User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Daniell cell: removal of WP:REFSPAM

Thanks for your edit summary explaining that if I remove WP:REFSPAM, I'm also supposed to remove statements which would otherwise remain unsourced. I'll go through my recent edits in this matter and see whether it happened elsewhere, too; I think it might have. I just wanted to let you know, on the off chance that you might want to check my recent edits yourself, that I'm perfectly okay with that. IpseCustos (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should remove absolutely everything this editor has added, but that passage was clearly connected with the FRINGE claims that people at the COIN discussion were concerned with. If the material was already in the article before the cite was added, I would leave it in, even if unsourced, unless there is reason to think it is suspicious. SpinningSpark 10:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ancient systems of elements

Hello, Spinningspark,

I thought I'd let you know that your draft has been deleted in case you were interested in continuing your work on it. I hope you are well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. I'm happy to leave it dead for now. It was basically storage for inappropriate material moved out of another article. There may be more to add in the future, but I'm not inclined to find better homes for it in mainspace, especially the uncited stuff, and apparently neither were any of the other editors on the page involved. SpinningSpark 06:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I'm just kind of stickler for informing page creators when their pages are deleted. You are different because as an admin, you can look at your Deleted Contributions but ordinary editors might not even realize their drafts or main space articles have been deleted if they don't receive a notice of some kind. FireflyBot will notify draft editors 5 months after the page has last been edited but, unfortunately, it will only post this notice once...if you get the bot notice, edit the draft and it goes another 5 or 6 months with no further activity, you won't get a second notice from FireflyBot. One and done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Among Us for POTUS (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Among Us for POTUS: What the hell are you talking about? Your revert of my contribution did not restore anyone elses comment, nor did I remove any in my edit. Please take your templated warning and stick it up your own talk page where it belongs for removing my contribution. SpinningSpark 19:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the diff correctly. You can put the contribution back and ignore this warning, but please be civil. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Among Us for POTUS: I said please. That's as civil as you are going to get over this. You are the one who removed another user's comment so it is quite appropriate to template yourself, where additionally it would not be contrary to this essay. SpinningSpark 19:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not realize you're a regular editor and I did not act in bad faith, as that specific essay mentions. Also, essays are not policies. This does not deserve such a long argument. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you make a mistake like that you should restore it yourself. But you are clearly not watching pages you edit, otherwise you would have noticed that another editor has already reverted you. SpinningSpark 19:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I was going to restore it once you replied to this. And, no, I do not follow every page I edit unless it's persistent vandalism. Nobody told me that I should. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

a quick question

hey buddy, its me again..

real quick, im just wondering how people have the topics on their talk page i guess you might say "hidden".. im on a mobile device and when i view certain users talk pages, i dont see any talk topics until i select "read as wiki page".. then they all appear in expanded format. here is a link as an example of what i mean: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doniago

thanks in advance, and sorry to bug you as always. Snarevox (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Doniago's page, it appears to be due to some CSS code inserted at the top of the page. No idea whether that is an intentional effect or just a side-effect of the code doing something else. If Doniago is using desktop view they may not even have noticed. You'll have to ask the user concerned. SpinningSpark 08:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you, i appreciate the reply. one more thing has really been bugging me and i promise ive been trying to find this answer now for almost 2 weeks as i really wanted to avoid asking you another question so soon..

my question is, articles for television shows, when you select "list of episodes" the target page has an episode table in the "episodes" section, and alot of times the episode titles in those episode tables link to a separate corresponding article for each episode..

why do some shows have a separate article for every individual episode (ie.. seinfeld and the office (the usa version)) while other shows only have separate articles for some of their episodes (ie.. the cosby show), and yet other shows still, dont have separate articles for any of their episodes (ie.. two and a half men). the episode list page for this last category of shows just has an episode table where the episode titles dont link to anything because separate articles for these episodes do not exist for whatever reason.

im trying to figure out what determines why some shows have a separate article for every episode, and some shows only have separate articles for some episodes, and some shows dont have separate articles for any episodes.

also, if i want to craft a link to an internal wikipedia page, im aware that the syntax for my link needs to be capitalized and spelled exactly the same as the title at the top of the target page, my problem is, for example, the title at the top of the seinfeld shows page is "Seinfeld", but it is italicized. do i need to include those italics in the syntax of my link in order for it to function properly, or is correct spelling and capitalization enough?

im sorry if this is too long, or stupid, or if any part of it doesnt make sense. i really do attempt to google these things prior to bugging you, but i cant ever seem to find exactly what im looking for. sometimes i get lost in wikipedia help pages or trying to articulate something to google that only a human with actual experience is truly going to understand and hopefully have an answer to.

i hope this finds you well. have a good night.

p.s. here are links to the episode list pages for the shows i used in my examples to make it easier for you if you would like to see the differences i am referring to.

seinfeld (the episode section on this page has every episode title linked to a separate article): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Seinfeld_episodes

the office (every episode title is linked to a separate article, just like seinfeld): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Office_(American_TV_series)_episodes

the cosby show (only some episode titles link to separate articles for this show): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Cosby_Show_episodes

two and a half men (none of the episode titles link to separate articles here): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Two_and_a_Half_Men_episodes

the end. Snarevox (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Whether or not TV series get individual articles for episodes is primarily decided by WP:Notability. That is, that specific episode must be demonstrated to be notable by being discussed in reliable sources. There is some good advice at Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes. Lack of an episode article does not necessarily mean it is not notable. It might just mean that no one has got round to writing the page yet.
• On italics, no, you should not put italic markup in links, that will cause them not to work. The real article title (as seen by the Wikimedia software) does not include any typeface decorations such as italics, bolding or point size and it is, in fact, impossible to put these in because of the way the software is built. The way italics are displayed is by changing the rendered text in your browser, usually through the use of the template {{Italic title}} but there are others, such as ship names which are done via the ship infobox. See HMS Belfast for instance.

If you need the link to show the correct italicisation you should put the italics outside the square brackets. For instance ''[[Seinfeld]]'' renders as Seinfeld whereas [[''Seinfeld'']] renders as the redlink ''Seinfeld''. If you want only part of the link italicised you need to use a pipe. [[HMS Belfast|HMS ''Belfast'']] renders as HMS Belfast. SpinningSpark 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to help me out, i really do appreciate your patience. Snarevox (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

hi there,

i noticed you archived your old talk page, im assuming you did this because it was relatively full. how does one accomplish such a thing? it looks like you just added "/archive" to the url, but i have no idea how its done.

also, i have a quick question regarding redundancy. on the following page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N.L.V._(group) there was a link in the discography section on the 4th item "uptown 4 life".. when i clicked the link it just refreshed the page and a little box popped up at the bottom of my screen saying "redircted from uptown 4 life"..

i felt as though this was rather redundant, so i edited it and removed the link brackets, leaving the album title. then i got curious, wondering to myself, does this page i was redirected from really exist if i cant even visit the link for it?

so i used the wikipedia search box and entered the text for the removed link "uptown 4 life", this brought me to the following disambiguation page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNLV_(disambiguation)

my question is, how did the link i removed know to redirect me back to the main article, and why did my search for the text for that link bring me to the disambiguation page? ive done some html coding in the past and i feel like the answer involves keywords inserted into like a meta tag or something, but im really not sure. any advice would be great.

lastly, was i wrong to delete the redundant link from the main article? i cant fathom any reason a page needs to contain a link that just redirects back to itself.

im sure you have more important things to do besides replying to me. so please respond at your leisure, it isnt anything critical to my mission. i hope youre doing well. thanks again. take care. Snarevox (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Snarevox, will you please start a new section for new questions in the future rather than keep adding to the same thread. This section is becoming a bloated wall of text.

On archiving, I wouldn't advise you to archive in the way that I do it. My method is no longer recommended, but I have been doing it this way for years since before there were better options. The simplest way to archive is to cut-and-paste the thread you want to archive to your archive page. The most common naming for user archive pages is like User talk:Snarevox/Archive 1, then when that one is full create Archive 2, Archive 3 etc. Your talk page is not very busy at all so that will be fine for you. In your own userspace you can name and organise archives however you like. On article talk pages follow what has already been set up for that page. For busy pages, there are various bots that can automatically archive threads for you. The two most commonly used nowadays are User:ClueBot III and User:lowercase sigmabot III. Follow the instructions on their pages if you want to use either one of them.

On the page redirect, these happen because someone has created a redirect page, in this case Uptown 4 Life. You were quite right to remove the circular link. These happen quite often when it is decided a page is not notable enough for its own article and is redirected to another article that discusses it. That other article may have contained a link to the redirected article, but nobody noticed at the time. It can also happen because someone creates a redlink for an article they think should exist, and later on someone else creates a redirect back to the page containing the (former, now blue) redlink. SpinningSpark 07:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

10001 (number)

Hello Spark, you closed the RfD for this as Delete, but I still see the page. Jay (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, done now. There must have been a hiccup in the script. SpinningSpark 21:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Balla railway station

Hello, I encountered the Balla railway station article on new page patrol. I noticed that you A10 speedily deleted an earlier version to move Balla Railway Station into its place. The preexisting Talk:Balla railway station and incoming links suggest that the old page was about a railway station in County Mayo, Ireland that was overwritten with the station in Bangladesh. Can you check the deleted page's history and dab the two stations if necessary? • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gene93k: Thanks for bringing that to my attention, it should be fixed now. I hadn't noticed the editor had overwritten an existing page with a duplicate. They are being a major pain all round. SpinningSpark 15:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Paleo-cosmic flux.svg

Hello Spinningspark,

sorry about that edit, that was automatic and I didn't notice it, else I would have reverted it myself. I just used the export process to import the original file versions to Wikimedia Commons because of your complaint at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleo-cosmic flux.svg. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. All forgiven. SpinningSpark 19:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/Humour

Your tears of rage give me power. But seriously, I thought it funny in context: twenty-one amazing articles, then you get to Humour and it's so pathetic that it's kind of circles back to funny. Also, I can slightly justify it by saying I did three other articles, and also researched the From the Archives, and copyedited like ten of the articles, so I might have been a little silly by then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, great title for your comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 17:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Your message on the AFD of Koogle

I thought your edit summary telling me to "give it a rest," felt a bit curt, but attempting to AGF. I do not agree I was "text-walling," I just still don't understand why you want to keep this article, but it is not personal of course. WP:TEXTWALL: However, an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". Not every matter can be addressed with a one-liner, and validity does not correspond to length, especially the more complex the matter is. The COTD is characterized by noise and hand-waving, not simply verbosity. Andre🚐 22:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with proposed edits for Devialet article

Hi there. I proposed edits to fix numerous problems on the Devialet article on the Talk page: Talk:Devialet#Devialet Request Edits for July 2022. I’m an employee of the company and can’t edit the page due to WP:COI - are you able to review the requests? Thanks!Beautreillis6698 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason why I should give priority to your request on a page I have no connection with. I am a volunteer here whereas you are paid for what you do. I'm not going to do your job for you for nothing. Be patient and wait for someone to respond. That is likely to take some time, especially as your request is lengthy. SpinningSpark 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit war on Radio

I was wondering if you could look at this controversy on Talk:Radio#Uncited material in need of citations about Nightscream's tactic of moving uncited but unobjectionable material to the Talk page. Even if this practice is acceptable according to policy, Nightscream's personal attacks ([1], [2] and see edit comments) and repeatedly removing text [3], [4], [5] while sourcing is being worked on by other editors seem to be crossing into an edit war / disruptive editing or WP:POINT. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as edit warring is concerned, ANI already looked at my practices and ruled it "no violation".

I composed a fairly succinct summary of persistent violations of WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS, as well as their repeated refusal to respond to my counterarguments and the overall shady tactics in which some of them engaged here.

I stopped engaging with the violators, not only because their violations of policy is so self-evident, but becuase their continued refusals to even respond directly to a single one of my counterarguments, and their persistent belief that a small collection of editors =can get together on a talk page, agree to ignore fundamental WP policy, and call it a "consensus", made it clear that there was no reasoning with them. But feel free to review our "discussions" to see for yourself. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Also reported at ANI [6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum since you a families with the editor, Nightscream keeps editing other users talk at User talk:Nightscream. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

a question about something..im not sure exactly what

happy autumn good fellow.

i saw your last reply asking me to create a new section.. prior to your request, i wasnt really sure how to handle it, so i just kept adding new questions to the old topic so i didnt clog up your talk page with a bunch of questions.

now that i know that is actually your preferred method, i will proceed accordingly.

i think i have an easy one for you today. i somehow ended up on a glossary page for billiards and i noticed lots of words are underlined with little blue dotted lines (not sure if blue due to dark mode)...

anyways, on my small device i wasnt even sure i was actually seeing them correctly until i zoomed in..

ive never seen these before, when i click the underlined word, it takes me directly to the definition of that word in another area of the same page..

im fairly sure you already know what im talking about, but ill put a link at the end of this if you need an example. im just wondering what these "links" are called and how to create them..

i suspect i would never need to use this unless i was authoring a gallery, but im still curious. i tried to find it on my own but kept ending up on wiki, interwiki, and external link howtos.

get around to me whenever you can, and as always, thanks again. Snarevox (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about Glossary of cue sports terms which is redirected from Billiards glossary (helpful next time if you provide a link to the page you are discussing). The internal page links have been made with the template {{gli}}. Read the documentation page at the template for more information. Generally, to find out how something has been done on a page, view the page in the source editor (not in the default visual editor). A lot of the more unusual formatting is done by means of templates. In the source text these are marked with double curly brackets. See Help:Template for more information. SpinningSpark 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

just a quick addendum.. i was doing some basic wikipedia browsing and i noticed a link at the top of a page talking about some "request for adminship" vote going on, i got curious and i clicked on it..

i noticed about halfway down the page, theres a section called "current nominations" and it has a bunch of questions for the nominee, followed by a bunch of support votes with explanations followed by a couple oppose votes with explanations.

my only question here is, if i wanted to cast a vote (i dont, im just curious how to do it) since i couldnt find anything that read "cast your vote here", i assumed people just edit that page and cobble their vote into the code thats already there, then i figured that was a pretty dumb idea because a highly active page being edited by >1 person would cause a conflict at the most basic level with say 2 people trying to simultaneously edit in their votes on a page that already has 9 votes and both people trying to number their vote as "10" and im prettysure ive been involved in such situations, just not exactly like that..

so if you arent meant to edit the pages source to add your vote in, how are you meant to add a vote or participate in a discussion on pages like this.. heres a link to the rfa pages i encountered.. (p.s. how do i add just one single blank line between indented "paragraphs" similar to the single blank line between the non indented paragraphs in the original "non addendum" part of this page? for some reason im able to use a single blank return line if the paragraph isnt indented but im having to add 2 blank return lines to put any blank space at all between indented paragraphs? and why is the "thank you kindly" text below here so tiny? ok i notice it seems to be tiny because its only a couple words because when i copy/paste "thank you kindly" 4 or 5 times, it renders regular size..any thoughts?

thank you kindly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Whpq# Snarevox (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So you just said that you remembered I asked you to create a new section for new topics and then added a new unrelated topic to the same thread. Never mind, I've separated them for you. This is not just the way I like to work, it's the accepted convention on Wikipedia to start a new thread (and on the internet generally).

Yes, you do just edit the page to vote. Edit conflicts can occur, but the software is a lot better nowadays at resolving them than it used to be. The numbering is automatic, just follow the convention of starting your vote with a hash (#) character. SpinningSpark 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Snottite

Hello, you cannot see the term in the linked paper because Pisarowicz created that term later. I read lots of articles about it when I created the german articles Snottite and Cueva de Villa Luz. --21:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.221.218 (talk)

Sorry I am on vacation and not used to write with my mobile. --Elfabso (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wanna Clear My Doubt

Hi Sir , I am a new Wiki User . And I have a doubt related To this page on Magnetic Dipole .

The previous version of the topic had → Concepts of Magnetic Dipole in General Physics

but in a recent edit this section was removed by you . I am a student currently so I want You to please clear my doubt basically what is the correct thing ? How can we Prove that Monopoles Don't Exist ( Or Do They Exist ? ) ? What actually is Magnetic Dipole and Pole Strength ? ..

And Sir I would also like you to please tell me if these videos teach something erroneous :

Video Lecture 1

Video Lecture 2

Hoping That You will Help Me Out .

Thanks Sir .

:) STUDYALWAYS (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@STUDYALWAYS: The jury is still out on whether magnetic monopoles exist. There are some theoretical reasons for believing that they might exist, but to date, all attempts at actually finding them have failed. This book gives a short summary of the position, and this scholarly paper gives a more detailed description. In any event, you can't put stuff like that in Wikipedia articles without citing a reliable source (your lecturer's videos don't count as reliable sources).

To answer your other questions; a magnetic dipole is a magnetic field that is identical to the field that would be created by a pair of magnetic monopoles. All magnetic dipoles that we know of are not created by monopoles, but rather, ultimately, by the magnetic field of electrons in orbit in their atoms or otherwise by gross circular motion of electric charges (a moving charge generates a magnetic field). Magnetic pole strength is the magnetic strength (the magnetic analogy of electric charge) that the (fictitious) monopoles would possess if the magnetic dipole had really been created magnetic monopoles. Please note that I am not here to teach you stuff so please take any further knowledge questions to the science reference desk unless it is connected with improving an article. SpinningSpark 15:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You are So Helpful .Thanks a lot Sir

) STUDYALWAYS (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hosiery

Hi Spinning, How should I proceed if I have a suspicion, but no firm evidence of sockpuppetry? Thanks catslash (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In most cases there isn't hard evidence until a checkuser looks at it. Editing behaviour is enough to open an WP:SPI case. This could be similar interests in articles, common turns of phrase, typos, or formatting habits, or a whole heap of newly created accounts turning up to support a discussion. I've myself blocked a fair number of sock accounts on such evidence without an SPI if it looks warranted. Can't really help you much more without details of the actual case. If you're reluctant to publicly name the suspected sockmaster, you can talk to me on email. SpinningSpark 09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with this. catslash (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Butler Matrix

Hi, yesterday I made a revision to the Butler matrix article in Wikipedia, and you undid my revision. You clearly understand the issue, but you don't agree with the revision. May I comment?

The sentence that bothered me was "It consists of an n by n matrix ( some power of two) with hybrid couplers and fixed-value phase shifters at the junctions."

You are right that later in the article it is stated that the number of physical pieces of the hardware that implements a certain multibeam phased array can be of the order n log_2 n. I agree that there is a factor of 1/2, which I didn't include because it comes from counting each hybrid as a unit device even though it has two inputs and two outputs. Most people using the order notation will ignore a constant factor just as some a matrix multiplication algorithm may be said to require n^2 multiplications and additions, when it is really n^2 multiplications and also n^2 additions. I have no quarrel with the factor of 1/2.

Of course, a Butler matrix might be taken to mean the matrix achieved by the hardware. I have always taken it to mean the hardware itself.

Let me relate an experience from many decades ago. I was doing signal processing and was excited to read a paper by John Tukey and Jim Cooley, disclosing the fast Fourier transform. This was about an algorithm, certainly by now one of the most important computer algorithms. I was the first person to introduce this algorithm to the MIT community, just a few days before the Cooley/Tukey paper appeared. When I gave my talk, someone in the audience (Ed Muehe) said that the flow graph of the algorithm was identical to a Butler matrix, which he then explained. The Butler matrix, an array radar multiple beam beamformer, was in use for several years before Tukey discovered the FFT algorithm. Both the Butler matrix and the Fast Fourier transform are important because they reduce the complexity of their respective tasks from n^2 to n log n.

Charlie Rader 2601:18E:C182:2190:A5E6:EB02:88EC:AA26 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

মোঃ মশিউর রহমান চৌধুরী again

Hi Spinningspark, you blocked মোঃ মশিউর রহমান চৌধুরী in July for disruptive editing, specifically related to copy-pasting and train stations. Well, they seem to be back at it again. I just redirected two train station articles they created that were word-for-word copies of Habiganj Bazar–Shaistaganj–Balla line. This user also seems to be unable or unwilling to respond to talk page messages (maybe WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). A block might be necessary again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The article you linked is largely the work of the user, so it was his copyright in the first place (unless he copied it from somewhere else). It's not therefore a big problem if he has used the same text somewhere else. Please provide links to the pages you redirected if you think there is still a problem. SpinningSpark 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's arguably disruptive editing to be copy-pasting the exact same article with essentially no changes, but I suppose you are right that it's not a copyright violation. Earwig doesn't give me any hits. Nevermind, I guess, though I still think there are CIR issues with this editor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rollback/twinkle

Hello. I saw that you left a message on User talk:FMSky about misuse of rollback/twinkle a few days ago. I happened to leave a message about the same topic after they rollbacked my edits. I was wondering if you could take a look at the history of these two articles to see if they are appropriate uses of rollback/twinkle. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In future, please use WP:DIFFs to link to the actual edits in question, not just the user history. That forces me to guess what you are talking about and those links will rapidly become meaningless as relevant entries scroll off the page. But in answer to your question, I don't think edits like that should be done with regular rollback, and if done with Twinkle rollback a proper explanatory edit summary should be provided. However, the user did self revert on one of them and you have reverted the other one. So the specific issue is closed, no? SpinningSpark 12:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while so I may have forgot some of the formatting for these types of things. Their initial rollback was self-reverted, but they later used twinkle to restore their earlier version of the article and re-instate the rollback. Same as here, reverting without explanation in order to restore their last revision of the article. I haven't edited those articles since the initial edits, so I haven't reverted any of these rollbacks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you blatantly lying now and saying i didnt leave an explanation? i clearly did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dimebag_Darrell&action=history saying that there's no reason to delete that part --FMSky (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I initially used twinkle to restore the earlier version to get back the parts that were deleted. Then i reintegrated the edits that i thought were improvements --FMSky (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well none of that was explained, or explained very well. Your first edit in the sequence was a Twinkle rollback with only the automated edit summary. You did not even use the Twinkle good faith button which you should do for edits that are not vandalism or other disruption. You then self-reverted again with no explanation. Your next edit had no edit summary and the one after that was "restore that part". You then restored your initial rollback finally giving a meaningful edit summary, but imo not really answering the edit summary of the original edit you were reverting. Likewise on the Pantera article we have this edit again rolling back the edits of a good faith editor with no explanation. SpinningSpark 09:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That last edit you showed wasn't even a rollback, but yeah i should've left an explanation, so that was a mistake on my part. Note that most of your edits have been reintegrated now --FMSky (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying "restore that part" is just a description of the reversion, not an explanation for the reversion. And saying "I dont get why that other early life part was wiped either" is not an explanation for reversion either. In that edit, you not only restored the content I removed from the early life section, you also reverted numerous copy edits without any explanation. I stated in my edit summary that the early life content was removed as it was repetition, and I've mentioned on your talk page that it was also a direct, unattributed quote from the source material. You haven't corrected that WP:COPYVIO despite me mentioning it to you three days ago, and you having edited the article in the meantime. You are responsible for content when you purposefully restore it to an article. This reversion here was also unexplained as I mentioned, you simply restored your own previous version of the article prior to my edits. You have not given any explanation or justification for that use of twinkle.

Do not accuse people of "blatantly lying" or of being liars without presenting any evidence. This is not acceptable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

For the third time, most of your edits are now in the article. Go ahead and reinstate the other ones that still bother you. --FMSky (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are only "most" of them in the articles, and not all of them? You've given no explanation for the ones you reverted and haven't re-added. You're not admitting fault or apologising for your misuse of rollback and twinkle, and are trying to dismiss this as though you don't care. If you don't care to discuss, then don't mass revert people's edits without explanation. Apparently you've done this not just to me, but to other editors as well. This is what bothers me more so than the fact my edits were reverted without explanation. This is not how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the rest i though werent improvements. But if you think differently please go ahead and change it again. --FMSky (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You thought restoring a copyright violation to the article was an improvement? Why haven't you removed that part considering it was mentioned to you three days ago and you have edited the article in the meantime? Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

wasnt so much a copyvio but a close paraphrasing issue. but yeah agreed, not optimal, but maybe a rewrite wouldve been better than a straight up deletion as it is definitely useful info. however, i have deleted it for now --FMSky (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a direct, unattributed quote from the source, that is a copyright violation. But thank you for re-instating my edit and removing it. That was one of my edits you thought "werent improvements". Why have you not re-instated the others you reverted without explanation? Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• FMSky has also manually restored earlier versions of articles to revert good-faith edits without explanation in the past couple of days [7] [8]. When I mentioned this, they blanked their talk page without giving a response. At this point is it worth filing a report at ANI about this editing pattern or is that too hasty? Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus fucking christ, can you get off my ass please??? Move the fuck on already. That was even before Spinningspark left the final warning on my page. What you are doing rn is WP:HOUNDING, and if you countinue to do so, you will be the one going to WP:ANI. We've been discussing for 5 days now because i reverted 2 of your edits, and i literally said, "PLEASE RESTORE THEM AGAIN", leave my alone already!!! -FMSky (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I will not "move on" if you continue to revert good-faith edits without explanation, just as I would not "move on" if a vandal were continuing to vandalise articles. You can report me at ANI if you want, nothing is stopping you. I don't recommend including unnecessary expletives in the ANI report though. If you refrain from reverting good-faith edits without explanation in the future, then I won't have much to discuss with you. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Landmark detection

I withdrew the AfD and moved the article to landmark detection, but I noticed none of those bad-ass sources from the AfD made it in. If you want to go expand the article now, it's safe (i.e. not about to get steamrolled) :^) jp×g 11:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I intend to take a look, but I may be too busy to do anything until after Christmas Eve. The Yue Wu and Qiang Ji source (which I now have in full) has a good description of the various methods used and will be a good place to start. SpinningSpark 12:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ohm's Law reversion

Concerning your reversion of my edit, does not Charge density#Definitions explicitly state:

"similarly the surface charge density uses a surface area element dS $$\sigma _{q}={\frac {dQ}{dS}}\,,$$"

--Ben Best:Talk 11:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benbest: That's a different context using the same symbol for a different purpose. There are far more parameters in science and engineering than there are letters in the Greek and Latin alphabets combined. The same letter gets used for different things all the time. Another common use for $\sigma$ is stress, but that would not be a correct link for electrical conductivity either. Even $\pi$, which everyone thinks they know what that stands for, can also mean nucleotide diversity, population proportion, and a type of calculus. None of those would be suitable links for the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter of a circle. If we include the capital letter $\Pi$, there are even more uses. SpinningSpark 20:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark:Thank you for the clarification. --Ben Best:Talk 12:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

something very strange happened

greetings,

i hope your holidays have been decent so far.

ok, the other day, i created this new talk topic, and when i went to check and make sure it read ok, i noticed the strangest thing.

from out of nowhere, and through no doing of my own, a footnote appeared at the bottom of my newly created post, with a url that linked to some sort of gay hookup site.

like i said, i didnt add this footnote when i wrote the post, and there wasnt any code in the pages source to explain its existence.

i even copied the exact source from the post, band ran it through my sandbox a few times to see what would happen. the footnote and link showed up in my sandbox maybe the first five or six times i ran it. after that, it was gone, it just disappeared without any obvious reason and i was no longer able to replicate the page with the footnote and link at the bottom using my sandbox.

fortunately, i did everything in my sandbox and i didnt edit or reply to, the actual talk topic. i feel like performing either of those actions would potentially cause the talk topic page to rerender without the footnote at the bottom like it did in my sandbox. at least this way, i still have evidence that it happened so nobody thinks im crazy or imagining things.

if you know what might have caused this to happen, or have any advice on the matter, i would really appreciate it. it would help ease my mind. i tried posting the screenshots and links to the wikipedia subreddit, but i didnt get a single reply. at this point, i dont have the foggiest idea whom to ask or how to even begin to understand it, and thats kind of bothering me.

if youll notice, i posted a direct link to the talk topic in question, and fortunately, the footnote is still present at the bottom. i suppose i didnt need to also link the destination url of the footnote in here, but i wanted to be sure you had the infornation in case somebody edits or replys to the post and causes this "ghost link" to disappear before you actually have a chance to take a look at what im talking about.

if you respond to this message, could you please ping me or @ me or whatever its called so i get a notification as soon as it hits my inbox..

thanks either way.. i look forward to hearing your thoughts. have a good new year and a solid 2023. happy holidaze! Snarevox (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Snarevox: it wasn't you who added it, it was on the page before you started editing. It's caused by someone adding a link in <ref> tags somwwhere on the page. This is a dumb thing to do on talk pages because talk pages don't have a references section, but people insist on doing it all the time. On pages that don't have a ref section, the software automatically renders the refs at the bottom of the page so that at least they are visible. To fix it, click on the little up chevron (^) at the beginning of the link. That will take you to the section that contains the ref. Add {{reflist-talk}} to the bottom of that section and save the page. The link will then stay attached to the section it belongs to. SpinningSpark 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark:

ok that all makes sense..

i found the culprit, but i noticed the link just points to the homepage of a nsfw messaging forum, the actual reference being cited appears to be one of the posts somewhere on the site.. the id data for the post is in the url, but it still just takes you to the homepage, it might be deleted or you might need an account to read it, idk.

since it appears to be a questionable source according to the discussion, would removing the link entirely possibly be a better solution in this case??

im also wondering if you might have an idea why that link rendered the first few times i copied just the source from my topic over to my sandbox and then just stopped showing up after like the fifth or sixth time i did it? i never pasted any actual code for the link, but it still appeared when i published the first few sandbox tests, and then for no reason, it just stopped and i couldnt get it to replicate again. almost like it had something to do with time..

i still feel like if i were to edit and republish my topic without changing any code, the link will disappear, just like it did in my sandbox.

i realize it could have been a bug, im just wondering if you have any thoughts on it? its really not a big deal, i just found it curious.

thanks again! Snarevox (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, no, I don't think you should delete it. It's part of the record of discussions. If it were on an article page, that would be a different situation, but past conversations on talk should be preserved. I don't think it is worth trying to fix the link either, the conversation is 15 years old and no longer active.

I doubt that you have found a bug in your sandbox, but I'm not going to go through all the edits there to try and find out. If you give me the diffs of the last edit that rendered and the first one that did not I'll take a look for you, but otherwise it is too much work for no benefit. SpinningSpark 10:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Spinningspark!

Happy New Year!

Spinningspark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Smoked salmon cheesecake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smoked salmon cheesecake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoked salmon cheesecake (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RudolfSchreier (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smoked salmon cheesecake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Better Homes and Gardens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Heaviside

Hi, with this change, I believe you've reverted the wrong part. I did no more than disambiguate Steinmetz; the substantive edit was made by the editor before me, and which you have left in the article. Your edit comment has left a permanent record in the history that I am inserting a POV into an article. Thanks —BillC ^talk 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for that mistake. I have also left an apology in the edit summary so that there is a permanent record. Nevertheless, your edit needs to stay reverted since it is within the problematic edit. SpinningSpark 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It says in my source, The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside that Steinmetz was an admirer of Heaviside. Don't you think it is a little peculiar how Steinmetz is so similar Heaviside's operational calculus?

How do the courts of Wikipedia work, I site one source and you site another source, who wins? I think I should win because I am a EE and when I was in college I took a class called systems theory. My professor wrote a big H on the board. We called it taking the H of the system. If H does not stand for Heaviside what does it stand for? The French that invented Reactance?

Don't you think it is a little peculiar how Steinmetz is so similar Heaviside's operational calculus?

K00la1dx (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

High-pass filter

original png

replacement svg

Hi! I made .svg file of .png scheme. SVG files are prefered in Wikimedia Commons as they can be directly translated, have smaller file size etc. Why did you revert my edit? If so, can you give any tips for improvment. A09 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the original was beautifully drawn with great clarity. The replacement was terrible in comparison. I don't disagree that svg is the preferred format for diagrams, but that does not mean it is ok to always replace a png format with an inferior svg. Besides which, you rationale does not make sense. The svg diagram remains in existence on Commons so continues to give the advantages of svg to Commons users. Removing it from a Wikipedia article makes no difference to that whatsoever. SpinningSpark 12:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand. So do you have any tips how to improve overall if it is so terrible? A09 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I'd question whether it is worth the effort. The png resolution is perfectly serviceable for online use and probably any conceivable print use as well unless you are considering putting it up on a hoarding in Picaddilly Circus. There are so many subtle ways the png is better that my best suggestion is try to make an exact copy, but here are some specifics (not necessarily exhaustive),

1. You have put the feedback into the +ve input, so you have probably built an oscillator rather than a filter
2. The png lines are thicker (relative to the diagram size) so show up better at small size
3. The png is more compact (the interconnections are shorter) so the components are larger and clearer than the svg for the same size frame
4. Thicker strokes are used in the png for components than interconnections making the components stand out. The svg has them all of one size.
5. Components in the png that have internal white space are coloured (only one in this case) giving them better visibility
6. The fonts are nicer in the png. The font size is larger compared to the components and more easily read.
7. You have specified the font-face as Arial in the svg. This is Microsoft proprietary and will not be available to every user so will not always render how you see it. You should either use a generic font, or a solution I often use, convert fonts to paths. This forces the text to render exactly as I drew it. Especially important when, as here, maths representation of variables is required. Admittedly, that has maintainability issues.
8. Variables should be in italic font
9. Subscripts should be in upright font (unless the subscript itself is also a variable). Your svg file has not rendered the subscripts as subscripts at all. They are just part of the same text.
10. The earth symbol is badly formed
11. The earth symbol does not line up properly with its connecting line
12. Having R2 so badly off-centre is not very aesthetically pleasing.

SpinningSpark 16:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these tips! I'll admit it was my first such scheme and will think of your guides in future. I'm going to fix SVG later this evening. Sincerely, A09 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Colin, I have uploaded a new SVG with all of your tips included (File:Active Highpass Filter RC.svg). Thank you for your convenience and consideration. Sincerly, A09 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't replace the image in High-pass filter again. This is still not an improvement and has certainly not taken into account all my comments. SpinningSpark 12:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

a question regarding interwiki links and their syntax

howdy captain!

i came across another anomaly that i cant find any explanation for.. this should be an easy one for you.

ok i know that normally when i want to link to another wikipedia article/page, i need to enclose prettymuch the exact title of the destination page within a double set of brackets, with either underscoring or traditional spacing between the words..

so either:
[[The Exact Title of the Destination Page]]

or: [[The_Exact_Title_of_the_Destination_Page]]

my question is, with the above syntax being the standard for interwiki links, how is it that on this page, just double bracketing a characters name takes you to that characters subsection of a destination page with a title that is completely different than the text that makes up the link?

for example any of the following three versions of this characters name:

[[Donna Tubbs]

[[Donna Tubbs Brown]]

[[Donna Tubbs-Brown]]

all render just like other interwiki links that use the exact title of their destination page as a syntax:

Donna Tubbs

Donna Tubbs Brown

Donna Tubbs-Brown

except they dont link to three different pages with different versions of "donna tubbs" as their titles. heck, they dont even list to one page with that title, they all three direct to the same destination page that has the totally different title: List of characters in the Family Guy franchise, and i should add that they even go so far as to put you right in the #Donna-Tubbs_Brown subsection of that page, even though the syntax used to create those interwiki links just use three different versions of the characters name instead of using the title of the destination page.

so im basically just asking how those three different interwiki link versions of "Donna Tubbs((-)Brown)" all link to the same subsection of a destination page that has a completely different title of "List of characters in the Family Guy franchise"?

im not at all familiar with this, i dont know how or why it works or where else this type of, i guess syntax leniency, might also be allowed as far as interwiki links are concerned? is there maybe some sort of css or redirect deal set up in advance? a scripted function perhaps? i really am curious, since ive only had access to a mobile device for the past however long and ive been typing all my markdown manually without the aid of any fancy pants editing suites, i find all these little quirks absolutely fascinating.

for quick reference just in case, here is a quick link to the page and the source for the page those links appear on.

one last thing while ive got your attention.. why does putting two spaces before a bit of markdown always seem to render almost as though it was wrapped in <code></code>? its not exactly the same, but it appears to be very similar.

for example:

double bracketed link wrapped in regular code tags:

Donna Tubbs

same double bracketed link, just prepended two spaces:

Donna Tubbs

both wrapped in code tags and prepended with two spaces:

 Donna Tubbs

as always, i hope this finds you well. i unsuccessfuly tried finding answers to both questions before resorting to sending this to you, if the answers are out there to easily be found, i might not have been asking the proper questions to lead me to them. i appreciate any information youre able to share on either matter. no need to rush, just whenever you get around to it. lastly, if it isnt too much trouble, please ping me if or when you reply, so i can get notified.

take it easy!

thanks again.
Snarevox (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Snarevox: You will find the answer to your first question at WP:REDIRECT. On the code markup, that is just a feature of the software. It is a quick and dirty way of getting that markup. Wiki markup was originally extremely simple, it had none of the complex templates that exist today. It would probably not be put in if the software was being written from scratch now. There is guidance on the use of code markup at MOS:CODE. SpinningSpark 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

unsourced or poorly sourced posting

Please clarify to me how if I post things on Wikipedia that does not have a source or that the source is not to your liking, that I will be banned from editing.

Where in the policy of Wikipedia is that so?

As far as I am concerned people post all the time on Wikipedia that they have no source or that the source is not that good. In fact, this is the case of most posting on Wikipedia.

Why don't you take your threat and ban 90 percent of people who edit Wikipedia?

K00la1dx (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@K00la1dx: The relevant policy is WP:V. The problem with your edits is that they have been challenged, but you continue to insert the same old claims (in slightly variant forms) either without a source, or with a source that doesn't check out. It is not acceptable to do that, regardless of what is, or is not happening in other articles. SpinningSpark 17:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That does not make any sense. This is Wikipedia! We are not professional researchers or editors. People post things all the time that is under-sourced and sometimes has no source at all. That is not grounds to terminate someones account. Lets be real!

Anyways I should be allowed to post in the Heaviside-Layer, that Heaviside used Reactance to describe it, the ionosphere. It in the source that you showed me where Heaviside credits the French to the word Reactance. He also used it to describe the Heaviside-Layer. K00la1dx (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are challenged (and you have been challenged repeatedly), you are obliged to provide a reliable and independent source that exactly supports your claim. I don't care if you don't think that makes sense – thems the rules. You are now so obstinately not listening that either you have a bad case of I didn't hear that or you are deliberately trolling. On the substantive issue, you should discuss what you want to insert on the article talk page, I'm not going to discuss it with you here, but I note that user:Constant314 has already reverted you on the grounds of relevance. SpinningSpark 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Annotated links

For the record, when I use the block conversion tool, I check all the results for sanity and utility in context. On many occasions, it has encouraged me to supply a missing SD (or SD=none, as appropriate) or replaced a nonsense SD.

So I don't understand your objection unless you just don't like annotated links in principle. IMO, it is a brilliant facility that gives readers a clue as to why they might have reason to explore beyond the terse title of the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't like annotated links in principle, but I also didn't liek the results I was seeing in this particular case. Annotation needs to be made relevant to the individual articles it appears in, if it is needed at all. I also find it objectionable that transcluded text can change without the editors of the article being aware of it. SpinningSpark 15:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That point has been debated at template talk:annotated link. First, there is still the option to hand annotate and in some articles that really is appropriate. But in general, an article listed in a See Also is not critical to the hosting article, the precise wording of the annotation is not a show stopper, and the default SD is quite adequate – certainly better than nothing. Second, there are many See Alsos that have a list of article names that mean nothing to anyone not already familiar with the topic. You don't have to use {{anli}} but if not you have a responsibility to provide your own annotation: it is unfair to visitors to present a cryptic list. Thirdly, a vandalised SD is rather more likely to be spotted by editors in a See Also annotation than in the original article. As this is how we present the response to searches, it really is important that vandalism is spotted and corrected early. Finally, serendipity is one of the most important functions of Wikipedia: we should do all we can to facilitate exploration and broadened horizons, as annotated links do.

In the particular case where you reverted my edit, I concede that all but two of the article names were reasonably self-explanatory. That is unusual.

I won't pursue the point further here so if you are still not content, let's debate it at the template talk page. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians entry

I've written a quick entry for Spinningspark at the deceased Wikipedians page; as an admin and prolific editor, I thought he deserved one. As noted above I didn't know him that well, so any work on it would be appreciated. Graham87 10:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:4-cube different view (old colour scheme).png

A tag has been placed on File:4-cube different view (old colour scheme).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:F3: the licensing note says that "We only require that if you want to use it for some commercial purpose such as adding it to a game pack, or using it as a demo to help sell your product, that you get our written approval first", which is non-free.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HouseBlaster^talk 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:4-cube horribly scrambled (old version).png

A tag has been placed on File:4-cube horribly scrambled (old version).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:F3: the licensing note says that "We only require that if you want to use it for some commercial purpose such as adding it to a game pack, or using it as a demo to help sell your product, that you get our written approval first", which is non-free.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HouseBlaster^talk 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:4-cube solved (old version).png

A tag has been placed on File:4-cube solved (old version).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:F3: the licensing note says that "We only require that if you want to use it for some commercial purpose such as adding it to a game pack, or using it as a demo to help sell your product, that you get our written approval first", which is non-free.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HouseBlaster^talk 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)