User talk:Spinningspark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This user has opted out of talkbacks

That IP-hopping, appendix-title and white-space guy again[edit]

Hello, Spinningspark,

I wish I had seen your comment at User talk:203.194.51.42#Article appendices before today, it might have saved me a lot of trouble. As soon as I saw it, I recognized the pattern immediately and knew who it was. I've been trying to deal with them lately, having found five IPs, and possibly two others. I spent a lot of time lately composing TP messages, undoing some of their edits, and finding diffs which could have been better spent elsewhere.

For starters, please have a look at this discussion. As I was hoping this would stop before it got to ANI, my diff-finding isn't as rigorous as required there, and there is other evidence I haven't presented at all, such as the transition from one IP fitting the pattern to another one two minutes later. I also shied going to ANI, because I wasn't sure what they could do about an IP-hopper, so any advice would be appreciated. I'll let you have a look and decide if they should also be blocked as well. (In my view, it should be multiplicative, with each new find, but I"m not an admin.) And I dearly wish I had access to that tool you alluded to that can revert all their edits; if you have a look and determine that these are all the same user and it warrants such action, you'll be saving me (or someone else) the trouble, not to mention keeping the encyclopedia in better shape.

I have a question for you. So far, I haven't used any of the automated tools, like Twinkle, AWB, and so on. Otoh, I'm crackerjack at writing regexes, and I bet I could write one (or more) that could highlight possible reappearances of this user for further manual examination. Can you point me at a tool that I could use that might help? I'm not so much interested in doing mass reverts quickly, like one could presumably do with AWB; I'm more interesting in the detective work part of it, where some batch tool could scan lots of articles for me, and present to me the ones that seemed to match my pattern, so I could go and look to see if our suspect is popping up in a new guise. Do you know any tool like that? Otherwise, what in general can be done with IP-hopping vandals? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: IP hoppers have always been a problem for admins to deal with, but they are rarely as persistent as this guy. 129.94.8.198 is definitely the same one and is now blocked. The other two you linked are not so clear cut, having done only one recemt edit each. As far as I am concerned, this person has now been repeatedly warned and blocked so many times that I am prepared to block and rollback all their edits en-masse without review or further discussion on the basis of WP:DENY. I am also prepared to do range blocks if it can be shown that the hopping is within a small range belonging to a single org such as a school or college. Likely won't stop him but it will limit the places he can edit from and the time he has to do it.
If you could write some hunt and destroy regex that would be awesome. AWB is a good tool for peparing lists of pages and making mass changes. But, I don't think it can pick out individual edits by individual editors. A bot working from a downloaded database dump would probably be needed. Whether AWB semi-automatically or a free-ranging bot, it would need approval from the Bot Approvals Group to run.
Rather than try to clean up afterwards, it might be a better approach to try and stop the edits being made in the first place through an edit filter. However, you will need some truly awesome regex to do that without a lot of false positives. Edit filters cannot look at editing history, only the single edit under consideration. It will be hard to distinguish our guy from good faith edits to the referencing section. If you do write some regex, it is often a good idea not to post it publicly because that helps the dirupter to game it. SpinningSpark 10:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Bump... --just an archive-stopper, I think there may be more to say on this soon; please stay tuned. Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
It is possible that they have found another IP, here. Exasperating. And not even consistent within an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gutta Percha Company[edit]

The article Gutta Percha Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gutta Percha Company for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gutta Percha Company[edit]

The article Gutta Percha Company you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Gutta Percha 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Distributed element circuit scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Distributed element circuit article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, and for the steady flow of GAs! - I have a peer review open, Clara Schumann, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Submarine Telegraph Company[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Submarine Telegraph Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE[edit]

I did search for sources beforehand like all of my nominations. Assuming that I didn't is just assuming bad faith. If you want to say that someone didn't follow WP:BEFORE, you probably shouldn't post two blogs of questionable reliability. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Maritime flag signalling[edit]

Thanks for your augmentation to Maritime flag signalling about French developments. I suspect there were interesting developments with the Dutch as well as the French, but we are hampered by lack of English-language sources. If you know more about this area I would encourage you to work that up.

I have wondered if it would be worthwhile to inquire about this at the French and Dutch wikis. Unfortunately I don't have time for this topic, but would be interested if you come up with anything. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Submarine Telegraph Company[edit]

The article Submarine Telegraph Company you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Submarine Telegraph 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and comments on Kane article[edit]

I greet you as a long-time editor here, but one that now, because of past bad experiences that extended to real world, edit only without logging in—my logging in days have ended, for the outing-trolling, and other various reasons. That said, I have more than 10K edits with more than 10% of them major, and many, many new article credits. As well, I am a former academic, and an experienced editor. (If I misspell, it is in haste, a characteristic to which I admit, and not in ignorance, to which I do not.) From this experience, and decades of writing in the sciences at the interface with medicine, I believe I bring capability and expertise to my work here. All this is said because I perceive from this page a strong bias against editors that do not log in. And while I strongly applaud all work opposing vandalism here, it is usually a relatively easy process to review edits to see that they are not vandalism, though they come from an editor that is not logged.

With regard to the Kane article, I would say this—when I move text around the location of a citation that appears, it is because I have either looked at citations, or tried to look at citations, and not found the material that the existing placement of the citation supposes to support. That is, the text is either unsupported because the content in the article is not in the source, or it is unsupported because the source is unavailable for verification (sometimes because only available in print, often because the citation is incomplete enough—print books without page numbers, for instance—that there is no practical way to verify what the article says, using the source. All this to say: I did not change your reversion to the "Murphy Button" paragraph at the Kane article, even though all the changes I made were academically rigorous. In that paragraph, the statement that the Murphy Button was in common use in that era was supported by the citation talking about Murphy, it's discoverer (though only a single page was visible to me). However, the claim that Kane's journal report constituted a real and important improvement to the Murphy device could not be verified in that article, by me, with the accesses I have available from home. (Was support indeed there? Could you verify from the Murphy article, the innovative value of the Kane modification?) Similar observations were the reason for my reorganisation of the rest of that paragraph—some content verifiable, but not all. My bottom line for that paragraph—I have to trust, since you reverted my careful work, that you indeed found all of the content of those sentences within the sources that appear. (I did not, or could not.) If you did not so verify, I would ask you put things back to the way I had them, of course making any grammatical corrections you see fit.

Finally, I would note that I observe, in that article, a mix of good scholarhip and sourcing of ideas, alongside bad. At least in some cases, it is clear that blocks of text were in place, and a person later added a citation that they thought appropriate—the result being that certain paragraphs now look finished when, in fact, not all content in the paragraph is supported by the appended citation. I am in the process of comparing article text to sources, but I have limited time (weekend only, and then, only certain windows). Any edits you will see from me will be of that sort—citation checking, and verifying content to sources. This is simply FYI, in case I make grammar choices/mistakes that aggravate. Even when I do, the underlying scholarly analysis and quality is likely still there. (I married a BELS editor, but do not consult her for this type of charitable work, and for my own writing there is most often one or two editorial layers that follow my composition, perhaps having made me the lazier.)

Cheers, hope to work with you again. A ret. Wikipedian and Prof. 2601:246:C700:9B0:6D4C:597C:72AB:665E (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You personally not being able to access a source is not the same as failed verification. Until you have actually bothered to obtain a copy of the source, you should assume good faith of other editors. That's not just a throwaway line, it's a central policy here. SpinningSpark 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Baudot-Murray paper tape[edit]

Hi User:Spinningspark. I'm not clear how I have caused offence by changing the picture of 5-hole tape in Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom. The picture was of a very tatty and probably unreadable piece of tape that appeared to have been fan-folded. As far as I know fan-folding of tape was only used by Digital Equipment Corporation with 8-hole tape. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that tape as in the replacement illustration is not identical to the tape in use when Baudot-Murray coded tape was first introduced. Illustrations in old telegraphy books are drawings, and I don't see any evidence of change. Do you have any?--TedColes (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@TedColes: No offence at all Ted. You added two images to the article, and the GA reviewer has found issues with both of them. I just thought you should be made to do some of the work of fielding the points raised. I agree with you that the tape is unchanged in all essentials, but your comments will be more effective if made at the GA review page rather than my talk page. SpinningSpark 15:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm unfamiliar with the GA review process. Where do I go to do as you suggest?--TedColes (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@TedColes: Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/GA1#Images. Or you can click on the ping notification in your Alerts – that takes you straight to the place where you were mentioned. SpinningSpark 17:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom[edit]

The article Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom 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 Scope creep -- Scope creep (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Spinningspark: I've posted the GA review tag. Do you want me to post it into history section at GA listing. I'm a bit unsure about it.scope_creepTalk 16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added it to the European History section. Seems the closest.scope_creepTalk 16:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(you edit conflicted me, but you might find the reply useful anyway) Yes, you should list it. Normally under the same heading (or a sub-heading thereof) as it was nominated under. The instructions are here. Don't forget to increment the total for that section, it does not get counted automatically! In fact, the totals are often wrong, I check them now and then by dropping the list into Excel to recount them when I add a new article. SpinningSpark 16:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Railway surgery[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Railway surgery you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not British[edit]

But my mother was. She emigrated to the states as a young girl in the 1920's. It probably wasn't a slang term back then. (I thought any further discussion belonged off the RfA page). --rogerd (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rogerd: Maybe, but it is clearly quite old. I knew the expression as a child, and here is a Limerick from 1941. And even further back, this book (a translation of an old Arabic work) was published in 1900. The Oxford Dictionay of Slang says it dates from 1711. SpinningSpark 23:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. I am named for my father's brother who died as a teenager, but both sides of my family are of British heritage, different branches of my father's side came over in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, while my mother's side came over in the early 20th century. My mom still retained some her interest in all things British, which I inherited to some degree. God Save the Queen --rogerd (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi @Spinningspark: Did you submit it for FA review. I had a look can't see anything, apart from other reviews. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it will be a while before it gets there. The next stage will be a peer review, I'll let you know when it's there, but there are a few things on my plate before even that happens. I want to go through the article and deal with issues I know commonly come up at FA. In particular, the need for alt text and other accessibility issues such as table syntax. I'm also still considering what could be done on your request for data on lines. But right now, I'm busy with another GA review, and after that there is another article I'm working on that one of the major sources I have on inter-library loan will need returning soon because there is a waiting list. By the way, you don't need to ping people on their own talk page, that is automatically a notification, and you don't usually need to ping me on pages I have recently edited. I automatically watchlist all my edited pages just in case someone has a problem with something I have done. SpinningSpark 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Railway surgery[edit]

The article Railway surgery you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Railway surgery 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Avoid copy-and-paste moves[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you copied the old parent categories from Category:Specific models and pasted them into a newly-created page Category:Conceptual models, then deleted the old page.

Please retain page history where possible, as this is required by GFDL.

By deleting and re-creating the page, you also removed the link at Wikidata.[1]

I have undeleted the old page, moved it over the new page that you had made, and relinked it to Wikidata.

I also see that you moved the member pages yourself, rather than have it all done by a bot. Your timing was not great, as the original renaming of the parent Category:Conceptual models to Category:Conceptual modelling was still listed at WP:CFDW, so the bot then moved the contents repeatedly as it was instructed, and you had to revert them (e.g. [2]).

It would have minimised work all round to wait for MER-C to remove the original listing at CFDW and then list the second move to be processed by the bot. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not view this as a category rename, but the creation of an entirely new category. In any event, the contents of Category:Specific models was so confused it needed sorting manually. Some of it genuinely belonged in Category:Conceptual models, some of it belonged in Category:Conceptual modelling, and some of it did not belong at all. SpinningSpark 13:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There should be no objection to you removing the members that did not belong, or sorting the remaining members manually, but there was no justification for you to delete the old page history. You linked to the CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_13#Category:Specific_models in your deletion log entry when you deleted the category page, and the consensus was explicitly to rename both, as stated in the alternative proposal. There were two categories before, and two afterwards. The fact that there was some ambiguity in the old names, which called for a limited amount of re-splitting the members, does not not change the consensus which was to "rename" rather than create a new category.
Anyway, it's sorted now. I hope you have a better understanding how some of the processes work for future reference. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, mea culpa and I do understand the attribution issue. But really, a page with no text and two category links is hardly a big copyright issue. Where exactly is the creative content to which one could apply the GFDL? SpinningSpark 14:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

For the Beauty of the Earth[edit]

Joyfully tempo=88-116 Verse 92 Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 1985. Psalm 95:1-6. Psalm 33:1-6. Text by Folliott S. Pierpoint. Music by Conrad Kocher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimkim (talkcontribs) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mobile infantry AfD[edit]

Mobile infantry (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Your reasoning is faulty, though the article was kept. It is irrelevant whether an article could be written about the concept; per DABCONCEPT, it's still not a valid dab page. Anyway, I'm going to rejigger it to make it less eggregious. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We really need to apply WP:BURO here. A much more important issue than the smallprint of the dab page guidelines is whether or not the page serves any useful purpose here. I say it does, and so did the majority of the AFD participants. The closer explicitly supported my reasoning, so please do not remove anything substantive from the page. SpinningSpark 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DENY in edit summary[edit]

Please explain your use of WP:DENY in edit summaries of England national rugby union team and Rugby union, amongst others. Your edits seem to be legitimate but mostly unnecessary and the edit summary is mystifying. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The edits are the work of a long-term disruptive editor, mostly problematic for arbitrarily trying to enforce their own ideas of citation style. They edit prolificly in a bot-like manner. They are just too prolific to examine every edit in detail and have mostly been reverted blind. If you want to keep the edit(s) and take responsibility for it, then jsut revert me, there will be no dispute on my part. SpinningSpark 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just to be clear, your edits are designed to revert previous edits that are the work of a long-term disruptive editor? Would you be able to point me to the original disruptive edits – who did them and when? Also, were the disruptive edits cumulative or was it all done in a single edit? Your edit summary doesn't give any details of what it is that you've reverted, hence the confusion. I probably will put some of it back because I don't agree with all the changes, but of course I would take responsibility for that. I can see that WP:DENY indicates refusal to engage with the originator. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That's right, it is reverting edits of a blocked editor trying to circumvent their block. My main problem with this editor is that they try to enforce a particular style of appendix headings en-masse with rapid drive-by edits to random articles in contravention of WP:CITEVAR, WP:STYLEVAR, and MOS:NOTES. There are other problems as well. There are recent discussions on my useer page above at #That IP-hopping, appendix-title and white-space guy again and at User talk:101.187.83.6 and User talk:129.94.8.198. SpinningSpark 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Compassionate727[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 15:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry if you don't like getting talkback, but you don't seem to respond to pings consistently and I've had others who display similar behavior request talkback, so I thought I should do this. Let me know if you prefer otherwise. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that I'm editting this section manually, I see you prefer not to receive TB. Sorry. I'll leave a {{no talkback}} at the top of this page so that people who are using Twinkle get the message. Nevertheless, I do need you to respond to your requests at #Telegraphic codes for India and #Circuit analogs either to move your request along or, if you don't want the resources anymore, tell us as much. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Porcupine (Cheyenne) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol prove it.[edit]

where is the proof that i,m wrong?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall (2nd nomination)[edit]

Finally, the article got what you wished for in the AfD! There is even more I could do to improve it but maybe another day when I have more time for that. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

AFD you participated in back again[edit]

Five months ago you participated in the first AFD for List of mechanical keyboards. It is now back at AFD yet again. Dream Focus 02:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)[edit]

The article Porcupine (Cheyenne) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Spinningspark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The mail is from Winged Blades of Godric, not me, and was sent a few days ago. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)