User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 31

Cultivar reverts
I see you've reverted a number of the PRODs I've placed on cultivars, with the rationale that there are WP:ATDs. Please see WT:PLANTS, where there is a reasonable consensus from WikiProject participants that cultivars are not notable, and where no one has objected to my PRODs. As all of the PROD-tagged cultivars are hybrids of two species, it is not possible to simply merge & redirect them, as you cannot redirect a page to two pages. Creating lists of non-notable cultivars to merge these articles to is also not suitable, as it would basically be replicating the cultivar registries in a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I could see, the species articles already contain long lists of cultivars. The one piece of information in all these hybrid stubs that could be merged is the identity of the other parent species.  If a list of hybrids is encyclopaedic, then a list of the hybrid's parents is also encyclopaedic.  Thus I am at WP:PRESERVE for this piece of information.  By the way, all these lists are redlinked.  If you don't want people endlessly creating these stubs you should unlink them.  A redlink is an encouragement to create an article.  That's their very purpose. SpinningSpark 19:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's such a good point. Having lists of non-notable cultivars at the species and genus level is totally WP:UNDUE considering that the cultivars are individually not notable, and it encourages people to mass-create articles on non-notable topics. I will remove all of the lists from the species and genus articles, redlinks and all. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, that is not what I just suggested. SpinningSpark 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then what are you suggesting? Because I see a statement that basically amounts to you saying that these stubs should be kept because they're mentioned at the species articles, which is not a criteria for inclusion I've ever heard of, and then an admonishment that I should remove the redlinks because they encourage article creation. A merge is not technically possible in the case of a hybrid, because an article cannot be redirected to two parents, and there is not really an objective criteria to determine which parent species to redirect to. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Preserving information is not the same as preserving stubs. SpinningSpark 19:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A pithy response that doesn't answer the question, which tells me that you don't actually have a plan for preserving the information, you just disputed the PRODs as a knee-jerk response. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, my sesponse was short because there was somewhere else I needed to be in a hurry. I thought what I was suggesting was fairly obvious.  The parentage information (the only unique information not already elsewhere on Wikipedia in most cases) could be added (along with the cited source) to the relevant entries on the list of cultivars on species pages, thus cross-referencing the two species.  This information is in the stub infobox, not the article text.  I wouldn't have thought that there would be an attribution issue with this, the edits could be made under your own name by extracting them directly from the source.  But if necessary, the pages could be preserved as a talk page subpage, possibly all merged on to a single page, which would then allow deletion of the mainspace pages. SpinningSpark 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the first ten in a bundled AfD nomination here: Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'. I didn't ping you directly because I didn't want to appear to be singling you out, but I would welcome continuing the discussion there. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, much easier just to have them deleted than to do the hard work of preserving the encyclopaedic information. I'm not going to waste my time fighting this.  Obviously the stubs can't be justified as standalones so the AFD is going to be approved.  I would volunteer to help preserve the information, but I'm not going to devote a huge block of time to do it by myself in the teeth of determined opposition. But I really think you should read WP:PRESERVE as I think you have forgotten what that says.  Our core task here is to build up encyclopaedic information, not tear it down for bureaucratic reasons. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * in case you have stopped watching this page. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's downright rude of you to assert that I'm being lazy by nominating those articles for deletion and that I don't understand WP:PRESERVE. What possible encyclopedic value exists in the bare sentence "'X' is a hybrid cultivar of the genus Tillandsia in the Bromeliad family," especially considering that it's sourced solely to a user-generated and therefore unreliable database? What is there to preserve that meets our verifiability guidelines? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's downright disingenuous of you to imply that I am trying to preserve non-notable permastubs. I am not – I have consistently talked about preserving the information, not the articles but you stubbornly refuse to get the point. Of course parentage of cultivars is encyclopaedic information.  This is the first time you have raised the issue of source reliability to me.  Previously, the conversation (and your prod nominations) have focused entirely on notability.  That is what I have been responding to. From the sources website The BSI is the only International Cultivar Registration Authority for Bromeliaceae, appointed by the International Society for Horticultural Science's Commission for Nomenclature and Cultivar Registration. So it is not immediately obvious to me that they don't do any checking. Of course you have to write to them to register something. That doesn't prove anything. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Their rules of registration show that they do some checking. Photographs must be provided to show that the cultivar exists and has unique features (which must also be described).  Although some trust is placed in growers to be honest, their rules and advice seem quite extensive.  They don't let in purely made up stuff or plants that are not truly different. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd actually read the AfD rationale, you'd have seen that the argument I laid out there comprehensively discusses both the notability of the individual stubs and the verifiability of the information contained within them. In any case, if you look at the BCR website in any depth, it's evident that they do little if any quality control or scrutiny on submissions. On their general information page, they invite submissions from anyone even if they don't have full details about the plant they've acquired. "Why not take a photograph and give me as much detail as possible (and a new name instead of the grex formula) and I'll put it in the Bromeliad Cultivar Registry." Asking for photos and a text-based description is meaningless in the age of photoshop. They don't ask for seed or cutting samples, they don't mention testing of any kind, submission isn't restricted to verified breeders, it's just "hey anyone send in a form and we'll put it up." In other words, it is entirely taken on good faith that the plant exists as described and actually has the ancestry in question. That is clearly problematic from the point of view of verifiability, and allow me to suggest that you need to read WP:USERGENERATED if you can't understand why that might be so. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Why was the Gurobi article deleted?
I noticed that you deleted the Gurobi article for having "no credible indication of importance." But I wish this article had not been deleted: this software package is frequently used in other mathematical optimization software packages (such as GAMS, Pyomo, and Mathematica), so it seems obviously notable. Jarble (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "No credible claim of importance" is a much lesser test than notability. It failed that test because quite simply the article makes no such claim.  But even if I were to restore the article and send it for a full deletion debate, in its current state, it would still likely get deleted on notability grounds because all the sources are to the product's own website.  Do you have any sources that establish notability?  If so, I might restore it for you.  Note that your claim that it is notable because it is used in other notable packages is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument.  Such arguments are always rejected in deletion debates.  See this page for a brief summary of the kind of sources you need to find. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional appeal to revert the deletion
I'm a long-time Gurobi employee and someone who edited the original article multiple times. Let me both explain why I believe Gurobi is notable and how the article may have downplayed its notability:

Independent views of notability as compared with other commercial solvers with Wikipedia pages, CPLEX and FICO Xpress


 * Gurobi has 30x as many Google Scholar citations this year as FICO Xpress; while Gurobi has about 1/3 fewer citations than CPLEX, Gurobi is also less than half as old
 * Gurobi ranks higher than CPLEX in Google Trends
 * Currently, there are 801 software repositories for Gurobi on Github, about 95% as much as CPLEX's 894 and 160x as many as Xpress-MP
 * Gurobi is the fastest MILP solver in Prof. Hans Mittlemann's benchmarks and was faster than CPLEX and Xpress-MP before they withdrew from the benchmarks

Innovations


 * Gurobi was the first commercial solver to provide no-cost licenses to academic users
 * Gurobi was the first optimization solver to include parallel algorithms with every license
 * Gurobi was the first optimization solver with a Python API and later, a Python modeling syntax
 * Gurobi was the first optimization solver available as a cloud application

I deliberately never mentioned these innovations on the page because I respect that Wikipedia is for facts, not a place for marketing claims. That said, it's upsetting that a product that is widely used and more innovative than its competitors was singled out and completely deleted from Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to include any of these claims if it would bolster the page in the future. Gglockner (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not the same thing as notability, our basic requirment for inclusion. I again point to the link I gave above for the kind of sources that are needed.  Being widely used does not make it notable by Wikipedia's definition (although it might be taken as a hint).  While some of those claims might have stopped the speedy deletion, now that it is deleted I'm not going to restore unless their is evidence that this stands at least a chance of surviving a notability challenge.  Pointing to other products on Wikipedia is not going to help you.  We call that an OTHERSTUFF argument.  Of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, a large number will have dubious notability.  That they still exist may just mean that no one has got round to investigating them yet.  If you have to make comparisons, choose articles that have been through a major review such as Features Articles. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not notable that Gurobi is the fastest MIP solver as evaluated by Prof. Hans Mittlemann? Gglockner (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please read the guidelines already pointed to, starting with this. No attribute of anything makes it automatically notable on Wikipedia. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sock
With regard to this: Please have a loo at the SPI where the use has been confirmed as a sock (it's just a matter of time before they are blocked). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted now. Sorry, I should have spotted that, I only looked at the confirmed category, which is where the link in the template goes to. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Electrical Telegraph
Hey, just wanted to ask you before touching this article since you seem to be fairly over-represented in edits and talk. The opening paragraph starts in past-tense, outright framing it as something that existed in the past and no longer existing now. However, that's manifestly silly, telegrams are still used by the millions every year, even other pages like Worldwide use of telegrams by country point that out, though that obviously isn't a source. Regardless, I was wondering how this slipped through the cracks for so long, since it isn't a recent edit, and if the opening paragraph can be re-framed to not mislead the reader like it currently does. I apologize for everything I am doing wrong, I am obviously not an editor as my lack of account shows. Hence wanting to ask someone closely involved with the article.73.229.90.255 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Telegrams nowadays are pretty much never sent by telegraphy. The telegraph infrastructure is long dead and gone.  The only thing modern telegrams have in common with the old telegraphy is the personal delivery service. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, is there a difference between electrical telegraph systems and Telex? Telegraph services still use Telex infrastructure, at least here in the US, but I have no idea if Telex lines are different from electrical telegraphy lines.73.229.90.255 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is any PTT in the world which will rent you a Telex line as such (or maybe they will, but you will pay through the nose for it). Users can, of course, connect a telex machine to a telephone line via a modem.  This will work if the telex service provider also has a dial-up modem facility at there central exchange, but I doubt that anyone is even doing that any more.  Telex services nowadays, like telegram, are nearly always implemented over the internet using an app on a standard device (PC, phone etc), eg .  Of course, there is always a crazy grognard somewhere in the world who won't give up their old technology, but the reality is that there is no infrastructure any more and as a system it can only be emulated on more modern technology. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Multi7001 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Forms of address in Chile
Hi, would you oppose me turning Forms of address in Chile into a redirect to ? JBchrch  talk  00:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably I would. It's deletion by redirect if you don't actually merge anything.  If anything on that page isn't included, I'd want to hear a rationale why it doesn't belong.  My gut feeling is that the page is actually notable and Spanish language sources will exist. Yes I know WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but forms of address are usually documented at great length.  For instance, my battered old Collins dictionary lists them in an appendix over several pages for various levels of royalty, aristocracy, politicians etc etc.  It's more than likely that something similar is in Chilean etiquette handbooks. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 01:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I guess the rationale would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since the information is based on only one source. But I'm not dying to have this information deleted, especially now that an admin is involved, so I will just leave it at that and move on. JBchrch   talk  01:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't let my administrator status influence you here. I am acting entirely as a regular editor in this, there is no behavioural problem that needs addressing.  I picked up this one because I personally believe that this is the kind of fine detail of knowledge that an encyclopaedia should be covering, putting sourcing issues aside.  It stood out from the mass of non-notable bios that nobody is going to care about in 50 years time, if indeed anyone cares now. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

in case you dont see my reply to you on my talk page
ok hello again..

so to help editors repair the link (which link? there is no dead link on original wiki, a working link on the wiki leads to a page full of junk), am i supposed to somehow point something out to some editor somewhere?

i think you might be missing my point here..the link on the wiki page is not dead, however it links to a completely outdated page from 2008 that is full of nothing but dead links and does not contain any reference whatsoever to the information being stated back on the wiki..so my point is, theres no way for a wiki editor to fix the dead links on this non wiki page. so even though the link on the wiki page is working, i feel it should be removed due to the fact that its destination is basically garbage.

now i could be wrong and i hope you understand im just trying to learn etiquette here. speaking of which, could you please share with me the method you use to create the link in the first message you sent me that read "this edit" and then had a little square with an arrow in it?? and please also let me know what you think about that link being removed because it links to a page full of junk and dead links that no wiki editor can actually fix since its not a wikipedia page.

here is the page the link sends you to, check it out. hopefully youll agree it has no business being referenced to by the wikipedia page for circular reporting. https://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=15989

here is the original wiki for circular reporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting Snarevox (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

History split for Kinecta and Xceed
Now that the Rfd is archived this is just a reminder about the history split for Kinecta Federal Credit Union. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now done. I haven't added the about disambiguation you suggested in the RfD.  That kind of detail does not fit our usual style; the link to the disambiguation page is enough. Instead, I have added the merger information to the article with a link to Kinecta. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Genghis Khan Battle scene.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Genghis Khan Battle scene.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

Appeal an AfD closure
Is there a way I'd be able to appeal an AfD closure? You recently closed an AfD discussion for an article I created Laith Barnouti as delete. Magadlis (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the place to do that is WP:DRV. Please carefully read the instructions on what is valid grounds for appeal before submitting an appeal.  Before doing that, you can first tell me why you are dispuring my close.  It is possible I can change my close if I think you have a case. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes sure. In your deletion consensus rationale, you said that the surgeon doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC being a fellow of RACS. However, he is a member of ASPS, where membership criteria are stringent and by invitation only. And, therefore, they satisfy WP:NACADEMIC bullet #3.


 * You also mentioned that sources offered in support of WP:GNG were deemed insufficient by participants. However, that is not entirely true. The only discussion between those that voted a keep and those that voted a delete was me and LibStar. In my discussion with them, they asked for articles where the surgeon was the main subject of the article and not covered in the context of a different subject. They said they did a google translate of the SBS Australia piece and said it was merely him commenting, where in fact I meant the other article and pointed that out to them in my response, after which they stopped responding and preferred to go ahead tag my name that I could be SPA.


 * If the discussion had been relisted, I think we could have gotten a much clearer consensus. Magadlis (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not buying any of that. What are the "stringent criteria" of ASPC?  That is not entirely clear from their website.  As far as I can tell, the requirement is membership of RACS and the appropriate number of years of experience.  I have to agree with LibStar's assessment of the sources; the source you point to is an interview – that is, Barnouti talking about himself. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Membership is still by invitation only and not awarded based on exams or a number of criteria that can be satisfied by the applicant. It's unclear on their website what criteria they use to grant membership. Members, however, need to have undertaken a minimum of 12 years medical and surgical education, including at least 5 years of specialist postgraduate training, and are Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (FRACS).


 * LibStar's assessment of the source was "again this is merely the Dr commenting on surgical practices, it is not indepth about him as the subject". I'd assume they didn't pay attention to the source I provided. Magadlis (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're just reiterating what has already been said about ASPC, and I've already said I see nothing wrong with LibStar's assessment of the sources. In the absence of anything new, I'm not going to change my close.  If you want to challenge my close, you can take it Deletion review.  If you want to write an improved article, you can go to WP:Requests for undeletion and ask for it to be restored as a draft. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Appeal on an AfD closure
I tagged an article for deletion, and you have removed the tag. The article takes a skirmish from a battle, and frames it as a battle in its own right. There are no secondary or primary sources to back this. It was created as an nationalistic POV essay twelve years ago, and I cannot see how this is anything other than a fictitious battle. (The creator had a history of creating essays without sources, then posting them as articles.) The author took the name of the comparative larger battle, to create a new battle. The skirmish has no significant coverage in multiple sources. I do not see how this can be seen to adhere to the general notability guideline that a Wikipedia article should have. The article is Action of 13 December 1814. If the article is not meeting these requirements, why is this misinformation allowed to continue to exist. Keith H99 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The events that took place from 13th to 14th December 1814 are known as the Battle of Lake Borgne. It was alternatively known by the Royal Navy as the Action of 14th December. The scuttling of a schooner is not documented as a battle by the Royal Navy, the United States Navy or any reliable source.Keith H99 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Below is a summary of the events of the 13th December, a minor skirmish within a small battle.
 * The first contact was with three of Lockyer's launches and the schooner Sea Horse on December 13 at 3:45pm. That morning she had been sent to remove, or failing that to destroy, a stores dump at Bay St. Louis in order to prevent its capture by British forces. The schooner, with the protection of two land-based 6 pounder cannon,[12] saw off three approaching launches with grapeshot, who initially retired out of range. Sea Horse faced a subsequent rowboat attack with four more launches as reinforcements. This renewed attack was 'repulsed after sustaining for nearly half an hour a very destructive fire.'[3] In the face of superior numbers, the Sea Horse was scuttled and the store was set alight, an explosion occurring at 7:30pm with a large fire being visible thereafter.[12]
 * I do not see it being material enough to warrant an article. Were it the case it were a battle honor of the US Navy, and was lauded and documented as such, that's fair enough, but it has never been material enough to be a skirmish within a small engagement.Keith H99 (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, the process you initiated was proposed deletion (prod), not articles for deletion. Prods are for uncontroversial deletions and it did not seem to me there was an unarguable case for deletion here.  Your offered rationales were (a) that it was covered in another article, and (b) that it was unsourced.  Individual actions in a larger battle can be notable so (a) is not by itself grounds for deletion, and (b) is demonstrably false.  I reserve judgement on whehter or not it is actually notable.  You did not raise any POV or accuracy issues in the prod so it is unreasonable for you to have expected me to take that into account when assessing the request.  In any case, such issues are usually dealt with by editing rather than deletion, unless so severe that a complete rewrite from scratch is needed.  You are still able to take this to AfD if you so wish, but you cannot prod it again. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Baghdad Battery
Did you ever look at the source I added to Talk:Baghdad Battery? There's a discussion about this artefact at the Facebook groups Fraudulent Archaeology Hall of Fame and the article I quote there has been mentioned as a good source. It's here. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't read it, but I'm reading it now. It looks like a fine source to me.  I'm not sure what you are asking of me.  If it is can it be used in our article, I agree that it can and should.  What I don't think is that it is grounds for badmouthing Konig and others for perpetuating a fraud or hoax as has been done in the past.  His original paper was good faith scholarship as were his contempories who supported his theory. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see the second half of that paper on gbooks, which is pretty crucial because that is where the author goes on to discuss what these objects were really used for. But I'm sure WP:RX can help, if you don't already have a print copy. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, using the Beta reply button allows me to post at the same time as you, interesting. I'll have a go at getting a copy. Doug Weller  talk 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing about that. But it needs to be clear that the balance of opinion has shifted and the old views are no longer accepted. Doug Weller  talk 08:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I fully agree. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't read German by any chance? I've an article by him in German. Doug Weller  talk 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my German doesn't go much beyond the ability to order a beer in a bar. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the whole article, which ends: "In shortened form it was the strongest mode of expressing a magic spell.
 * Interpretation of the finds
 * Magic texts had to be written on suitable material, sympathetic to the being responsible for the intended effect (gold, silver, papyrus, silk, or parchment for protective magic; lead for curses); they had to be rolled up perhaps, often tied with thread, housed in suitable metal cases for magical protection, provided if necessary with sharp or pointed objects, and worn as an amulet or deposited. The form and materials of the related groups of finds catalogued above become comprehensible given these requirements.
 * The unglazed earthen ware jars of various shapes and sizes
 * were merely containers; they served as protection against mechanical damage during deposition. The sealing of the porous earthenware jars might have been of only magical significance, since the jars would in any case not have been watertight; in the same way as the bronze cylinders were closed at both ends despite having been only rolled together. Bitumen of course was available as an easily worked material for any sealing and insulating. The iron and bronze pins sometimes associated with the groups of finds under investigation had. in the objects found at Sekeucia. the occult function of a magical defensive or protective charm. The iron objects recorded in those finds, the nail from Khuyut Rabbou'a, and the ring-headed nails from Ctesiphon served to bind, to nail fast the contents.
 * We conclude that the earthenware jars found in Parthian and Sassanian contexts, sealed with bitumen and containing metal cases, occasionally associated with papyrus remains
 * and metal rods, did not represent any apparatus with a practical use in the modem sense, eg., the generation of electricity. Rather, they were, as KUhnel (1932) described, containers for "conjurations, blessings and the like, written perhaps on papyrus,” which had been deposited to ex ere be a protective, defensive, or occasionally harmful magic spell.
 * Acknowledgments
 * My thanks are due in particular to Prof. Dr. K. Brisch and Dr. J. Kroger, Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin-Dahlem. They made the material and the documentation of the Ctesiphon excavation available to me and supported my work with interest. I thank Dr. habil. R.M. Boehmer, director of the German Archaeological Institute, Baghdad Department, for his help and advice. Dr. L. M ildenberg director (retired) of t he Bank Leu AG, Zurich, allowed me to use representative objects from his collection for investigation and publication. Prof. Dr. J. Ricdcrcr, director of the Rathgen Research Laboratory, Berlin, encouraged thb work with comments and suggestions. I thank the administration of the Roemer-Peli-zaeus Museum. Hildersheim, for permission to use relevant documentation. Dr. Bahija Khalil Ismail, director of the Iraqi Museum, Baghdad, kindly allowed me to photograph the find from Khuyut Rabbou’a. The lively exchange of ideas with Prof. W. Jansen, Oldenburg University, supported my investigation. I should also like to express my thanks to Dr. E. Bankmann of the analytical department of Hoechst AG for help and critical contributions. I am grateful to Prof. R. Fellmann for valuable comments and for his efforts in the completion of this paper. Doug Weller  talk 13:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I notice that Paszthory does not address the claim that the vessels were once filled with liquid. I believe there used to be a claim in our article that an organic residue in the jars could be the remaining precipitate of an electrolyte. I haven't looked into why this was removed (probably just speculation by unreliable sources). Isn't it ironic that the reliable sources are going with a magical explanation while the fringe sources favour the well established science of electrochemistry! <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I need to see if I can find out more about the claim for an organic residue. I'm not sure it's ironic, and I'd say "religious" explanation, not magical, which seems not surprising given the dates. Doug Weller  talk 11:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's likely the remains of the decomposed papyrus. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Doug Weller  talk 12:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Deletion review for Laith Barnouti
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laith Barnouti. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Magadlis (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border:3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color:#FFFAE0; padding:0.1em 0.2em; height:auto; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Spinningspark , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phila (daughter of Seleucus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)