User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 6
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Re: Hooks are for catching, articles are for explaining
Sure. You can just ignore my comments and wait for others. DYK is much about sense of phrasing, which is an art I haven't mastered. You probably know that DYK admins rewrite most hooks before launching. One of my hooks was completely replaced by another fact in the article in the last moment before launch. As to my mocking at DYK, it had its grounds ;-) Getting serious, I think the article title should be changed. "On copper lines" is a slang on its own, electronics uses that for bare copper lines on printed boards, and I would use something like "in electrical cables". To you, reflections refer to electrical signals, but my immediate reaction was reflection of light (I'm sure some people think of sound instead - that is why my comment on ringing). "High-frequency noise" is more neutral than ringing, but again, if you want a mystery in the hook .. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering. Just a thought. "Signal reflections on electrically conducting lines" may refer and does refer to any signal (acoustic, optical, radio, whatever) and "on" to me sounds like an external wave (propagating somewhere) crossed the cable and interacted with it. I imagine usual several power cables running parallel to the ground, acting like diffraction grating to incoming radiowaves. Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I chose the article title on the grounda that Wikipedia follows the common name of a thing and "copper lines" is certainly the common name. It might be informal and slightly inaccurate but it is not exactly slang. "Reflections on tranmsission lines" is no good as it includes waveguides and fibre-optics which are outside the scope and if I call it that we will get the analogue filter argument all over again. "Reflections on electrical transmission lines" is possible but still arguably including waveguides. Your suggestion of "...in electrical cables" excludes stripline and microstrip formats which are definitely within the scope of the article. Without going to something utterly cumbersome like "signal reflections on electrical transmission lines consisting of electrical conductors", I think "reflections on copper lines" is a good compromise which nails precisely what is being discussed to the reader. The job of the title is to allow the reader to choose the right article from amongst reflection (mathematics), reflection (linear algebra), reflection (computer science), reflection (physics) or even reflection (electrical) and with this title there is little danger the reader will go to the wrong one. SpinningSpark 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two questions, (i) why "on" not "in" ? Consider "light scatters on a waveguide" and "light scatters in a waveguide" To me, first means light traveled through space, met a waveguide and scattered on it, second means light propagated through a waveguide and scattered on its way. (ii) why copper? I understand it is a common slang, but copper is only one cable (or strip) material. Why not "(signal) reflections in conducting lines" ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- "in" is acceptable but "on" is definitely the more common expression in this context. Why? there is no why; it's just one of those perverse idioms of English. We can be on form but later in decline; you might be instructed to do something "when you are in receipt..." but "you should, on receipt, ...". The "up" and "down" conventions are even worse: we cut down trees, but then chop them up; after dinner we wash up, but to get rid of the suds we rinse down. I could go on, but the short answer is I don't know why. I know copper is not the only material, but that is the common expression, especially when disambiguating against fibre-optic. The reason here is obvious - it is by far the most common metal used for cables. I don't really care if the article title gets changed, but this is what I think it should be. SpinningSpark 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, idioms are a nightmare of foreign language. BTW, would it be correct to say that "My reflections on copper wires" means "My thoughts about copper wires" ? I trust you know terminology of your field and leave this with you. My message above was only to say that in my field, "reflection on" and "reflection in" have different and geometry related (rather than idiomatic) meanings. Materialscientist (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- My reflections on copper wires, yes you are absolutely right, are you going to write that article? It will go with reflections on the Guillotine, an article about how shiny it is. SpinningSpark 23:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was eager to, but you took that from me by your Reflections on copper lines ;-). Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two questions, (i) why "on" not "in" ? Consider "light scatters on a waveguide" and "light scatters in a waveguide" To me, first means light traveled through space, met a waveguide and scattered on it, second means light propagated through a waveguide and scattered on its way. (ii) why copper? I understand it is a common slang, but copper is only one cable (or strip) material. Why not "(signal) reflections in conducting lines" ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought
Have you considered bringing copper to GA nomination? WP:Elements would only be grateful for that as the activity there dropped to nearly zero during the last few month. As far as can see, no-one is developing this article. I thought it could be a nice refreshment after electrical circuits. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more than willing to assist with a GA nomination. I would not want to take the lead though, ie somone else should nominate it, many areas of that article are well outside my area of expertise. SpinningSpark 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is my point - to get out of "your areas of expertise" and nominate yourself. I was first scared to do so too, but came over. I know no-one on WP who can cover professionally all aspects of any elements article, which has not been a problem. I will help. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't really want to take on any more right now. I want to have another crack at getting Otto Zobel through FA first. SpinningSpark 00:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is my point - to get out of "your areas of expertise" and nominate yourself. I was first scared to do so too, but came over. I know no-one on WP who can cover professionally all aspects of any elements article, which has not been a problem. I will help. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Primary line constants
|
On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Primary line constants, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Reflections on copper lines
|
|
On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reflections on copper lines, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem rather lonely so...
..hi. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Always listen to Lord Sponge a.k.a. Spfizzilizounge. But if you want one more, make a page with all the reasons why you should have them - and I'll give you the shame barnstar for it. :) Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad article, but are we sure we really need a new one? And after all my decades in signal processing, I've never used, or even much heard, the term "wave filter". It seems like a rather obsolete term (I do find it defined in the BSTJ in 1922). I'm not sure what other term would commonly fill in for this concept, other than just "linear filter", but I don't think we should give some prominence to a term so little used (see these few books). Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the first point, there is no doubt in my mind that we need this article. A top level filter article is needed which can then refer down to all the other filter articles in an organised way. This article used to exist years ago but was merged into electronic filter because it was very lightweight. Ever since then "electronic filter" has been the de facto top level article and has accumulated all kinds of inappropriate material. There has been sporadic debates on this on the talk pages, usually concluding that this is bad but no action ever been taken. So I was bold ... but truth be known, I think there is still a lot of material in "electronic filter" that should be elsewhere but did not want to be too drastic as a first step, just establish the existence of "filter (signal processing)".
- On "wave filter" you are absolutely right, this is my bad, the term is completely obsolete. I have been writing a lot of articles on the "image filter" era and have been wading through endless papers and patents that all use this term and it kind of got ingrained. However, there is a need to distinguish frequency filtering filters from those filtering something else - but what to call them? Aye there's the rub. SpinningSpark 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting stuff, now that I see what you've been up to. I've been doing a bit of related work myself recently (not in WP), on auditory filter models related to the non-uniform wave propagation system of the cochlea (actually, not just recently, but for over 30 years, but with a new spin). Yet somehow I had missed a lot of that old filter theory. I have been very aware of the transmission-line cochlea-model circuits of Wegel and Lane (1924), Peterson and Bogert (1950), etc., but hadn't really read the AT&T origins of transmission-line-based filters; very interesting and useful stuff, actually. It's cool how Campbell discovered that a loaded line makes a good lowpass filter. By the way, since you're an old (I'm guessing) British telecomms engineer, maybe you know my old buddy Colin M. of BT (last name by email on request) who spent the summer of '73 with me working at Bell Labs Holmdel. My immediate interest is to make a good procedure to go from the exponential description of a transmission line to a good section rational transfer function to make a cascade-form filter out of; not for sharp cutoff, but for a nice pseudo-resonant response to model the cochlea. The math looks like it might come out pretty simple. I haven't seen anything like that; let me know if you have any pointers to relevant art.
- As for what to call them, I'd just say continuous-time linear filters, since that's what sinusoids (or complex exponentials, really) are the eigenfunctions of. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not BT, my background is the broadcast and military-aerospace industries. I only know the transmission line model of the ear in broad outline so am probably not going to be much help, but for what its worth, here are my thoughts. My gut feeling is that image filters based on the Campbell model are not going to be much use to you. The original Campbell filter is reasonably well behaved, but most of the subsequent development was aimed at improving the cut-off with no regard to how badly that mangled the phase response - which it did. Plus, there are theoretical flaws in the image method which is what led to it being abandoned - experience is needed to know what is, and is not, going to work. You are right though, that calculation is particularly simple, which is why the method stayed in use long after better techniques came along, an important consideration pre-internet era. What may be of use to you is the classic image era method of constructing artificial lines was with lattice filter sections. This idea originated (I think) with Bartlett but was much developed at Bell Labs. I have to hand some patents of Zobel on this subject (see particularly US1760973), doubtless he published in BSTJ as well but I don't have any references (edit: there is also G. W. Pierce's artificial delay lines for use with sonar). I am presuming you are looking at digital implementations here, but if you are not, here's another idea. If you frequency shift your signal up to somewhere in SHF microwaves you will be able to construct you model with real transmission lines in a reasonably small space using, say, stripline technology. There is no shortage of material on design of filters in this area.
- I saw your comment on the "strange redirect" at analogue filter. The history of that is that I wrote a major expansion of the original stubby article, but was asked to change the name at GA review because there was not enough material in it on active implementations. I would like to see it moved back at some stage, but I'm not going to touch it for fear of starting another argument. It seems every article I write nowadays triggers a dispute over the title and I'm getting paranoid about it. You are not helping with "wave filter" -:) I am wondering if I am speaking a different language; maybe there should be a wiki for daft old timers who refuse to use modern terminology. SpinningSpark 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the last post in your Archive 5...
Munich calling? Are you some sort of German spy? Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I was do you suppose I would tell you? So either way
die Antworte ist neinthe answer is no. SpinningSpark 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)- Ich glaube Sie nicht. Sie sind ein Spion. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Changed my mind. Your German masters would most likely choose a better place than Wikipedia to make communications. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ich glaube Sie nicht. Sie sind ein Spion. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about that. I will remove the comment. I removed your comment on my talk page. My mistake. Ikip (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely not you!
|
The Barnstar of Liberty | |
| For your willingness to stand for truth and get to the point. Firefly322 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Do Not Remove tags in Wikipedia articles
Dear Wikipedia User, It seems you prefer a cleaner Wikipedia article look even at expenses of factual accuracy or article quality. Article tagging is a valuable tool for spotting issues in articles and invite people to improve; Therefore, avoid at all costs tag deletion without justified reason, leave alone performing such deletions without logging your activity on the discuss page. Instead fix the issues or agree on changes with the community before editing.
I reverted the changes you performed on the Electronics Engineering article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.232 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkbackses
Sorry!! I didn't read your talk page right! You've left a few messages for me over the last couple of days, and I've responded, without telling you, on my own talk page. Sorry! Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio question
Hi Spinningspark. I recently added the copyvio tag to Nikola Tesla. You erased the offending text. Question: should I have removed the text directly and save you the work or is the proper procedure to place the copyvio tag? Thanks. CronopioFlotante (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you are certain that it is a copyvio then you can just delete it yourself. You only need an admin if you want the edit removed from the history (for instance, if it is offensive to a living person, or if the copyright owner is asking for this to be done). Of course, if you are not sure it is a copyvio, then you can still use the template to request an investigation. SpinningSpark 08:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.--CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Over 4 days now
Im trying to edit not a certain certain page, just have to have semi-protect open already, its been over 4 days and 10 edits over. Why is this still closed? What is Tor network, I dont use that, and filter log is this why? Vazgen4 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Abce2|This isnot a test 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
National Versions of English
The reason I made the change to spelling of the word "harbour" is because the particular body of water mentioned is in State of New York, which is one of the United States of America. In the United States of America, we speak American English, and in American English, the word that is spelled in British English as "harbour", is spelled "harbor". You may have a disagreement with the way Americans spell this particular word, but I don't think Wikipedia is the correct forum in which to express that opinion.
Therefore, the change I made completely and absolutely complies with the rule that you quoted to me about using different versions of English, unless the author's nationality overrides the nationality of the locations about which he or she is writing. Such a policy would be ludicrous and discriminatory, but if it is the case nonetheless, the author's nationality needs to be specifically stated at the beginning of the article so that rogue Americans such as myself don't go around assaulting the Queen's English.
Notwithstanding the fact that I am correct on this issue, I will not attempt to correct the article in question again. It is not my intention to create issues here. As a user of Wikipedia for many years, I appreciate the vast amounts of information I have obtained, and as it has cost me nothing to obtain the information that others have taken so much time to submit, I was merely trying to give back a little bit by correcting an obvious error.
- Calm down, calm down, I'm sure it was just a mistake. No need to get angry about it. It also help if you sign your posts with ~~~~, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is a very interesting predicament, though, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- You should (a) sign your posts so we know who you are, (b) tell us what article you are talking about, and (c) leave edit summaries so we know why you made an edit - this will save you having to make angry posts afterwards to explain youself. Assuming this relates to submarine communications cable, this is an international article, not an American specific article. WP:ENGVAR dictates that the spelling system should follow the first substantive editor who establishes an identifiable spelling system. If we followed your reasoning the article would need to switch spelling systems depending on which part of the world it was currently discussing. But ENGVAR requires that articles choose one spelling system and stick to it consistently. I have nothing against Americans or the American spelling system; I would be happy for Wikipedia to standardise on that system, but that is not how the guidelines are draughted (drafted) and we should follow them. SpinningSpark 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Argh, Jim Lad!
Ahoy me hearty! Today be international talk like a pirate day! Yaaaaar! Avast, I canna think o' anythin' else t' say! Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I apologise for edit conflicting you at that treacle thing (PS. I responded to your pirate thing on my own talk page. Sorry, it's (in this case) a bad habit I'll have to break. Look, I found a funny symbol, ₪. Hehe. Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 20:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, it's a shekel symbol. Well, ye learn something new every day, Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Zobel
Well, I certainly owe you for your work on EP. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Is a week too long? (It's a bit busy at school lately.) I notice that the commenter said AE isn't a deal-breaker, so hopefully it won't stand in the way of the FAC. Scartol • Tok 12:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It might help if you left a note at the FA saying you are going to do the work, otherewise it might get closed before you have done it. Although the editor who left the comment did not think it is a show stopper, who knows how the FA director will feel about it.
Quad SVG images
Nice quad images, but can you correct the legend on File:Star quad.svg and File:DM quad.svg? The GO and RET wires of each circuit should be twisted around each other on the DM image, rather than the A and B circuits divided across twisted pairs, losing their external noise rejection ability. On the star quad image, there is only one circuit: there is an A leg GO opposite another A leg GO, and an A leg RET opposite another A leg RET. If you keep the colors as they are now, red and blue would be one leg of the balanced signal, soldered or crimped together at a single cable connector terminal on each end of the cable, and black and yellow would be the other leg of the same balanced signal, similarly terminated.
- Producing Great Sound for Film and Video by Jay Rose
- Sound and recording: an introduction by Francis Rumsey and Tim McCormick
Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Upon consideration, it appears that you have mixed the terms "quad" and "star quad". Quad is the typical house telephone wiring from I guess the 1960s to the 1980s, the kind with four wires in one jacket twisted around a common center. The four wires are typically terminated green and red for the first pair and black and yellow for the second. This is not "star quad" which was invented by Canare for pro audio—it is just "quad." Star quad is the same configuration but it is designed for only one circuit, and the typical cable contains just two colors, for instance two white insulated wires and two blue insulated wires. Star quad is one single balanced circuit. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think there may be some differences of terminology here. "Go" and "return" in telecommuncations means the pair sending a signal, and the pair receiving a signal respectively, colloquially called "blow" and "suck". It is not the same as the "hot" and "cold" wires as used in audio terminology - although you seem to be interpreting it as such which probably means it could do with explaining in the article.
- I know Canaré well as a cable manufacturer and they may well have invented the star quad microphone cable. But there is little doubt that star quad was in use for telephone transmissions from the 1920s [1] [2] and is called such by the sources. This application uses the cable as two separate pairs or, as I described in the article, as a four-wire circuit. It is completely separate from the studio use of this configuration for microphones.
- The most common cable for house wiring in the UK is a 4-pair cable, not a quad. In Ireland it is typically a single unsheathed pair. I have seen telecoms installations in many countries and the local wiring is invariably twisted pair. On the colours, I have not followed the colour scheme of any particlular application, the colours are for the purpose of identification on the diagram only. This could be changed, of course, but it might be better not to fix them to a particular use. SpinningSpark 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your two linked books were written in 2003 and 2004, more than two decades after Canare used the term "star quad" somewhere in the date range 1977–1981. Because Canare didn't trademark the term, people have applied it to a variety of cables, including speaker cable (of all things). On page 455 of your link to the Johnson and Graham book, they display a cross-section of two-pair quad cable showing its constant geometry. They do not call this "star quad" in the diagram, they only list that name in the text as an alternate without giving its history. The history of the term "star quad" starts at Canare. Even Burns in your other book link relies on the term "quad" two paragraphs after saying "star quad." I believe that "quad" is the established term for 4-wire telephone cable and that "star quad" has been more recently applied to it and not so globally.
- The most common cable for house wiring in the UK is a 4-pair cable, not a quad. In Ireland it is typically a single unsheathed pair. I have seen telecoms installations in many countries and the local wiring is invariably twisted pair. On the colours, I have not followed the colour scheme of any particlular application, the colours are for the purpose of identification on the diagram only. This could be changed, of course, but it might be better not to fix them to a particular use. SpinningSpark 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- And yes, I am completely unfamiliar with your description of the terms GO and RET. More explanation does seem to be in order. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly confident that star-quad is a term that had general currency in the telecomms idustry at least by the 1950s. Here's a patent from 1968. And here's another one filed in 1930. Even that one refers back to earlier methods of making star quad, so I would not be surprised if it could be traced all the way back to the first use of the cable. SpinningSpark 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nice finds! Those patents satisfy my question as to why Canare failed to trademark the term. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have undone your edits changing star quad to quad in the telephony section. The article is about transmission lines, not telephone house wiring (or microphone connections for that matter) and I was kind of hoping you would self revert in view of the above. SpinningSpark 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that a two-section article about Star quad is needed, or two full articles, with one about Star quad (telephone cable) and the other about Star quad (microphone cable). If this weren't one of my busiest months of the year in terms of work, and also the month that the Aviation project decided to have an article-writing contest, I would see about creating the star quad article(s). Instead, I leave it in your capable hands. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The cable geometry for both applications is identical so I don't think two cable articles are justified. They only really start to differ when discussing mechanical requirements and how they are used. For studio floor applications flexibility is emphasised. Long distance telecom cables, on the other hand, might bunch many quads into one cable. However, a good quality such cable is perfectly adequate, if not superior for microphone level signals in a permanent installation. I have used it myself for microphone runs of many hundreds of metres across a site with good results. SpinningSpark 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's a caveat to using star quad as a single circuit—it is not a panacea: audio signals from output circuits driving a relatively high load over a long distance can distort if carried in star quad when a single twisted pair of lower capacitance remains undistorted at the same signal level. In 1999, Chuck McGregor (then of Community Sound) wrote this tech note about the phenomenon, though he does not mention star quad. He just says that lower capacitance cable is one of the possible solutions. Glen Ballou says that star quad is about twice the capacitance of single-pair cable and that large sound systems must carefully consider its characteristics. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The cable geometry for both applications is identical so I don't think two cable articles are justified. They only really start to differ when discussing mechanical requirements and how they are used. For studio floor applications flexibility is emphasised. Long distance telecom cables, on the other hand, might bunch many quads into one cable. However, a good quality such cable is perfectly adequate, if not superior for microphone level signals in a permanent installation. I have used it myself for microphone runs of many hundreds of metres across a site with good results. SpinningSpark 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that a two-section article about Star quad is needed, or two full articles, with one about Star quad (telephone cable) and the other about Star quad (microphone cable). If this weren't one of my busiest months of the year in terms of work, and also the month that the Aviation project decided to have an article-writing contest, I would see about creating the star quad article(s). Instead, I leave it in your capable hands. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have undone your edits changing star quad to quad in the telephony section. The article is about transmission lines, not telephone house wiring (or microphone connections for that matter) and I was kind of hoping you would self revert in view of the above. SpinningSpark 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
missing ref-section
Hello, I know I should better improve serious Wikipedia articles – but instead I read this. And after I stopped laughing, I wasted my time on this. (With this posting I just want to inform you that on the bottom of your user page, the text "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/> tag." is displayed.) --Cyfal (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. And I don't have a clue about Kiribati or Tuvaluga, either.
- You appear to have read all of my page - that must be a first! Thanks for the tip, cite error used only to appear on article pages, there must have been a recent change in the software. SpinningSpark 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
142.29.x.x
Have you got a list of IPs used? Might be able to narrow it down more than the /16 range. Black Kite 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uhh, this is a userpage. Are you looking for the talk page? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Spongefrog - I have moved your comment here as well, thus guaranteeing that it will now make no sense to the casual passer-by. SpinningSpark 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- another ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Help me Sparky!
Hello-- I try to let you alone, but often you are the one with the answers. Mea Culpa. Can you tell me what's happening here? If you click the image in the infobox for Roxy Music, and follow through to the photo on Wikimedia Commons it looks OK. But when you click on the "check usage" for the photo, it, (like a bunch of others I recently uploaded) looks like there's an error. Can you explain what it might be? I uploaded that image like a year ago, and now it has issues??! Please let me know. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- All images on Commons seem to have the same problem. Don't worry about it, it seems to be originating from a problem in the Italian Wikiquote database. I have reported it at Commons:Commons:Village pump#Check usage error if you wnat to follow it up. SpinningSpark 06:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Vimuttimagga
20:45, 1 October 2009 Spinningspark (talk | contribs) deleted "Vimuttimagga" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.lanka.info/shops/booksStore/buddhistBooksDetails.jsp?ID=book00B017)
That's outrageous. Wikipedia seems to be maintained by mindless bots, with humans serving them.
I've rewritten the Vimuttimagga article, to exclude copyrighted materials, but the bots attacked it all the same, which led to the deletion of the article.
I'm also trying to add to another article an innocent link to relevant material, but the bots keep deleting it only because it is located on tripod.com hosting.
Well, the projects that are too big usually age and die due to bureaucracy. But it's sad to see the dehumanization of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiedeking (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are not talking to a mindless bot, you are talking to a real person. Deleting copyright violations is not bureaucracy, copyvio is against the law. It is also wrong, if you are unable to write without stealing someone elses words you should not bother at all. I checked the facts very carefully before deleting: it was exactly copied from the site indicated. The article was tagged by a real editor, checked by a real editor and deleted by a real editor, bots did not come into it at any point. If you actually want my help with your other article, you will have to try speaking to me a little more politely first. SpinningSpark 06:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Copper
Dear Spinningspark, I moved the sentence on Norddeutsche Affinerie to electroplating which I find a more suitable place. In my opinion it is not required to list companies which carry out electroplating in the copper article. The process should be listed, but the detailed description can be done in the linked article. Inwind (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree a list of companies would be inappropriate. However, the claim is that this is the first electroplating plant in modern times. So of course it is relevant to a section on history of copper. There is no rule forbidding the same information appearing in more than one article, this is often helpful to the reader. If there is another more detailed article, then of course it can be best to leave all the detailed description there, but still there would be a summary in the more general article. In this case there is only one short sentence so I don't see what the issue is, it can happily be in two articles.
- I think you have made a mistake with the article you have placed the information in. The reference is specifically talking about copper plating and not electroplating in general. SpinningSpark 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Your resources request
In regards to this request, please let me know if you are still in need of the NYT obit. I should be able to get it for you, but the process will involve printing from microfiche and then digitizing to upload it... In other words, it will take some time, so I want to be sure you still want the document before doing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Need some cropping and my computer is down!
Hi Spinning Spark, it's always a bummer when I visit, huh? I hoped that you might crop three photos? The first is midway through the Joni Mitchell article. She's on the left, but the right hand part of the photo needs slicing off. Also, there's Rhett Butler in his infobox, please help crop that one, you'll probably know best what is needed if you take a look at it. And again, the same is true for David Johansen. I hope you don't mind; I'm sneaking to use my dad's computer, since mine seems to have multiple problems; including that of not reaching the internet! I'd really, really appreciate it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Austenasia
Hi, you recently deleted the article on well-known micronation Empire of Austenasia. Your summary was: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: No reliable sources added that were not available to the original debate." This is untrue - there was a reference to an Italian newspaper which wasn't used on the original page, as well as www.listofmicronations.com, and I would say that they are both reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not restoring it. deletion review is down the hall on the left. Best of luck persuading them. And learn to sign your posts. SpinningSpark 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Quick!
This is extremely urgent!! Actually, it's not that urgent, I just wanted to get your attention. Anyway, I was looking over recent changes, and an IP edit by 72.224.167.166 (talk · contribs) who insists that Michelle Philips' birth date is in fact 1937, whilst the two references seem to think otherwise. Hm. I reverted the edit, but I was reverted by the IP within minutes. Not wanting to get blocked for the 3RR, and having alomost no experience in this area, I came to ask you. P.S - There also seems to be an ongoing edit war about this very trivial issue (check the article's history). Well thanks and no-thanks (even if this expression could only conventionally apply when the addressed party has been unable to provide the help requested). Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou good sir. I had a suspicion it was her, but was put off when it said "her birthyear IS...", and, as you said, it's making her appear older. In my experience, people editing their own articles usually say who they are. I would have came to the same conclusion, but I was reading WP:Edit war, which has a very slightly different thing ("Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)"), that I misinterprited (never took notice of the "which violates BLP"). Anyway, it's all down to my own idiocy. And please accept my dearest apologies for my linking incompetences, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have added distinguish tags in the two articles I was confused about. Congratulations. Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was actually going to ask you to do the review thing. Then I said "how could anybody miss it if it's in my signature. If Spinningspark wants to comment, Spinningspark will have done it already". Actually, I thought it, I don't say that sort of thing out loud. But I see you've done so already, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know! Why don't you set them all an example to follow! hint, hint Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for...your...review. Earlier than expected, which is a good thing. I was going to write a big reply thing, but I'm not really supposed to am I. I completely understand your stuff about my userpage. I just gradually add things in until it becomes an incoherent mess of gibberish and preojects a bad impression. I know. I'll get round it. I also might replace those icons with something more un FA-like. Damn. I've just written a big long reply thing that I said I wouldn't. Never mind, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a rule against replying at ER, but yes, the main thing is to listen rather than talk. Please don't be upset by my comments about your userpage, my own one is no great example to anyone. RfA can be very cruel, and I was just imagining them tearing you to pieces over it. You may decide that you really don't want to change anything, and that's fine - I just wanted to make sure you understood how an RfA might take it. SpinningSpark 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like I'm in any hurry to be an admin. I might try in 4 months or so, once I've been here a year. And in that time I'll probably tone down my userpage gradually. Well, thanks anyway. Actually the "anyway" isn't really appropriate, because that implies you were unable to help - I'm rambling on again, so I'll stop. It's just these random thoughts all come into my head and I feel inclined to type them, I'll really have to do something about that, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have made my Barnstar icons less confusible with FAs. I got a Thailandic Highway sign to replace it. It's a start, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like I'm in any hurry to be an admin. I might try in 4 months or so, once I've been here a year. And in that time I'll probably tone down my userpage gradually. Well, thanks anyway. Actually the "anyway" isn't really appropriate, because that implies you were unable to help - I'm rambling on again, so I'll stop. It's just these random thoughts all come into my head and I feel inclined to type them, I'll really have to do something about that, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a rule against replying at ER, but yes, the main thing is to listen rather than talk. Please don't be upset by my comments about your userpage, my own one is no great example to anyone. RfA can be very cruel, and I was just imagining them tearing you to pieces over it. You may decide that you really don't want to change anything, and that's fine - I just wanted to make sure you understood how an RfA might take it. SpinningSpark 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for...your...review. Earlier than expected, which is a good thing. I was going to write a big reply thing, but I'm not really supposed to am I. I completely understand your stuff about my userpage. I just gradually add things in until it becomes an incoherent mess of gibberish and preojects a bad impression. I know. I'll get round it. I also might replace those icons with something more un FA-like. Damn. I've just written a big long reply thing that I said I wouldn't. Never mind, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know! Why don't you set them all an example to follow! hint, hint Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was actually going to ask you to do the review thing. Then I said "how could anybody miss it if it's in my signature. If Spinningspark wants to comment, Spinningspark will have done it already". Actually, I thought it, I don't say that sort of thing out loud. But I see you've done so already, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have added distinguish tags in the two articles I was confused about. Congratulations. Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Negative Resistance and its Consequences
- A few months back when we were editing the Negative Resistance page I expressed my concern about some of the other articles by the same prolific editor, Circuit-fantasist. The article Negative Differential Resistance was supposed to be deleted but is still there. I still think there is a lot of re-writing to do and I have been trying to do it. However my edits have been labeled "edit-warring" by some. Circuit-fantasist edit style makes it difficult to collaborate with him. He will spend a couple of weeks editing an article and will not allow anyone else to participate. The history logs of these articles show a solid block of 50-150 of his edits over a period of time. His contributions have technical errors, are confusing to read because of his ideas about electronics, and they have many grammatical and syntax errors. Other editors have agreed with me that the only thing to do is to revert to a version that existed before Circuit-fantasist started editing. Otherwise you wind up editing sentences for syntax, etc. and then have to untangle the confused logic. There is no reason why anyone should have to clean up that way. If you would like to weigh in on the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I think it would be helpful.Zen-in (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Rfa invitation
I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: External links to RSC podcasts in elements articles. Don't take my absence there as ignoring - just real life + Rfa stretch me these days too much (Synthetic diamond is on the main page today :-(). I saw those recent mass additions and will try to keep up with the issue. Materialscientist (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, RfA is hell, been there, but I have no sympathy, you were stupid enough to agree to do it -:). I could have told you the invitations were a bad idea if you'd asked me first, it's caused a few opposes, but I don't think it's serious enough to cause you to fail. SpinningSpark 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that I don't know where I'm heading to with adminship, but I couldn't stop the temptation .. If I kept silent (i.e. did not invite - though off course I never ever expected the effect induced) it would go easier, but so is my whole life - never went easy way. Everything has its goods - the discussion there tells much about people and WP that I wouldn't know other way. To business. I replied here on podcasts. I will later Afd nominate espresso crema effect - it is a minor issue. You understand that it is WP:SYNTH. Now imagine its text never existed and look at the name - you'll find many more google refs on effect of espresso crema on "food industry" than the assumed scientific effect - that is why that redirect :-D. Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Helleeooo
Whaddya think of my Userpage noww, Spinningspark. Okayyyyy?? Sensibleeee? Right now I'm in a caffeine induced state of insanityyyyy, so block me if I start to vandalise stuff, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 10:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Technically, I could write whatever crap I wanted here, and nobody would doubt it for a second. They would just assume this is what I do." Not at RfA you couldn't, they will look at ALL your edits to see if it is true. They are supposed to do that at editor review as well. SpinningSpark 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, forgot about that. That's why it says "Technically". Hehe. Let me just fix it.., Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do they really look at all your edits? Is that what you did? Is there anything bad I did? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, forgot about that. That's why it says "Technically". Hehe. Let me just fix it.., Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Summarizing how Wikipedia handles vandalism
As I mentioned on that page, your presentation on how to handle vandals was one of the best I have seen and succinct. It also represents my experience, which helps! Thanks for taking the time to compose it. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome, but it was never meant to be a comprehensive essay on all aspects, I was merely addressing one specific point. SpinningSpark 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Abce2|This isnot a test 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sooo...I replied.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
template links
You should be able to link to any template with the help of the {{tl}} template: just type the name of the template you want as the parameter. e.g. {{tl|article issues}} produces {{article issues}}. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Abacus
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
"If I can be any help, feel free to ask". So I'm going to. It's just I'm not too familiar on the notability criteria for fiction, and I was thinking of AfDing a couple of relatively minor characters in the film Camp Rock. Namely, Tess Tyler, Caitlyn Gellar and Ella Pador. It's almost pure original research (though one sentence about an upcoming film is referenced in all three articles), and, well, uh...basically I was going to AfD them. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- First off, this is not an area I have a lot to do with so there may be better people to ask. Looking at the first one, the article clearly does not verify notability either under the WP:GNG or the specific WP:FICTION. The one and only reference is a blog, and hence is intrinsically not reliable. Also, WP:FICTION requires two reliable sources to cover the fictional element in depth (note the fictional element itself must be addressed directly, not just the actress or the show or just mentioned in passing). This article is not in depth as well as not being reliable (and as well as being one instead of two). Before doing anything, however, it is only fair that you should do a web search to see if reliable sources are available. If they are then the article is fixable and you should not be taking it to AfD. You may even want to put the references in as you went to all the trouble of finding them.
- Assuming you can't find anything and the article really is looking non-notable, then a common approach to these kinds of cases is to redirect the minor character to the article about the main fictional element (in this case Camp Rock) and give the character a brief description there. There is no need to take it to AfD, any editor is free to be bold and carry out a merge of this sort. If you are not at all sure, you can always suggest a merge (links to templates etc at Help:Merging) and see if anyone else chimes in before you actually do it, but as I say, the first one at least looks pretty clear cut and you could jump straight in.
- Another common solution, if there are a lot of them in the same show, is to create a "List of minor characters in <foo>" page. I haven't looked into your examples deeply enough to see if that would be a good solution but I am sure you are capable. SpinningSpark 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I thin I'll look for refs, and if I can't get any, I'll redirect. Thanks for the advice, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
Hello SpinningSpark
This is Greenbar in Munich. Just published my first pages. Verifiability is a tricky challenge - 400,000 people use the software, but very few have written something entirely neutral about it. Maybe it's because it's a B2B thing... Anyway, hope all's well, and catch up soon. ATB, Olly Greenbar (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Distributed element filter
Hello! Your submission of Distributed element filter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello, Spinningspark. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Inductance
Please check a recent deletion there (I've read the talk, but not sure all parts were to be cut). Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Distributed element filter
|
|
On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Distributed element filter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be knowldegeable in the subject of Smith Charts, so...
...Any impedance, expressed in ohms, may be normalised by dividing it by the characteristic impedance,...
I don't understand the difference between an "impedance" and it's "characteristic impedance". What does the word "characteristic" add to the meaning?
I don't understand what it means to be "normalized". This is not explained in any Wiki.
also - what does this mean "...Please do not post talkback templates on my page. If I left you a message I will have watchlisted your page so there is no need. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruchatta (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- See the articles characteristic impedance and prototype filter. Come back and ask me again if you are still having problems after reading those. The point of normalising is so that results from a 50 ohm line/system can be compared with results from a 100 ohm line/system and both can be plotted on the same chart. SpinningSpark 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note
Hello, Spinningspark. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Submarine_Communications_Cable--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit that borders on a personal attack
You sure you want to let this edit stand? I was tempted to refactor, but it might be better if you did. I suggest that you restrict comments to the edit, not the editor. I hope you take this in the constructive way it's meant. -- Scray (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the editor knows nothing about the subject and is just soapboxing and have said so on his talk page. So no, I am not going to retract the statement but would be willing to apologise if it turned out there was actually some substance to the answer given. Also, although I will not remove my comment I would not object if someone else did so if it keeps the peace. SpinningSpark 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Mechanical filter
Hello! Your submission of Mechanical filter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for rough writing - no time. DYK is hectic these weeks due to lack of "staff" (and "stuff" :-). Hooks and images are often reshaped in the last moment. Your help is always welcome. Posting a note (not even a complaint) at WT:DYK is good enough. Back to Mechanical filter: I hope you agree that historical image combining mechanical and electrical filters would be better. Yes, please crop, you'll do it much better as you know the topic. If not, leave a quick message and I do that. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Mechanical Filter
Hi Spinningspark. I appreciate the descriptive edit summary here - thanks for catching my erroneous punctuation. Your explanation makes perfect sense. Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Which is not to say that you were not right in considering the sentence too long. I have been reading Darwin recently who can often write whole paragraphs as single sentences and I might have caught the same disease. SpinningSpark 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully just a very minor request..
I'm sorry, I know you're busy, but.. I uploaded a photo of Ron Wood and Mick Jagger performing on stage, but really, they are in the left half of the photo, while there's really nothing to see on the right side. Would you (crop it) --slice it in half for me? It's uploaded properly in Commons, (name is File:Rough Justice.jpg). I was hoping only to keep the figures in the left hand side. (I've been systematically trying to find solid, good CC-BY-SA photos to take the place of all the copyrighted photos that were originally inserted in a lot of the articles about various British Invasion bands a few years ago. This way, the photos are just as good and authentic, AND usable under Creative Commons. Thus far, it's working somewhat with The Who, Led Zeppelin, Mick Taylor, the Rolling Stones members, a BUNCH of New wave bands, The Kinks, that kind of thing. Oh, and one last thing. The photo in the infobox for Cat Stevens was a featured photo in Turkey! However, the photographer is still glum because (he rightly points out that) that photo's shiny quality has suffered somehow. You're good with computer stuff; could you take a peek? There's my original upload, and then another which should be better, but instead is worse quality somehow, now, and you know it hurts my brain just to contemplate the workings of Commons!!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Mechanical filter
|
|
On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mechanical filter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
79.67.32.122=Lightcurrent?
How sure are you that it is the same editor? -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Educated guess. SpinningSpark 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting...what is it that impelled to make that guess? Do you have some linguistic analysis technique to share with the Wikipedia community? ;)-RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many past attacks from similar address ranges on similar pages and aimed at a similar group of users. SpinningSpark 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting...what is it that impelled to make that guess? Do you have some linguistic analysis technique to share with the Wikipedia community? ;)-RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely you meant to apply semi-protection (which I'm fine with btw, if there has been a high revert-edit ratio) and not full-protection? –xenotalk 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite right, spotted the mistake myself just before you mailed me. SpinningSpark 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
| 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |