need you to indicate that you accept there should be only one article and it would be best if you put it back to one article yourself. That way it is clear to everyone there is no edit warring going on. We can then all move on and start improving the negative impedance article. The alternative is to start an AfD which would be just so horribly messy I don't want to think about it and it would be wasting effort better spent on improving the article. SpinningSpark 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You are asking me to do exactly what I have been trying to do for the past few weeks. All my edits have been reverted by Circuit-fantasist. That is not going to change. Until something is done to change that situation I have more productive things to do.Zen-in (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Reverting someones edits without justification is not permitted. If C-f has been doing so, then you simply need to bring it to an admins attention. -Roger (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
C-F is unlikely to revert the edit I am asking for here. It is what he wants. SpinningSpark 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is what C-F wants then why are you asking me to do anything? As I have stated before until C-F is out of the picture entirely I am not wasting any more of my time with this amusing edit war.Zen-in (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I am asking because you created the fork and it is far less confrontational if you remove it. I am asking because a good place to start is something that all sides agree on. You do agree that there should only be one article for one subject don't you? SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I never agreed to having Negative Resistance redirected to Negative Impedance. You removed my edits without my consent. The subject matter is negative resistance and the original article was titled negative resistance. Sorry, I'm not going to be your proxy sock puppet for C-F. Your credibility with me just took another dive.Zen-in (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, Go ahead and do what you want. I have washed my hands of the matter for the time being. seemed quite clear to me that you would not oppose this even if you were not willing to it yourself. SpinningSpark 01:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You can use whatever justification you want. You were going to do it with or without my participation. Your request "I am asking because you created the fork and it is ..." was completely dishonest. Before I replied you went ahead and deleted my edit. I will not work with someone like you. It will amuse me to see more junk science articles added to Wikipedia.Zen-in (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I don't want you to think I am steam-rollering you so I will put it back. I need to go to bed now, so I will not respond again tonight (this morning), but if you insist on having both articles around it is going to have to go to AfD. As I say, it is going to be much more straightforward if there is only one article for everyone to work on. SpinningSpark 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not I who created the forks. The original article was Negative Resistance. C-F created Negative Impedance and Negative Differential resistance. Your statement in Talk:Negative_resistance about xyz impedance, Laplace, complex frequency notation, etc is just nonsense. The correct title for this subject is negative resistance, as it was originally. However I understand why you are so eager to build on what C-F has started. My earlier assertion has proven to be correct.Zen-in (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on knee-jerk reactions to someone trying to help you, it's no wonder things never go your way. Can we please stop it with the name-calling and accusations, and get on to improving said articles? I see that most (all?) of C-F's contributions appear to be original research, which does not belong here; I'd like to see them cleaned up.—Tetracube (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Zen-in, I have restored the article and STILL you cannot find it in your heart to be nice to me. Arguing with me on my talk page is really not very productive, it would be far better if gave your opinion on the article talk pages where everyone can take part. I have stated there that you object to the redirect but you really need to make the case yourself since I do not agree and cannot make it for you. On the matter of the fork, I am afraid that technically you are wrong:

The first two are not forks, one is a move and the other is a cut-and-paste. The material has been moved, but not duplicated. Starting another article at negative resistance is a fork since it is an alternative version of material at negative impedance. This is not to say that I am supporting everything that C-F has done here, there is a lot that is not good. However, there is a lot to do and we need to take one step at a time. We cannot get anywhere until we get rid of the fork first. Please show some good faith with my intentions, we have only just started to interract and you have no justification for believing I am hostile to you. And again, please return to taking part in the debates on the article talk pages, that is where decisions will be made, not here by me. SpinningSpark 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Regional Variations of English

Thank you for this insight :) It's been noted. -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative resistance

I've deleted the Negative resistance article per the comments on the speedy tag and the talkpage. I see you mention on the talkpage that you've archived it - would you like me to delete the talkpage, or can I be of any other help in moving stuff around? Tonywalton Talk 17:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Right you are; talkpage deleted as well. Regards. Tonywalton Talk 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow you're helpful!

The Guidance Barnstar
I was reading over the New User Help Desk and saw that you answered several questions and pointed many confused new people in all the right directions. Great work! -FaerieInGrey (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Linvill

Thanks for the info. John is quite an amazing man. Robsavoie (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

LC circuit

Of course, you are right. It's only due to my poor English, I did not know how to express it. Thanks for the correction. Tescobar (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I have been using your instructions from my talk page for uploading photos and it's been WORKING. Oh, what a blast to finally be able to add some faces, (and, ugh, infoboxes;) to so many pages! Most of the photos are from a great photographer in Australia so I have uploaded-- same username, maybe 50 photos or so? A lot. A few need help with trimming, merging or something. Would you be up to at least slicing a couple of photos in half? I would likely butcher them. Also, many large photos appear smaller in the infobox. Why is that? Compare Tal Wilkenfeld and Cindy Blackman!? I put one in the infobox for Cindy which looks smaller now. There's another from the same source later in the text, much bigger. Please let me know about everything. Thanks. You deserve the newest barnstar times 10!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark/Archive_3&oldid=1139378978"