User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 32

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 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Phila

Thanks for improving the article further. I withdrew the nomination. Avilich (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of the page 'Gurobi'

Hi, I would like to edit the page 'Gurobi' so that it will meet the guideline of Wikipedia and the page won't be deleted. Thanks!22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)2607:FEA8:3200:263:607A:9F6C:6DBB:D475 (talk)

This request was previously asked in November. Please read that discussion. Do you have any evidence of notability to offer? SpinningSpark 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark. I have rewritten the Gurobi page, following the Wikipedia guidelines. I think you'll find it meets the criteria now. What's the best way to get that content to you? Right now, it's in a Word doc. Thank you! Hburggal (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want me to undelete the old article for improvement, pick the two sources you think best meet these criteria and post the citation details here. If you don't want to do that, you can create a completely new draft article at Articles for creation. When you are ready, submit it for review following the instructions on that page. SpinningSpark 21:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Spinningspark. Here are a few, to be on the safe side:

1. In 2018, The New York Times reported that the U.S. Census Bureau used Gurobi to conduct census block reconstruction experiments, as part of an effort to reduce privacy risks. Hansen, Mark. To Reduce Privacy Risks, the Census Plans to Report Less Accurate Data. The New York Times. (December 5, 2018)

2. In 2019, the Mike North, Vice President of National Football League (NFL) Broadcast Planning and Charlotte Carey, Senior Manager of NFL Broadcasting, discussed how the NFL uses Gurobi to build its game schedule each year. Good Morning Football. Meet the minds behind the 2019 NFL schedule: Mike North and Charlotte Carey. National Football League. (2019).

3. In 2020, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported that Gurobi has partnered with GE Digital GE Grid Solutions, the University of Florida, and Cognitive Analytics on a project for planning and scheduling day-ahead electricity supply. Bauer, Susan. High-Performance Computing Helps Grid Operators Manage Increasing Complexity. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (September 11, 2020).

4. In 2021, Marktechpost reported that DoorDash uses Gurobi, in combination with machine learning, to solve dispatch problems. Shenwai, Tanushree. How DoorDash Uses Machine Learning ML And Optimization Models To Solve Dispatch Problem. Marktechpost. (August 23, 2021).

Hburggal (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything there that has in-depth coverage of the topic of the article, or any evidence that you have even read the requirements I linked to. Just some passing mentions in projects that have used it. Giving me more sources than I asked for isn't helping. Just one or two good quality ones is what is needed to convince me to undelete, not quantity. So sorry, I'm just not going to do it. SpinningSpark 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia.
Message added 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SN54129 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rail transport in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Hello, Spinningspark,

You tagged this page which caused the appearance of a red-link category. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories either have to be removed from the pages on which they appear or the category has to be created. I assume you know more about this subject than the average patroller since you tagged the page with the appropriate tag. So, if you could create these categories when they appear for the first time, that would be a better step than removing the page tag that caused to them to appear on a page. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your regressive reversions of whole sections of the F-antenna article

Your reversions of the article constitute vandalism. Please stop. 107.116.93.41 (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. They constitute protection of MOS:STYLEVAR. If you don't want to be reverted, stop changing styles. SpinningSpark 11:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but yes they do; you are wrong. Read the text on the very same page you referred to above: MOS:DOUBLESPACE & MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Your reversions were protecting typesetting that is not an accepted "style" and that MOS:DOUBLESPACE / MOS:PUNCTSPACE specifically forbids. Protecting corrections of a depricated practice is vandalism. You are not excused by appeals to the MOS.
166.205.91.11 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (yesterday on shared IP 107.116.93.41)

You're making it up. Quote the wording you think forbids this. SpinningSpark 14:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on removal of the deletion proposal

Hello! I see you have removed a deletion proposal I've left on a page, here is a link. Could you please tell me why? I used wrong format or something else is wrong? I thought this was correct, and I also described the reason in the page discussion. AivanFouren (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your deletion rationale was "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". I deprodded it with "That doesn't look clearcut to me". There seems to be plenty of scope for attributing it to reliable sources. I say that on the basis of sources in the article, these gbook results and these scholar results. The prod process is for uncontroversial deletions only. I don't know anything about this subject, but clearly there is an arguable case for an article, hence you can't use prod. SpinningSpark 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive behavior on AFD

I am formally requesting that you refrain from interfering with my participation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winged monkeys and focus on the article discussion.

Please do not:

edit my comments (two occurrences in the same AFD)
question my motives ("motive is to poison the well")
criticize me for not including information from an AFD on another article dated 30 May 2019 (??)
post cease and desist notes on my talk page because you don't like my writing style.

Please note that I am not criticizing you, or defending my actions, or engaging you in a debate about your thoughts of what is right and what is wrong. I respect your right to express your opinions about the proposed deletion without disruption from me and I am asking you to do the same.

Thanks Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "writing style". It is about deliberate refusal to follow the guidelines without good reason. So no, I'm not going to desist. SpinningSpark 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Toy program

Hello Spinningspark. I was trying to tidy up Wikipedia, but this edit is making me jump through more hoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toy_program&diff=1067247018&oldid=1065911326 . Your justification created a contradiction. It translates to "A toy program is something, but I don't know what it is." The reason I'm trying to delete the article is because I was googling for a local toy drive, and this came up in the listing. No other Wikipedia article links to toy program, and the original author is gone. Please help. Timhowardriley (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean "...I don't know what it is", it means I don't know/haven't looked for what this could be merged to. One can certainly find uses of the term in the computer programming literature, and it is referenceable, but it's dubious whether this could ever be expanded to a decent size article. Hence merge is the ideal solution because the policy WP:PRESERVE says Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. That means regardless of whether it is notable enough for a standalone article. SpinningSpark 08:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a joke. But okay. Timhowardriley (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke, see this for instance. SpinningSpark 10:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Road signs in Botswana

Why you removed the deletion tag on the article? Have you ever heard that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a gallery? Also the Prod had already endorsed by another user. Sorry, but you can't just remove the tag if someone supports the deletion, and especially since the article itself is against WP's guidelines. Thank you.--JTE Dimandix (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You are factually wrong. Read WP:PROD. I can remove the deletion proposal for any reason I like, or for no reason at all. We have numerous country-speific articles on road signs and there is no reason to believe that substantial information could not be found to expand this one. Notability hinges on the existence of suitable sources, not on what is currently in the article, see WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. SpinningSpark 17:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume you're right about WP:PROD. However, even if there are so many articles about road signs in specific countries, that doesn't meant that WP:NOT is not valid to them. And, just to know, I'm not against those articles, I have been contributing on such articles for a while. However, WP:NOT has no exceptions about Wikipedia being not an indiscriminate collection of information. Why all those articles can't just have one category per article and have one or two examples of each signs with explanations regarding their main differences and move all the rest to Commons? See the current version of Road signs in Mauritius explaining the basic information about road signs and pictures of the most notable examples, while a Commons gallery shows all signs that used to be in the article. Same applies for Greece. In conclucion, there can be articles for road signs in Wikipedia, but not as galleries. And because nearly every single article is like that, doesn't necessarily mean that this is right. Hope you understand. Take care.🙏--JTE Dimandix (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you intending to create a Commons gallery for this (and the other countries you have nominated for the same reason)? If you are I will stop deprodding them. SpinningSpark 12:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In fact I started doing so about two weeks ago, starting with Botswana (I was working in alphabetical order.). I think I will continue doing so. The gallery for Road Signs in Botswana is available in Commons and so is Greece's. The problem is that I don't speak all the languages in the world, so I'm currently using placeholder English titles. I would appreciate if someone helped me with local translations. Good night (Or Morning, it's 8 pm where I live.)--JTE Dimandix (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks

@SpinningSpark: i just wanted to say thanks for helping me out when i needed it. im learning how to insert a css to make my signature look better. i understand alot more now. would you say this was the correct way to get this message to you, or should i have added the discussion to my own page instead of yours? also one last thing, how many hours a day would you say you give to wikipedia stuff?? thanks again, take care.Snarevox (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Snarevox: This is a fine way to message somebody, that's exactly what user talk pages are for. You don't need to ping people on their own talk page though. You get a notification automatically when your own talk page is edited.

How much time you spend editing Wikipedia is up to you. It can depend on how much time you spend on your real job, how badly you want to keep it, how much time you want to devote to your wife/girlfriend/children and how badly you want to keep them. And if you don't have a wife/girlfriend, how much time you want to spend finding and keeping one. SpinningSpark 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

i was actually asking how much time you as a person spend on wikipedia, i wasnt really thinking about myself or like seeking advice. i guess i was just curious. Snarevox (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My editing statistics are publicly visible with this unofficial tool or with this kind of official tool. SpinningSpark 16:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

2 quick questions..

when messaging someone like this on their talk page, is it preferred to start a new topic each time you message them so each topic doesnt become super long and hard to read, or is it better to continue using the same topic so as not to clutter up their talk inbox area?

2nd question: is there a way to edit my input for an "edit summary" after ive already submitted it?

hope your days have been well! thanks Snarevox (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Snarevox: A new question on a new topic should be in a new section. It is not possible to amend edit summaries once the edit has been committed. Administrators can suppress edit summaries, but only under strictly limited conditions. If you have made an error in explaining your edit that might mislead others, or just forgotten to give a reason, then you can make a dummy edit to add a new edit summary. For complex issues, it might be best to explain on the article talk page. SpinningSpark 15:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks, i had your talk page in mind when i asked if a new question should be asked as a new topic. i just didnt want to bung up your inbox with another topic unless i could be assured it was proper etiquette. im assuming that similar to the edit summary, we cant edit these talk topics either once they have been sent. ill stop using this one now and start a new one if i feel i have an important enough question. i only ask you if i really cant figure it out with google. i wish i knew more friendly editors like you. thanks again. Snarevox (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell

Maxwell believed in the Trinity and the statement about the Trinity is factual and accurate. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No doubt he did, but the claim that that led to Maxwell's equations is nonsense, which is what you wrote in the article. I note that the paper you cited also claims that Trinitarianism led (the Jewish) Einstein to relativity. And again, "Maxwell's understanding...launched human unserstanding...into the new universe of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics". Those things came half a century later. Maxwell's theory turned out to be fully compatible with relativity but one can't credit Maxwell with that – he believed in the ether theory. Maxwell's equations have nothing at all to do with quantum mechanics. In short, I'm not accepting anything that source has to say about science as reliable. SpinningSpark 23:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What Happened in the Tunnel

Hi, I noticed that you removed the PROD template from the What Happened in the Tunnel article, with the note "Deprod. There's a lot of discussion of this film in sources, especially concerning the social attitudes of the era." However, no citations were added to support this statement and you left the "notability" tag. Since I cannot find any of these discussions that you mentioned I am considering sending the article to AfD. But, I wanted to give you the opportunity to add some of these discussions to the article before then so that we wouldn't need to have the discussion at an AfD. Thoughts? Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything to save this page from deletion, so please don't hold the threat of AFD over me. Per WP:NEXIST, it is only necessary for sources to exist to establish notability; it is not necessary for anyone to put them in the article. It is especially not necessary that it should be me doing it – I didn't write the article or contribute any of the material, or even care about it that much. You claim you can't find any sources, but you clearly didn't do a book search, a common failing in prods and AFDs. The first three results in gbooks from the search term "What Happened in the Tunnel" 1903 are The Emergence of Cinematic Time, For the Love of Pleasure: Women, Movies, and Culture in Turn-of-the-century Chicago, and New Silent Cinema all have substatial coverage and are from highly reputable publishers. Looking through the first 50 results they mostly seem to have non-trivial coverage and skipping ahead to the 91–100 results page they are still mostly returning the correct subject. So if you do take it to AFD I suggest you do a proper WP:BEFORE first. SpinningSpark 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello! This is just a thanks for telling me a while back that using YouTube as a source for articles are usually not the best idea. Washing Machine (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Antarctic English

Template:Antarctic English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Earl Sweatshirt

hey there, hope youre well. i got a quick question for you. ok on the page for Earl Sweatshirt, i noticed whoever wrote it, always referred to him by his last name which is Kgositsile instead of his first name which is Thebe, or his more popular name Earl, or even "he".

trying to read it annoyed me to no end and really felt a bit disrespectful (i thought about how id feel reading my wiki and only being called by my surname, nobody wants that) so i went ahead and corrected 70+ instances, it was such a mess.

my question is this, i tried to look through the 500+ edits to see when this happened and it was simply just far too overwhelming, is there any easy way for me to see who inserted all those instances of Kgositsile at every possible mention of the man and when it occurred??

i really wanna tell em to go fly a kite, but in reality i just want to see when it happened and how many things happened after it where nobody noticed or maybe noticed and just didnt do anything to correct it.

if not, ill live but if there is a way, i would be interested in knowing how to see it.

thanks either way Snarevox (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

ugh i didnt realize i had to put the colon before each paragraph for indentation. making it harder to read while trying to make it easier..sorry Snarevox (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Snarevox: I've moved this thread to a new section because it is a new topic. Your edit has been reverted and you will see from the edit summary that it was reverted quoting the guideline MOS:SURNAME. We use surnames because Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, should be written in a formal style. Using first names is informal. To answer your question, you can use the WikiBlame tool to find when and by whom a specific piece of text was inserted. You can also search efficiently manually using a binary search algorithm. However, in this case, you will probably find that the name was inserted by many different editors at many different times as the article grew organically, rather than all being changed in one hit. SpinningSpark 14:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for replying.. guess i learn something new every day. now that i look around, i do see the surname standard. i think the reason i found it so disturbing is because his last name is so uncommon and i just noticed it more. i appreciate the information. Snarevox (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong AfD category, request for help

Hello. I have apparently erroneously put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will and testament of clerics in the "AfD debates (Places and transportation)" category. Could you put the AfD in its proper category? I do not know in which category it should be, but surely the current one is wrong. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. SpinningSpark 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Newton's metal

Hi. Using my university proxy, I downloaded the PDF file which was the only WP:RS for Newton's metal. The contents were a straightforward wp:copyvio, so I have restored the previous version. There were no references to Isaac Newton in the PDF file or any statements about clinical use. Six authors from Egypt were listed, some connected to cancer research units. I had to look through the whole pdf file; fortunately it was OCR so easily searchable. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion as "unsourced"

The citation for the patent (Google Patents) now marks it as expired (which it is, given the date). But you're right about the grammar (oops). It was late at night, so I missed that. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Also, the same page uses a short citation of a work by Prof. Angelos Keromytis without including the source in the bibliography. I was unable to locate the exact source, partly because the author is apparently extremely prolific. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read the first bullet at the top of this page. SpinningSpark 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz's RFA and gender identification

I thank all of you who called me out on this (yes, I know at least one of you said that isn't what you were doing – but yes you were), however, I already perfectly understand the issue, I just don't agree with that analysis. I'm not going to reply to anyone in the RFA because that is an inappropriate place to have this discussion. SpinningSpark 15:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, could you clarify here what you mean by "just don't agree with that analysis"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, my unasked for opinion is that you shouldn't have to announce your gender to avoid being misgendered. I have a female name and even have a photo of myself on my User page and I am identified as male often by new editors whose first language isn't English. I'm not offended by it because Wikipedia is majority male so if they are guessing, it's a good guess. But when this subject comes up, I just like to ask how would you feel if most people assumed you were a woman? I'm sure you don't have negative opinions about women, that's not the issue, it's just an odd feeling when people assume you are something that you aren't. Personally, I just play it safe with ambiguous usernames and use the singular "they" until I am informed of what the situation is. But I, as a woman, still make the wrong assumptions about gender so in a sense it's a little inescapable until there is a substantial shift in editor demographics here. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:, I would not personally have misgendered you for exactly the reasons you give. I agree with you that it is not necessary to explicitly declare your gender with a userbox or whatever. If there is doubt, I always look at a user's page before addressing them to see if they have given any sort of clue to their gender, and obviously, there is no doubt in your case. My point here is that if you care about being misgendered, then at least give us a fighting chance of getting it right. And if you don't care, then why get upset when people don't get it right? You ask how I would feel if it happened to me. I think I would probably find it hilarious (or else think I was being trolled). That would reflect badly on the stupidity of the person making the mistake rather than on me. But then, this would probably be different for men who have not had the same history of gender opression. SpinningSpark 09:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Yes, I can explain. First of all, I am very old and come from a different generation. At one time, writing any sort of formal letter to an unknown person would begin "Dear Sir" on the assumption that a male has being addressed. This was a fair assumption as virtually nearly always that was the case. Women when signing a letter would append (Mrs) or (Miss) in brackets after their name so that they were not misgendered in any reply. I recognise that attitudes have changed dramatically over my lifetime. Although that was a good system for avoiding misgendering, it fell out of favour, quite rightly, because it specifically calls out women in an age when we are supposed to have equality of the sexes. Now it is common to refer to a person with gender-neutral terms like they/them. To me, that is artificially mangling the English language. I grit my teeth every time I have to write that, which is why I always check to see if the user has identified their gender. I am definitely never going to write xe, or anything like it, regardless of who declares that as their preferred form address.

While on the topic of preferred pronouns, you suggested using the {{gender}} template to find this out. What a cack-handed way of hiding information. I have to actually write that on a page (or at least preview it) before finding out what information it is going to return. It should be in the page information for the user. It could also usefully be in the Xtools user information. Either of those make it far more accessible. SpinningSpark 10:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Kirchhoff's circuit laws talk page

Thanks for fixing that - was misled by the manual unsigned edit - should have read more carefully! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I am merely one of the many who appreciate your diligence and your attention to detail. Thank you for everything you do. Cheers! Floyd23 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Re Energy

I asked my friend, a physics PhD., for his thoughts on the lede. He said the lede before my initial change was laughable; your recent reversion was well-intended but not an improvement despite what needed to be addressed, and the latest lede comports with the current state of mainstream debate in the field. Your thoughts? My interest is to attempt elucidation without sacrificing accuracy for the benefit of readers who are likely to be minimally acquainted with the ever-evolving notions of what light is and/or isn't. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert in "Planar transmission line"

I don't agree with your revert of my recent edit.

"nbsp is entirely unnecessary in shortened refs"

It is necessary at least for some of them. For example, in my desktop browser, the reference 15 renders as

15. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n} Edwards & Steer, p.
97

with an ugly line break. In other environments (different browsers, devices, skins, font) other references might be also similarly corrupted. If somebody edits the article and reuses some of the references, they will have more backlinks and thus might become similarly corrupted and well. Thus using non-breaking spaces prevents all these actual and potential problems without doing any harm to you. Your arbitrarily chosen column widths for the reference are also too wide for the vast majority of these short strings; 20em gives better results (more reasonable 4 filled columns instead of 3 sparse, on my screen), but with NBSPs, of course.

shortened refs, which are sentence fragments and don't take a period

This is not true. See all the examples in WP:Citing sources. The recommended templates {{sfn}} and {{harvc}} (which, in principle, should have been used instead of bare text) also end shortened footnotes by a period.

ISBN+pub year defines the edition so doesn't need an additional comma

Wrong again. See WP:Citing sources again and how all the citation templates work.

It was also harmful to remove spaces in "ε_r = ..." (see MOS:COMMONMATH), changing "max. frequency" to "max frequency" ("max" is informal, whereas "max." is the correct abbreviation), removing commas in "Edwards & Steer, p. ..." and so on. Changing "Substrate-integrated waveguide" to "Substrate integrated waveguide" (without a hyphen) and so on are not improvements either.

So I consider reverting your edit unless you have better arguments why it was an improvement. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you denying that shortened footnotes are sentence fragments? If so, please educate me where the verb is in those sentences. I would argue that it is the guideline that has got it wrong, not this article. Just because the examples on the guideline page have periods doesn't mean that they are prescribed to be presented that way. WP:CITEVAR explicitly says otherwise. Examples are just examples, not an enforced template.

On the wrapping, that is occuring, that is due to this edit. So if you want to fix that problem, then undo that deviation from the established citation style. With a 23em column width (which is a standard I have established as optimum over many years of creating articles with this referencing style) the problem did not occur before that edit. The style I normally use when creating long articles is shortened footnotes without combining so that the footnotes occur in the same order they appear in the article body. In this article, I deviated from that in the tables where every entry in the same column was the same ref so that the user could immediately see they were all the same cite. It's tempting in those cases to put the cite in the heading cell, but that can cause a problem if a line is added with a different source.

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you think another citation system is better. I don't agree, and CITEVAR says you should stick to the established style. If you think such a style is actually harmful, then make a case for getting it proscribed. If you do go down that path, I would appreciate a note.

I probably don't have an issue with the rest of your comments, that was mostly collateral damage. However, to preserve them, I would have had to manually revert the changes I didn't like, which is the majority of them, and there is no way I was going to go through the entire article and manually restore the sentence spacing. Having said that, I'm not seeing anything in COMMONMATH about spaces around equals signs. Are you sure you linked to the right guideline? SpinningSpark 09:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you denying that shortened footnotes are sentence fragments?

They are not "sentence fragments" simply because they are not parts of any natural-language sentences. They are expressions in some formal language, just like musical notation or Feynman diagrams. This doesn't mean that they can't be included in sentences, but they are not sentences or sentence fragments by themselves, so your argument doesn't apply here. The formal language for such notation, implemented by {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}} and alike, uses final periods and semicolons between items.

WP:CITEVAR explicitly says otherwise.

WP:CITEVAR is about choosing among commonly established citation styles. It's not about inventing your own style. And not about removing punctuation from one of the common styles. What it says explicitly is that "editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style", which you insist on doing instead of using one of the standard styles.

... due to this edit. So if you want to fix that problem, then undo that deviation from the established citation style ...

That edit was absolutely correct. The use of en dashes instead of hyphens is explicitly required by MOS:PAGERANGE. If your own "citation style" contradicts WP:MOS, it cannot be called "established".

... a 23em column width (which is a standard I have established as optimum over many years of creating articles with this referencing style)

Again, your own preferences contradict WP standards: {{Reflist}} recommends using 20em for shortened footnotes.

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you think another citation system is better. I don't agree, and CITEVAR says you should stick to the established style.

The established styles are implemented by templates like {{sfn}}. I have just harmonized the punctuation in that particular article with the standard of that citation style, without advocating that any other style is better or changing the style (in the sense of CITEVAR) to any other.

... was mostly collateral damage ... no way I was going to go through the entire article and manually restore the sentence spacing

Even the built-in code editor has a "search and replace" tool, which you could have used for removing the periods from all references semiautomatically. The burden of preserving useful changes is on you. In any case, reverting 1081630166 (with only 3 inserted periods that you personally don't like against 6 obviously useful and several neutral changes) completely was definitely harmful.

I'm not seeing anything in COMMONMATH about spaces around equals signs.

Literally: "Symbols for binary operators and relations are usually spaced on both sides: ... equals, does not equal, equals approximately: =, ≠, ≈;". This is also the standard implemented by <math> (

\varepsilon _{r}=\dots

) using the industry-standard TeX typesetting rules. The word "usually" here means that in some situations (for example, in sub- and superscripts) the spacing is reduced, but not that it can be arbitrarily omitted in normal usage.

I have given you many references to WP guidelines supporting my point of view, but all your arguments so far were based on your personal taste and habits... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

By god you are hard work. I am so tired of wikignomes trying to enforce style standards by scope creep. A style gets put in a template, using the template becomes a suggestion, then a recommendation, and then, because loads of people follow it, it becomes a de facto standard. CITEVAR was created to stop arguments like this occuring by explicitly saying that there is no standard, no matter who is doing it. What you are doing is against the spirit of that, if not the letter.

I'm not going to continue to reply to every single one of your points and build a massive wall of text here. You will only reply back to all of them. We might make better progress by tackling just one at a time. Let's start with shortened footnotes. These are a replacement for in-text shortened citations and should therefore follow the same style. No recognised manual of style puts periods in shortened citations; not the MLA, not APA, and not Chigaco. There is no benefit whatsoever in trying to enforce periods – it makes no difference at all to the reader. It only causes aggravation. SpinningSpark 12:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but I would add to Spinningspark's comments that the article passed FAC with this citation style, which indicates that a few experienced editors see nothing wrong with the citation style. And specifically with respect to periods at the end of short citations, I recall raising the question at WT:FAC years ago and being told there is no rule requiring periods. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that you were heavily involved in the nomination discussion, but it's fine. WP:FACR 2c indeed requires "consistently formatted inline citations" instead of "well formatted" or "according to one of the major styles" or even "according to WP:MOS". :–) Moreover, in its promoted state it had an ugly line break "p. [break] 97" in ref. 15 (at least, as I see it today in my browser). In any case, passing FAC doesn't mean that it had no flaws. Even the template says: "if you can update or improve it, please do so", which I'm trying to do. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, FAs can be improved; and I certainly didn't mean to hide the fact that I was one of the reviewers. I just meant that other eyes have already looked critically at the style. I think a couple of aspects of your edits were fine -- nbsp, for example, which seem harmless to me, and as you say, do some good in some circumstances. I think Spinningspark's suggestion to take this step by step is sensible, but we might consider moving the conversation to the article's talk page, since this is focused on the article -- at that page others interested in the article could join in or be pinged in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So if these periods in footnotes are the only disagreement, let me then undo the last Spinningspark's massive revert (except the removal of footnote punctuation), to preserve my other changes before the history is overwritten by somebody else, making the repair more difficult. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you should make no changes till we have consensus, and take one type of edit at a time. There's no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Aggravation of what? I was replying to so many of your claims to demonstrate that each of them was incorrect, which in turn undermines the credibility of your statements in general. Now you are making some statements, about external manual of style. Let's check them:

MLA (2016):

Doesn't use footnotes at all.
3.6 (p. 126): Basic in-text citations must be in parentheses, don't use any punctuation, and don't use "p." before page numbers; multiple sources are separated by semicolons. So "(Baron 194; Jacobs 55)" is correct, yours "(Baron, p. 194 [line break] Jacobs, p. 55)" is not.
2.6 (p. 110): "Periods are used after the author, after the title of the source, and at the end of the information for each container." This is about full references, but they are not complete sentences either (in your words, "where the verb is in those sentences?").

APA (2022):

Uses parenthetical in-text citations instead of footnotes.
8.11 (p. 262): "In-text citations have two formats: parenthetical and narrative. In parenthetical citations, the author name and publication date ... appear in parentheses. In narrative citations, this information is incorporated into the text as part of the sentence." So if you don't use parentheses, then admit that it's a sentence, although "minor".
8.12 (p. 263): Multiple works must be separated with semicolons.
9.5 (p. 284): "Ensure that a period appears after each reference element". This is again about full references, but again, see above. See also 9.25 and 9.28 (p. 294–295) about periods after page ranges.
Very few footnotes are used in the manual itself, but they all have terminal punctuation regardless of their length and completeness (see examples on p. 164, 203–204).

CMOS (2017):

Short citations don't use "p." and are terminated with a period. This is not stated explicitly but is consistent in all examples (see 14.19, 14.30, 14.34 – especially examples 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 there and 11, which has a semicolon between multiple sources).
Also nothing is said explicitly about punctuation in footnotes, but the examples are terminated with a period regardless of whether they are complete sentences (see 3.61, fig. 3.14 and 3.86, fig. 3.24).

So your claims again appear incorrect or irrelevant. Unless you can give exact references/quotes proving that your "citation style" is legitimate, we should consider it arbitrarily made-up and inconsistent with major style guides and WP practices. I would also like to remark about your speech on templates: they were at least discussed, collaboratively created and maintained, and are used by the majority of editors, so their existence and appearance are a result of consensus, unlike your own "citation style". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm away from home for the next three days and don't have any more time to deal with this. For the avoidance of doubt, and to summarise, I agree that the issues you raised in this comment,

It was also harmful to remove spaces in "ε_r = ..." (see MOS:COMMONMATH), changing "max. frequency" to "max frequency" ("max" is informal, whereas "max." is the correct abbreviation), removing commas in "Edwards & Steer, p. ..." and so on. Changing "Substrate-integrated waveguide" to "Substrate integrated waveguide" (without a hyphen) and so on are not improvements either.

should be reapplied. I also agree that the combination of refs outside of tables should be undone to fix the wrapping issue. I'll fix these issues myself when I return if you wish. I positively do not agree to anything else. SpinningSpark 16:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks for reapplying some of my correction (with some errors, which I had to correct again). By the way, your last edit is an obvious violation of WP:DUPREF. What was its purpose?

And please explain what exactly do you mean by "I positively do not agree to anything else."? You've tried to appeal to MLA, APA and CMOS, but now are refusing to agree with what they actually say and do. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain?

Hi, I see you reverted all my actions on Wikipedia, can you please tell me why? I mistakenly added one link to "magnetic reluctant" thinking it was magnetic resistance. But the other links were added appropriately in related topics and I think readers would have found them helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.114.220 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. SpinningSpark 16:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes

How a similar discussion one year ago closed is not a valid argument at AfD, much less a valid closing rationale. WP:Consensus can change, and your closure does not seem to make any attempt to address the weight of arguments which are based in policy (such as WP:NOT) and thus would override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And here, there is the additional fact that none of the keep !votes are even remotely backed up by policy. They're all variants of "similar articles exist" (WP:OSE), "the show was important" (which is subjective opinion, and which does not address the NOT issue); arguments that "it causes not harm" (when, in fact, As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here.); ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy note that I will be taking this to DRV, owing to the lack of reply here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Participants in World War I

Hey, Spinningspark,

Just a reminder, if you restore an expired Draft page, or a User page like a Sandbox with an AFC template on it, please make a minor edit to the page or it becomes eligible for deletion again for a CSD G13 once it is noticed by a patrolling editor or admin because, otherwise, the last edit on the page was the same edit it had when it was deleted as a stale draft. This step isn't widely known because it usually just comes up for admins who patrol WP:REFUND and restore a lot of drafts. There is even a script, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that will make this dummy edit for you when you restore an expired draft. Thanks and I hope you are having a good week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Actually, that's the first time this has come up with me and I hadn't noticed it was a problem. Usually, a G13 restoration gets edited straight away because someone wants to edit it. And other CSDs have a template that needs removing. It's disappointing that this article has been repeatedly REFUNDed but nothing gets done with it. SpinningSpark 18:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability guideline

You previously participated in a discussion about an editor adding something to the Notability guideline. Despite consensus being against it, they put it back in anyway. I am contacting all those who discussed it previously.Wikipedia_talk:Notability#pointless_essay_linked_to_by_its_creator Dream Focus 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ohms law

I’d like to update the introduction to be more concise. Since ohms law states that current (I) = Voltage divided by Resistance, the current first line “ Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points.” is misleading.the following line “Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship:[2]” tends to confuse the topic.

Proposed: Simply add “ divided by the resistance between the two points” before the ending period.

Remove: “Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship:[2]” and add “ resulting in the mathematical formula [2]”

Rationale: keeping the introduction as simple as possible as to not confuse the reader. Details further in the article expands on the specifics. Bottom line is I = V / R, so state that. Just trying to keep it simple.

tbitson (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Tim Bitson EE, PE

Magyaráb people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarab_people

I marked this for deletion because the very source linked from the article says that there are no such thing.

And your reason to keep the Wikipedia article is ... that it's serious enough because there is a Wikipedia article about it.

> Even if the whole thing is a myth, it seems to be a notable enough myth to have an article

That's circuitous reasoning and it would it impossible to delete anything at all.

Once again: a couple neonazis resurfaced this garbage in the 90s then later added it to Wikipedia and now you want to keep nationalism fueled garbage alive. Your only source that says this exists is the Demokrata for which Wikipedia has this to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Demokrata

> Magyar Demokrata, a social-criticism and cultural magazine, features anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi articles, according to the Heinrich Böll Stiftung and the United States Department of State.

Now open a reliable source which is https://web.archive.org/web/20080605115547/http://www.mno.hu/portal/401039 and read

> Magyarábok márpedig nincsenek – tisztázhatjuk a kérdést sokak megkönnyebbülésére hónapokig tartó hazai nyomozás, több ezer kilométer kínkeserves bejárása, az egyiptomi hatóságokkal viaskodás hetei és számos kiábrándító kaland után

Sure you don't read Hungarian, well Google Translate is roughly understandable, isn't it:

> There are no [Magyarabs] - we can clarify the issue after months of domestic investigation, thousands of kilometers of torturous walks, weeks of fighting with the Egyptian authorities and many disappointing adventures.

So. How on earth am I going to get rid of this ridiculous crap? What more do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:5380:CAD:5146:2457:6C6C:466E (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should keep crap. As I said in my edit summary, this "is a complex enough issue that it shouldn't be settled arbitrarily". The process you launched (proposed deletion) is decided by a single administrator and is only to be used "if no opposition to the deletion is expected". In my opinion, it is more than possible that this may be opposed and therefore a full debate at articles for deletion should be launched if it is to be deleted.

My second point in my edit summary was that since this has been discussed in apparently reliable sources, it would serve our readers better to amend the article to explain that this claim is false. This is preferable to having nothing at all for a reader who has heard of it and wants to find some accurate information. SpinningSpark 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article leaving only the facts in. It was reverted in four minutes. Once again: how can you remove any garbage from this website? 2604:3D08:5380:CAD:8801:9561:D586:3321 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You should start a discussion on the article talk page. The problem appears to be that you failed to provide a citation for the claim that this ethnic group is fictitious rather than the editor who reverted you actually disagreeing with your claim. It might also have helped if you had filled in an edit summary explaining what you are doing. But in any event, bottom it out with a discussion. @C.Fred:, the reverting editor.

I would also strongly recommend that you open an account. This makes communication so much easier. You can't watchlist anything without an account for instance, and you can't be pinged by other editors. SpinningSpark 07:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Concern regarding Draft:Ancient systems of elements

Hello, Spinningspark. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ancient systems of elements, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewa Dynasty (2nd nomination)

You expressed an opinion at the first deletion discussion. I am alerting you to the second, where you may wish to contribute. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Railway surgery has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

a question regarding talk page topics

howdy chief..

i hope youre having a fine day. i was just wondering if you know of any possible way to keep track of talk page topics i have opened and/or interacted with (commented on)??

i find it difficult to recall every idea ive had that has lead me to post something on an articles talk page. i can usually keep them in my onboard rom for a few days, but if somebody replies to something i posted say, a week ago, i really dont remember to check.

this just gave me an idea about my initial question, ok if i open a new topic and somebody replies, am i notified regardless, or only if they tag my username??

ok then, if i reply to a talk page item that i didnt create, and then somebody else replies to it, am i notified of the new reply regardless or only if they tag me?

i guess id like to know... if im only notified about something when im tagged, how can i keep track of things im involved in or have interacted with that people reply to if they fail to tag me? or like if i chime in on something multiple people are involved in..like if i add an idea to a group discussion and then someone else adds an idea and nobody tags everybody but i still want to keep track of new replies even though theyre not replying to me personally. im trying to keep this fairly simple, so ill stop it there.

i hope these arent like super obvious or dumb or whatever questions. ive been trying to figure things out more on my own and reserving asking a real person until im really stumped. i kind of think of you as like my wikipedia sponser, similar to if we were in aa together. i realize that isnt the case, its just a silly thing in my head. i understand if youre too busy to answer. please dont ever go out of your way, my questions arent really all that important to anyone besides myself. idk where you are, but its almost summer in wisconsin. take care. Snarevox (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No I'm not having a good day. Microsoft managed to destroy my calendar and all my contacts and its taken four or five hours to resolve, but it's all better now.

You don't know about watchlist? Go to Special:Preferences and then click on the "Watchlist" tab. You will find settings there for all the things you want to keep track of. You can see your watchlist from a button at the top of the window. The one exception is that you can't automatically watchlist a page that you have just viewed without doing anything, but you can manually watchlist it by clicking the tab at the top with a star on it. SpinningSpark 12:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

well that stinks, i hope today is going better for you. i was unaware of watchlist, and im not sure if its because i mainly use a mobile device or not. this message was a perfect example of what i was trying to figure out as far as notifications and keeping track of stuff like this, i kept looking at my little profile notification icon in the upper right hoping to see that you had replied, but it never lit up so i figured i would check this message. sure enough, you had replied. thank you for the tip. have a great day! Snarevox (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SMD

Hello, Samudera 山姆 சமுத்திரா 31 March 2017 is listed as SMD in the page List of Singapore LRT stations. --Wisdood (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought the target was Samudera LRT station, the same as last time I reverted this entry. ....But, this is still not MOS compliant, pipes should not be used to hide the true target of a bluelink. The fact I was fooled by it tells you why that is in the guidelines. See MOS:DABPIPING for how these cases are supposed to be handled, particularly the Dragon Ball example. Wouldn't it better to add the abbreviation to the station article? Then you can link it directly – it's the most appropriate article for the entry. SpinningSpark 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)