User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 27

That IP-hopping, appendix-title and white-space guy again
Hello, Spinningspark,

I wish I had seen your comment at User talk:203.194.51.42 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)


 * 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)


 * I opened an SPI case at Farm-Fresh eye.png Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki (not watching, please )  czar  23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gutta Percha Company
The article Gutta Percha Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. 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
The article Gutta Percha Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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
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 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 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
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. 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
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
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. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Submarine Telegraph Company
The article Submarine Telegraph Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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
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
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)
 * 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)
 * Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/GA1. Or you can click on the ping notification in your Alerts – that takes you straight to the place where you were mentioned. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom
The article Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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 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_creep Talk  16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the European History section. Seems the closest. scope_creep Talk  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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Railway surgery
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. 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
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)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 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
Hi Did you submit it for FA review. I had a look can't see anything, apart from other reviews.  scope_creep Talk  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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Railway surgery
The article Railway surgery you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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
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.

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. ).

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  L ondon 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 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 Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_13 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  L ondon 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? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

For the Beauty of the Earth
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 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mobile infantry AfD
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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DENY in edit summary
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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 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  and at User talk:101.187.83.6 and User talk:129.94.8.198. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
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)

New message from Compassionate727
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)
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. 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.
where is the proof that i,m wrong?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall (2nd nomination)
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
Five months ago you participated in the first AFD for List of mechanical keyboards. It is now back at AFD yet again.  D r e a m Focus  02:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)
The article Porcupine (Cheyenne) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. 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!
The mail is from, not me, and was sent a few days ago. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Morse template
I made some tweaks to Template:Morse. Could you check them over to see if I didn't screw things up? It's the first time I ever edited a template. Kurzon (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did you need to do that? The ldash is only ever used for "L" so will always be a single element. It will therefore only ever be in the first field, or the second if the first letter of a word.  If there is a proper use for this then fine, but there is no benefit in cluttering the template with unused code.  I see that you have used it in Draft:WATU but as far as I know, this is an error. Normal Morse dashes should be used in B-bar. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt the regular dash was a little too short for my taste. Does my modification actually damage the code? Kurzon (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It might not be to your taste, but it is correct. A dash is three dot units. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I thought making the dash a little longer would make the code a little easier to read. It doesn't change the meaning, does it? I have no objections to you reverting my modification. 11:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What if we made the dots and dashes just a little larger? Say, 60% instead of 40%? Kurzon (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been toying with various HTML symbols in my Sandbox. I can understand the difficulties you faced writing this template. There doesn't seem to be a perfect symbol that can be co-optd for this purpose. Kurzon (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think about adding the property "vertical-align:40%" so that the dots and dash float in the center of the line? Like so: B-bar ( &#9604;&#9604;&#9604; &#9604; &#9604; &#9604; &#9604;&#9604;&#9604; ) Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks terrible in my browser. It is not floating in the centre, it is at the height of an overbar.  Also, the space between the elements is so small that they are barely distinguishable from a single smeared line.  Before changing the style of any template it is highly advisable to test it in as many browsers, skins and platforms as possible.  Not everybody uses Microsoft Edge or IE.  Chrome and Firefox are also popular.  Not everybody uses the default Vector skin.  A lot of editors who have been around a long time (like me) still use MonoBook.  There is a big difference in presentation in the Desktop and Mobile versions of Wikimedia.  It's a good idea to check a large sample of the articles the template is used in, just to make sure there are no unexpected effects.  You also need bear in mind the users have a wide variety of screen or window sizes and resolutions and that they may have altered the default font size and face.  In short, you need to do a lot of testing before messing with a template that is in use in multiple articles and no, I don't approve of these changes. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've given up for now and reverted the template back to your version. Kurzon (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはSpinningsparkたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">

The SandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * From my family to yours, wishing you a happy Christmas and wonderful New Year. . Here's to 2020! -- The SandDoctor Talk 08:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foy-Breguet telegraph
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foy-Breguet telegraph 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) 01:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foy-Breguet telegraph
The article Foy-Breguet telegraph you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. 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:Foy-Breguet telegraph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

See talk page on Passivity (engineering)
You made edits to this page where, quite literally, every sentence you wrote had multiple errors. I'm not getting into edit wars, so I didn't revert your edits, but I did post an extended comment on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Passivity_(engineering)

If you wanted to do the gentlemanly thing, please revert your edits, and stop modifying this page. Others seem able to edit this page without introducing large numbers of errors, and the community will eventually find ways to make this page more accessible. What you're doing is simply not helping. I understand there are aspects of this page which are frustrating to you -- and it'd be nice to have them fixed -- but what you're doing isn't making progress in that direction.

I am not monitoring this page. If you'd like to respond, please do so on the Passivity talk page. Also, please feel free to erase this comment once you've read it (I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I think the mail icon lands on your public talk page? This would be much more appropriate for private email) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.150.215 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)
The article Porcupine (Cheyenne) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foy–Breguet telegraph
The article Foy–Breguet telegraph you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. 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:Foy–Breguet telegraph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

About draft Sandeep Maheshwari
I am a new user of Wikipedia wants to create article on draft Sandeep Maheshwari which is under protection of administrator due to the" usage of commercial purpose" in 2017. Help me to retrieve it again. Kashish pall (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandeep Maheshwari has been deleted seven times and Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari has been deleted five times. Please explain why this one is any different.  I would need a link to at least two reliable sources establishing notability before I would consider unprotecting either of those pages. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dignitasdigital.com/blog/youtubers-in-india-who-will-rock/ Kashish pall (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://surejob.in/youtubers-in-india.html Kashish pall (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I asked for your help instead you delete my article. I know in 2017 no one knows who is Sandeep Maheshwari and he only have one million subscribers. But at the end of 2018 he crossed 8 millions subscribers. And now he have almost 14 millions subscribers. I was searching on analytics on Google and I found " Sandeep Maheshwari on Wikipedia". Kashish pall (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.quora.com/Who-is-Sandeep-Maheshwari-1. # 88 answers why? Because Wikipedia is not available. Kashish pall (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/user/SandeepSeminars. You may check on his channel what are the subscribers and what are total views on his channel. Although I want your help to complete such article because I don't have much knowledge on how to work on Wikipedia. Kashish pall (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I really not understand why those things happen but like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhuvan_Bam also a youtuber. But then how to retrieve it because I found people want to know about Sandeep Maheshwari Kashish pall (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You delete my article under G11 for advertise and promotions. May I really wants to know what it means. Because it signs like that I am doing something illegal. So can you please answer me back? Kashish pall (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theindianwire.com/entertainment/sandeep-maheshwari-youtubers-122293/. https://www.theindianwire.com/entertainment/sandeep-maheshwari-ends-series-start-business-no-money-youtube-great-note-discusses-3-new-business-models-154698/. https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/life-positive/hope-knowing-looking-forward-power-motivational-speaker-images-bazaar-sandeep-maheshwari-inspiring-video-good-morning-5986464/. In news he is famous as well. Kashish pall (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please reply me back? Kashish pall (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Kashish. As I explained on your talk page, I deleted the page you created because the original page is protected from recreation and you cannot circumvent that protection in this way.  That's not to say that Sandeep Maheshwari can't have an article, but it must be created at the original title (or the draft title).  This means that you must first persuade someone to unprotect the page.  As I said, I would be willing to do that if evidence of notability was forthcoming, but so far that has not happened.  You need to get your head around Wikipedia's concept of notability, which often seems a bit strange to newcomers.  Notability is not the same as fame.  Having 14 million subscribers might be a clue that this is someone we should have an article on, but it is not a criterion, and nor is any other measure of fame.  It does not guarantee an article can be created.  See this summary of our requirements, and the full policies are linked in my first message above.


 * Of the two sources you offer for notability, the first is a blog on the site of a marketing company. That's just about the epitome of what a reliable source is not.  The second article is authored by anonymous "Editorial staff", but appears to be on a site operated by a single person so also not counted as reliable.  In any case, it is a very short entry, not the in-depth material required to write an encyclopaedia article.  The Indian Express piece has only a link to one of Sandeep's videos.  While that might have material that can be used (with caution) in an article, material written by the subject himself counts for nothing towards notability.  The Indian Wire pieces seem a bit more promising, but even those are dubious.  This could be a reliable site, but I found no editorial board listed (other than the founders) and there is no indication that the authors are staff journalists.  Futher, at least some of the pieces look very much like regurgitated press releases which is not genuine notability.


 * If you have anything else to offer, feel free to let me know. You might also like to know that there is a formal process for challenging page deletions which you can find at Deletion review. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I will try to find reliable source but after three days because I have something very important work in outer world. So I am logging out for three days. Kashish pall (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://zeenews.india.com/tags/sandeep-maheshwari.html. check this Kashish pall (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.anandabazar.com/photogallery/national/the-journey-of-sandeep-maheshwari-from-scratch-to-success-dgtl-1.1054339 Kashish pall (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://hindi.news18.com/news/knowledge/profile-of-youtuber-guide-and-mentor-sandeep-maheshwari-completed-10-million-youtube-subscribers-1898146.html Kashish pall (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://hindi.topyaps.com/sandeep-maheshwari-success-story/ Kashish pall (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/famous-youtubers-here-are-the-list-of-famous-youtuber-like-bb-ki-vines-technical-guruji-sandeep-maheshwari-who-makes-huge-money-from-youtube/1045192/ Kashish pall (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/6042 Kashish pall (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://detoxloss.com/chew-32-times-to-lose-weight-sandeep-maheshwari-at-tedxiimranchi/ Kashish pall (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=545102662344909&id=544775995710909&_rdr Kashish pall (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bB44wwEACAAJ&dq=sandeep+maheshwari+books&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIl-TG4vbnAhW5xjgGHShDDuIQ6AEICTAA Kashish pall (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you got realiable source out of these? Kashish pall (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As soon as I saw you put Facebook on that list it said to me you still don't understand what is needed. I've already spent a significant amount of time reviewing the first set of links you provided so I'm not now going to do a detailed review of all of this.  All that is needed is a couple of good quality sources.  Let's say I'll accept the Indian Wire, even though it's a bit dubious.  Just point me to one more article that is reliable, independent, and in-depth and I'll undelete the draft.  Otherwise, take it WP:DRV to get more people to look at it. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bhaskar.com/news/ut-del-new-sandeep-maheshwari-an-entrepreneur-from-delhi-4773880-pho.html. This is Danikbhasakar news which is leading newspapers according to Wikipedia as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India_by_readership Kashish pall (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Porcupine (Cheyenne)
The article Porcupine (Cheyenne) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne) 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)