My archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hi Spinningspark, your two reversions ([1] and [2]) leave me puzzled as they have left the articles in a very weak state now. WP:CITEVAR applies to articles with a consistently established citation style. Before my edits, these two articles were not among them as they were using a mixture of general, full and short citations, templated and non-templated references, even in different formats, and inline and list style. Several references were incomplete, others were redundant or contained horribly looking grammatical and capitalization errors. Among other things like fixing the badly carried out category link my edits aimed at fixing these issues by removing the errors and bringing the references into a consistent format. Another aim was to improve the functionality of the references, that's why I chose template-based references instead of text-only ones. The styleguide you mentioned encourages editors to do so. My edits were very obvious improvements to help bringing the articles into shape, whereas your reversions did the exact opposite, unfortunately. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the style was not 100% consistent, but nobody was using templated references except for the one instance of the general reference to Loke. Nowhere at all, in either article, was anybody using the system you imposed of all repeated refs (<ref name=foo/>) or whatever it is called. We can debate why I don't like your system, but the bottom line is that there is no especial reason why these articles in particular need to have it. SpinningSpark 09:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warren P. Mason, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scientist Warren P. Mason said that polymer chemistry was not "civilized" because of the awful smells produced? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warren P. Mason. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Warren P. Mason), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On 14 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Distributed element circuit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that distributed element circuits include butterflies (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Distributed element circuit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Distributed element circuit), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Time in Poland for me? I thought about starting this, and maybe the deleted version contains something useful (if it is pure gibberish, don't bother, but if there is even one useful sentence, I'll take it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Article now at User:Piotrus/Time in Poland. SpinningSpark 07:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy GA review! Please let me know if you have any GA noms that need review - I have enough knowledge of electronics and astronomy to do a review. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have several articles waiting for reviews but I am in no hurry. Feel free to review any of these that take your fancy;

• Warren P. Mason, electrical engineer and physicist, at GA
• distributed element circuit, at GA
• Clydesdale Motor Truck Company, at GA, it has a reviewer, but he seems to have abandoned the review
• Planar transmission line is at peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Planar transmission line/archive1. It has already been reviewed, but for peer review the more reviewers the better.

SpinningSpark 11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. Although BRD says "If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other editor made a mistake in a note or edit summary to reduce the risk of edit warring." - which is pretty much what I did in reaction to your That's not a redundant heading and the image is not especially appropriate for the history seciton edit summary. On checking policy it was an inappropriate subheading and a photo of frying bacon is surely more appropriate in a section which mentions the cooking of bacon than one that does not (although I appreciate I failed to explain my thinking in the original edit). Will bear BRD in mind in future though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw your reversion of my edit that deleted the word 'ironically', and your comment. I have to point out that I'm not the one who named this paragraph of the Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language). But no matter what the section is called, it states, "Do not tell readers that something is ironic, ...etc. Simply state the sourced facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Such constructions can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone..."

As an aside, I do not see the irony in Maskelyne making the original proposal, and since it's unlikely that I'm the only one, that makes whether or not it's ironic a matter of opinion, which is not for Wikipedia editors to express.

Even if something is ironic, the word 'ironically', along with several others that are overused, does not belong in Wikipedia articles, unless it's part of a quotation or expressing an opinion that can be sourced. In this case, the word is instructing the reader that something is ironic. As the Manual of Style states, only the facts should be stated. The 'ironically' in this article should be deleted.

Regards,

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the MoS and I know why we have it, but really, mechanically removing every occurence of the word without assessing the effect it is having on the text really is not helpful imo. Not saying it is likely to leave readers wondering why Maskelyne is being mentioned at all. If they do work it out, they will realise it is being mentioned because it is ironiic that Maskelyne instigated that rule. Thus, mentioning Maskelyne at all is intended to make the point that it is ironic. Putting the word in just makes that explicit, it doesn't change the intended pov of the sentence. If you think that expressing that pov is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then the whole sentence should be taken out. I won't fight you if you take it out again, but you now have my opinion on it. SpinningSpark 19:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

...and on your aside, it's ironic because Maskelyne was promoting Earnshaw, but it was Maskelyne's rule that caused him to fail in the test. SpinningSpark 20:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electric bath (electrotherapy) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warren P. Mason you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I notice the change to plural on category:transfer functions, which seems to make sense. Yet I notice also that category:frequency domain analysis is not plural. Even more, there seems to be discussion (but I couldn't find it) on a change to category:frequency-domain analysis. (Presumably with redirects.) Seems to me that, either way, it should be plural, like other categories. Should we have category:frequency-domain analyses? Gah4 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Analysis" is more of a collective term, doesn't need to be plural as much as "Transfer functions" does, in terms of being descriptive of what's in the category. The renaming discussion that I started is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_28#Category:Frequency_domain_analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So far, there is only one analysis in the category, but I believe that Fourier analysis should also be there, in which case there will be two analyses. I do agree that analysis is more collective than function, but with more than one analysis, it should still be plural. Of course with redirect, or maybe only redirect. Gah4 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Since you did such an excellent job in the GA review of Cantor's first uncountability proof, I thought you might be interested in the current GA review. I was mainly responsible for the version of Cantor's first uncountability proof that you reviewed and am mainly responsible for the current article that is being reviewed. If you check the talk section: The article rewrite and thanks to all those who helped me, you will find that I used your excellent GA review to restructure and rewrite the article.

At the top of the Talk page, you will find out that one editor has already expressed an interest in reviewing the article, but of course, other editors can review it, too. Since you did such an excellent job critiquing the last version of the article, I would be very pleased if you have the time to critique this version of the article. RJGray (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@RJGray: I'm heavily involved in other reviews at the moment so won't be doing a full review of this. However, one thing I am going to raise is that I don't think it is proper for Michael Hardy to be doing the review. He is both the creator and the nominator on the first GA so is hardly independent. SpinningSpark 18:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression that Michael Hardy won't be doing the review. I think that he is doing the same thing he did the last time: Nominate the article for GA Review and let others do the review. He states on the Talk page: "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it) ..." I take "An editor" to mean someone other than himself. Also, his statement: "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it) ..." clearly excludes him from doing the review since he nominated it.

I'm looking forward to the GA Review. I learned a lot about writing Wikipedia articles from my first review and became a better and more active Wikipedia contributor because of it. Thanks again for participating in the last GA review. RJGray (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You will notice that Michael is marked as being the reviewer on the GA review page. The bot that services the GA process assumes that the first person to edit the page is going to be the reviewer. The instructions clearly state not to start the page yourself. The bot takes the page off the list of articles awaiting review once this happens. If Michael really did not intend to start the review, then you could have a very long wait for a reviewer because of that. This can be fixed by deleting the review page and reverting the actions of the bot in connection with that article. Michael is an administrator so should be able to do that himself. If he is not confident of the process, he can request it at the GA talk page. Or he can ask me to do it for him. SpinningSpark 15:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Probably the best option is for you to attend to that. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Clydesdale Motor Truck Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clydesdale Motor Truck Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Spinningspark thanks for your comment. I would have preferred if you had raised your concerns elsewhere and simply let the candidate answer the question. If he thinks that there was nothing wrong with the speedy deletion he could have said so himself. For what it's worth: I was still evaluating the candidate and I would have preferred if I could have posted my findings without being preemptively presented to the other participants in the discussion as somehow incompetent to assess CSD contributions. I don't think I'll be participating in the discussion any further. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The candidate had already responded to your question, and in any case I don't see how my comment interferes in any way with your ability to make an assessment. I made no comment on your competence, I merely stated what I see as the correct application of CSD A3 in this case. Your question implied that this was an incorrect use of A3. I disagreed and stated it was a perfectly proper use of A3. If you think that makes you look incompetent that is entirely your own assessment of entirely your own actions. SpinningSpark 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spinningspark, Is this page: Naggar Castle · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] eligible for an undelete?
If so, I request you to undelete as I intend to re-write the article. Thank you. --Gpkp (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, it was deleted as a copyright violation. The copyrighted material was present of the page from its creation to its deletion. There is no copyvio-free version that can be reverted to or restored. The page that was copied is here. You may use that at a source for a new article, but it must be in your own words, not a copy or close paraphrase. SpinningSpark 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thank you Spinningspark. --Gpkp (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there - I noticed your name pop up a few times on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion page, and so I thought I'd give you a shout with a quick question you could maybe answer. I've gathered a decent experience with anti-vandalism patrol, and recently branched out to AfD patrolling as well. I came across this AfD. As you'll see, a few responses to it are that of a Procedural Keep, since it had been decided to keep the page in the previous two AfD's, and that Wiki policy has not changed since. Are such circumstances entirely objective? In other words - is it largely the case that, regardless of the circumstances of newer AfD's, if an article's AfD was once decided Keep, all subsequent AfDs must also be keep, unless a policy that was previously used has changed? Specifically, in your opinion, would the aforementioned AfD be one that could be closed as a Speedy Keep for that reason? Is it a candidate for a non-admin closure? Thank you very much for your time! --HunterM267 ^talk 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not the case that a page must be kept because nothing has changed since the last AfD. For one thing, consensus can change, especially over long periods of time. Generally, consensus has taken a tougher stand on WP:V over the years from what it did in the early days. For another, participants might want to provide a new rationale that wasn't voiced at the first AfD, or offer new evidence. The proposer might simply argue that the previous AfD was simply wrong, or so poorly attended that it did not properly represent the consensus of the community. If I was closing the discussion you linked, I wouldn't give much weight to the requests for procedural keep. Procedural keep might apply to a nomination that was made almost immediately after a previous close if it was made simply because the nominator didn't like the result. But using that argument for an AfD that happened in 2015 is a bit of a stretch to say the least. "Procedural keep" can be a valid recommendation; for instance, if the nominator offers no rationale for deletion, if they request an action other than deletion (that does not require admin action), or is otherwise outside the scope of AfD. Procedural keep most certainly does no mean speedy keep, although in some cases both might apply. See the speedy keep guideline for what can actually be closed as "speedy keep". I would not recommend non-admin closure of procedural keeps unless the case for doing so is obvious and clearly uncontroversial. It would certainly be very unwise for an non-admin to close such an AfD early. SpinningSpark 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed response, I appreciate it! I personally view a procedural keep from the standpoint you do, which would allow repeat / subsequent AfDs to remain circumstantial and situational and not guarenteed to follow the outcome of those before it. Thanks again! --HunterM267 ^talk 20:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)