User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Wiki PCB page, added info

Hi Spinningspark, I am an experienced electronics process engineer working for Selta Spa, Italy. Today I added to a wiki page with many "very old and well know" informations some new information I believe interesting to the relevant community. Is someting about I was interested from time ago (I remember a trip in 1997 to visit a "interconnecton lab" in Connecticut) and now is becoming more common but few information are on the net. I have no "conflict of interest" about this info, I was only sharing some new information. B.R., Eros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlazz (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if you are not associated with LPKF, but as this was the only edit you ever made it seemed likely so I placed the conflict of interest information on your page. In any case, I cannot restore your contribution as it is a copyright violation. SpinningSpark 23:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nathan Norman

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nathan Norman. 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. Giant Bernard (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ãhmed

Thanks for the suggestion to put my notices on the talk page. But this is such an idiotic text that I could not restrain myself...Super48paul (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Super48paul: It's academic, as I have now deleted the page, but it is unlikely that anyone would have had a problem with you just boldly trimming the article. By the way, when you talk to an administrator about a page, please give a link to it. We deal with a lot of users and pages and it is not always self-evident which one you are talking about. SpinningSpark 14:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cassini Grid

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

National Council on Strength & Fitness

I had listed it as G11, not A7. I agree it might be notable, but its hopelessly promotional. Pls. look again. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realised you had put it as G11, and I agree the article has issues, but it just did not seem to me to rise to the level of requiring deletion. I don't understand why you did not just delete it yourself, you're an admin. I won't object if you want to do that now. Or if you don't think that is proper, put the csd notice back and have another admin take a look. SpinningSpark 05:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

alpha

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bipolar_junction_transistor&curid=49338&diff=686849332&oldid=686847425 why is alpha not less than unity due to base-emitter current? Gah4 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed it wasn't. That addition was a pretty minor part of the edit I reverted. The edit as a whole was erroneous (in ways explained in my edit summary), had an unnecessary diversion into Kirchhoff's laws, and was pretty much a restatement of what is already in the article.

Although the statement about base-emitter current was correct, it was inserted in an ungrammatical and confusing way. It could be readded, but really needs wording better. SpinningSpark 10:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Azimut Holding

Hi there. I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azimut Holding as "keep." Could you explain why? I would have expected a "no consensus" but one "keep" vote is rarely enough to close something as a "keep." If you're reasoning is because the other editor posted lengthy reasons for keeping, I'd respond that the few links provided are all very trivial mentions that are not really about Azimut, and only one provided is from a traditionally reliable source (the WSJ one, which has just a couple of sentences about Azimut). I would think by definition a single keep vote can't be consensus for anything. Thanks. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It could have been no consensus, but after being relisted twice there remained only one response. This was for keep, presented a great deal of prima facie credible evidence that it was notable, none of which was challenged by you, the proposer, or anyone else. SpinningSpark 15:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

National secretary?

Hi. You removed the A7 speedy deletion template I posted to Luciano Cuciniello with the remark "The article claims that he was National Secretary of the Communist Party of Italy." According to the article, he was:

• consigliere comunale del PCI ad Ercolano = communal council member from the PCI in Ercolano
• segretario della Sezione della FGCI di Ercolano = secretary of the FGCI section of Ercolano
• segretario cittadino del PCI e capogruppo al Comune = city-wide secretary of the PCI and group leader for the commune
• membro del Comitato Federale e poi del Direttivo della Federazione Comunista napoletana = member of the Federal Committee and then of the Directorate of the Neapolitan Communist Federation

These are all local positions, except perhaps "membro del Comitato Federale", which at best means he was a member of a national-level committee. The lead sentence summarizes this: "... una delle figure più rilevanti del Italian Communist Party (PCI) di Ercolano ..." = "... one of the most significant figures of the PCI of Ercolano ...".

—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, that's what comes of relying on machine translations. SpinningSpark 20:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Block of Sweepy

Thank you for blocking this user. I don't know if you are aware, but a little research on the German Wikipedia showed me that he has a long history of questionable redirects and bad edits to disambiguation pages at several projects, and has been blocked on the German Wikipedia as well. He has another username de:Benutzer:Werddemer who was also active here with the same problems, and managed to get globally blocked. The reason cited for the global block is this list of blocked account on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have never asked for a global block, but I think it wouldn't be difficult to get one arranged for him. He certainly should not be unblocked. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Emile (2nd nomination)

Could you add an explanation to the AfD please of how you interpreted consensus as in favour of deletion? Ignoring the socks I see 2 deletes based solely on the content of the article at the time it was nominated, and one weak keep and one strong keep based on the coverage that exists. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'd missed that werldwayd was not one of the socks. Socking AfDs really works against them. I am going to restore it and relist. SpinningSpark 13:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way on notability, but I think relisting would be appropriate. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Patch antenna article

Dear Spinningspark:

All the materials used in the previous version of the article were created by me and are my property. They are used in my radio-related books but also in presentations and other venues. I don't offhand know how to undo the deletion, but the current abbreviated article is clearly less useful than the longer one that was there. Unless you think the material was wrong, please restore it.

--Dan Dobkin (danield101) dan@enigmatic-consulting.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.126.45 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Danield101: Hi Dan, thanks for providing this article, but the copyright is problematic. Putting aside the issue that I have no means of verifying that you are who you claim to be, the book from which the material is copied has a clear copyright statement claiming copyright by the publisher, Elsevier. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but I don't see how you can donate material for which you have already given the rights to a publisher. I agree that the article is now not so useful, but we cannot allow copyrighted material to remain on this site. Leaving anything there at all was a compromise, my first reaction was to delete the article altogether, since extracting the non copyvio material is next to impossible without a complete rewrite from scratch. SpinningSpark 09:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Elsevier has a system for authors to get permission to use their books and articles in other ways: here Seems to me that a small part of the book would be useful, and a link to the book would sell more books. Gah4 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If the editor has such permission, and that permission is compatible with Wikipedia licencing, then he should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org with evidence of that permission and get an OTRS ticket number to post on the article talk page. Once that has been done, the material can be restored. SpinningSpark 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Date changing

A long time ago you told me to advise you of serial date changers - could you check User: Tighter jeans e.g. recent edit to Der Opernball. I have to go log off now. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've rolled them back. Seems to have stopped for now so no need for further actions. SpinningSpark 11:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation for mineral spirits for use in compasses and gauges

You commented on this when you reinserted the citation-needed tag so I want to run this by you. Searching all over the place I find mostly forums for repairs of compasses. It seems that many types of liquid have been, and continue to be, used but I wouldn't think that a do-it-yourself forum is a legit reference for the WP. However, I did find a statement on a compass makers FAQ page that indicates that for a time they did use mineral spirits in this application. Is that a legit citation?

In either case I will reword the sentence in the article to make it clear that mineral spirits is just one of many liquids that are used for this. Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Without seeing the cite in mind, I can only give you a general answer. Forums are not usually considered reliable sources because in essence they are self-published. We can sometimes accept blogs and the like if we know the blogger is a recognised expert in the field (and the test for that is that he/she must be previously published in the relevant field in reliable sources) However, I don't think any of that is necessary in this case. A search on gbooks shows that there are many book sources that could be used. I don't think it's particularly necessary either to go into what other liquids are used, this article is about what white spirit is used for, not about compasses. SpinningSpark 19:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your main point. Company websites are not the best of sources, again they are self-published. They can be considered reliable sources about themselves for non-spammy non-promotional information. So in this case, the reliable information would be that this company once used mineral spirits in compasses, but not that it is used in compasses generally. SpinningSpark 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I started to add the google-books archive of a 10+ year old magazine article (liquid filled compass history of sorts) but wonder if one should cite the magazine directly rather than the google archive. The problem is that one probably cannot find the magazine readable online elsewhere while it just seems wrong to cite google. The archive is here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EFjuPDJ1l8oC&pg=RA1-PA24&dq=compass+mineral+spirit&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAGoVChMI3pz-5dbxyAIVTEImCh3aEA7D#v=onepage&q=compass%20mineral%20spirit&f=false Arbalest Mike (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arbalest Mike: You should cite the original magazine. A link to the online page can also be provided, and is very helpful, but is not essential. SpinningSpark 10:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Licen_e

I'm not going to say or do anything more in this situation, aside from continuing this conversation if you feel like responding to my note. If you think it wise and productive to un-close what I closed at the admin noticeboard, feel free to un-close it; you won't get any objections from me.

Have you yourself checked the OED's entry on this subject? I can't remember if you quoted it, and if so, what you said; I'm asking for information, not questioning you. Entry 107946 in the online OED, license | licence, v., is heavily weighted toward the former spelling, so strongly that the latter can be taken as a nonstandard variant that should be changed. Only two usages postdate 1800, and neither one should be taken authoritatively: the one from Our Village is quoting a sign in a rural spot (hardly a trustworthy source for standard spelling), and the one from The Ring and the Book uses both spellings seven lines apart (why would we trust as standard a source that isn't internally consistent?). "License(d)" is the spelling used by the latest quotation in all senses, except for the obsolete 1c in which the newest quotation is from 1587; it's than a decade older than a quotation in 1b, Neuer shewing themselues more attentiue, nor at any time licencing themselues a more secret speech of the Prince (1598), and obviously nobody will argue for that sentence as a standard for 21st-century spelling. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You here reject OED's preference for "license" because of the age of its quotations. Newer quotations than 1901 are not possible, given the fact that "This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1902)." Given the fact that this is the newest available definition from OED, your rejection of OED will not again be dignified with a response. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling. MOS explicitly mandates the use of the S spelling. (Oh, and when you go the virtual pub to drink the beer that User:Denisarona got for you, have a look at the plate above the door, and see how they spell it there.) Bazonka (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirchhoff

Mr.Spinning, I have no idea what you're talking about. I do not even know what Kirchhoff's circuit laws is. You should the page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.4.16 (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal fiber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hog. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Battle of Lang Son

I do not understand why you have declined the speedy deletion of Second Battle of Lang Son. The reinstated page, despite now containing 2 references still contains practically no information, which is the reason why the page was deleted in the first place. No such distinction is even warranted given that the "2nd Battle" immediately followed the 1st and so was merely a phase of the fighting at Lang Son. Of the 2 refs given, one relates to the Chinese announcement of their withdrawal and only 1 relates to the "Battle" but with minimal detail. I have renamed 1st Battle of Lang Son to Battle of Lang Son and consolidated the minimal information on the "2nd Battle" into it. I request that you restore the speedy delete or preferably delete the page. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, besides anything else, now that you have merged the material into another article, the history of the page must be kept for licensing reasons. The original AFD did not delete because of the poor quality of the article. AFDs almost never delete for this reason. Besides you as proposer, the AFD had only one weak delete recommendation. This was on the basis that no sources could be identified specifically referring to Lang Son as a separate identifiable battle. That rationale is no longer valid, and by the way, the AFD seemed to completely miss that one of the sources found during the AFD actually had a whole chapter with the name "The Battle of Lang Son, February—March 1979". The link in the AFD goes only to a brief mention in the introduction. You can take it back to AFD if you want, but it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion G4 and a home for the history would still need to be found.

In your page move you have created a redirect from First Battle of Lang Son to Battle of Lang Son. Since you seem to think that that redirect is ok, then I don't see why you don't just redirect this article to the same place. SpinningSpark 10:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Antimatter

Hey SpinningSpark I saw that the page of antimatter had been changed. Can I revert the change? "within spacetime" is more explanatory for the context of the page. SireWonton 04:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SireWonton (talk • contribs)

If you are referring to this edit, it is gobbledegook. Do you have a connection with this IP? SpinningSpark 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh..what do you mean by gobbledegook? And also I understand the difference between "until" and "in". Will do better next time. SireWonton 23:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SireWonton (talk • contribs)

Particles of antimatter don't bind to form normal matter. Adding "within the constrictions of spacetime" does not make it any more true, and anyway is more or less meaningless. SpinningSpark 23:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inverted-F antenna

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inverted-F antenna 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 Samtar -- Samtar (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inverted-F antenna

The article Inverted-F antenna you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Inverted-F antenna 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. samtar ^{t} 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Marianna Yarovskaya

Marianna Yarovskaya page which was created through the AFC process on 9th November 2015, with different content and references, but deleted again as per previous discussion in 2012.

Can you please restore it. Iamothers (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You have already made the same request to User:Ymblanter, please do not admin shop. Ymblanter is the deleting admin and is the right person to ask in the first instance. SpinningSpark 15:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy violation?

Hi, Spinningspark. You happen to be the first admin whose name came up on my watchlist, so you happen to be the one I'll put this question to. I apologise in advance for not knowing how to do proper diffs, though.

Our Lady of La Salette is on my watchlist because I've been trying to keep it neutral: "two children reported seeing" rather than "two children saw", etc. Yesterday User: Seedskebob created a section, ‎[[1]] by adding a large amount of text copied verbatim from another website. The source invites people to use and distribute the material as widely as possible, so it seems copyright isn't an issue to them, but does WP have a policy about this kind of use of text copied verbatim? It seems as though it should . . .

Thanks in advance for your input. Awien (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the source urges the material to be copied, it does not necessarily translate to a Wikipedia compatible licence, so I have reverted it and revdeleted the history. To release it, they have to explicitly release it on a free licence or into the public domain. In any case, I would read that as only asking for the historical document to be copied, not the whole webpage, and the home page carries a copyright notice. Even if it had been licenced, it is still plagiarism to present it as if it were our own work. It would need to be attributed (not just added to the references). The original historical document, the bulk of the insertion, appears to be out of copyright due to age, so it can be copied as public domain. However, posting it wholesale into Wikipedia is a breach of WP:NOT, Wikisource is the place for that. I don't know anything about the subject, but the contribution also seemed to lack neutrality, and I've now lost count of how many policy breaches that is. SpinningSpark 20:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and the explanation. I appreciate it. Awien (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The large amount of text was copied with the publishers permission. See Below. This message was added with the text on the page because it applies to the whole pages content and I provided a link so people could see for themselves, that this material is free of copyright violations. " ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

       The original text of the Message and Secret of La Salette, approved by the Catholic Church, are published here in their entirety for the first time in the English Language.

       We sincerely thank Mr. Joseph Corteville, President of the Association of the Children of Notre Dame of La Salette and of Saint Louis Marie Grignion of Montford+, and Director of L'Impartial+, a Marian revue, to have graciously supplied us with this manuscript and for authorizing us to publish same.

       In our turn, we authorize all people, journalists, editors or associations to republish this faithfully in whole or in part.

       It is essential that these prophetic messages be wide spread more than ever in all of the world and as quickly as possible. It is an order from the Mother of God. “Well, my children, you will pass it on to all of my people.”

       We are counting on the support and initiative of all people of good will to attain our goal. We ask Our Lady's blessings on this apostolate and its supporters. 

The Editors"

Thank you for your concernSeedskebob (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

They have not said explicitly that they are placing the material in the public domain. Rather, they have said it may be reproduced "fatihfully". That means it cannot be edited. Our users cannot create derivative works from it. It is thus not compatible with Wikipedia licencing. Even if it was suitably licenced, it is still not appropriate to copy entire documents into Wikipedia. See our WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy and WP:NOFULLTEXT guideline. SpinningSpark 08:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Spinningspark. Could you do something? In the article of "Our Lady of La Salette" a user called "Seedskebob" continues modifying the article to his way violating copyrights and doing copy / paste. He writes: "Although an approved message, many people still seek to keep this message hidden from public viewing." As I know this message of 1879 is not approved by the Church and who are those "many people". He is writing according his opinion as an original research. What he is doing is advertising.

An imprimatur is not the same that an approbation. He writes too:

"In our turn, we authorize all people, journalists, editors or associations to republish this faithfully in whole or in part. It is essential that these prophetic messages be wide spread more than ever in all of the world and as quickly as possible."

It is obviously advertising. I hope someone can do something. Thank you very much.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You can revert the edits yourself. In my opinion, Seedskebob is now edit warring, and I have given him a warning for that. However, I won't be able to block him for it as I have now edited the article, which technically makes me involved in the dispute. You will need to find another admin for that. You can also post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Seedskebob is clearly trying to push some kind of POV (but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "advertising"). SpinningSpark 08:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Camel-hair brush

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Bailey Marquis

Hello, Spinningspark -- It was such a pleasure reading and copy-editing Thomas Bailey Marquis. Did you write this article? I enjoyed reading about this very interesting man and his books and accomplishments. I hope you approve of the many small edits I've made. I'm going to read through the article again, with fresh eyes, tomorrow. Corinne (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. "Gift shop" is American English.

P.S.#2 - Normally, it makes no difference to me which style of English is used in an article. I've read WP:ENGVAR and only change spellings, date formats, etc., to ensure consistency within an article. I think the two main criteria for deciding which style to use are:

1) the style selected by the writer of the first version beyond the original stub, and

2) the style used in the particular area that is the home or setting of the subject of the article, that is, the subject of the article has a strong connection with a country. (I don't know which of these criteria takes precedence.)

I was just wondering why you elected to use British English for an article on an American who devoted his life to working with, and studying, Native Americans and American history? Does it make sense to you? Or perhaps it doesn't matter.

In the course of copy-editing articles, and just reading articles, on Wikipedia, my impression has been that most articles are written in British English (perhaps your impression is the opposite; maybe we notice most what is different from what we're used to). So, it would be nice to read a few written in American English. But I'll leave that up to you. It's your choice (and changing the style of this article would involve making quite a few changes). Corinne (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflict-I haven't fully digested your last post yet) That's all fine Corrine, and thanks for doing that. Yes, it is all my work, it has only recently been moved out of my userspace. The only thing I would usually start a fight over is taking out the double spaces after periods, but only with editors who aren't doing anything particularly useful to the article. Are you checking for American English? There are still a couple of things in there which I was pretty sure would need changing. SpinningSpark 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, this article definitely needs to be in American English. I have written it in British English simply because I am British and understand that variety. The strong connection with America definitely overrides my choice of language to start the article in this particular case. You might be amused though, by my comments on this issue at the article on the Wooden Leg book. The language variety was the main issue driving the request for copyediting. SpinningSpark 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments at the Wooden Leg article are amusing. Regarding the double spaces between sentences, that's actually the way I learned to type, decades ago, on a typewriter. We always put two spaces after each period/full-stop. When I started editing on WP, I had to learn not to leave two spaces. I know they don't make any difference in the actual article. I remove them because, as I'm copy-editing, I am actually reading the article in Edit Mode, and I can see the overall organization of the paragraph better when the sentences are close together. I'll change the things that need changing for American English, and as I read through the article again, I may have one or two questions for you. Corinne (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, I wanted to add that I did notice inconsistency re style of English as I was reading the article, but I wanted to wait until I knew which style you wanted to use before I made any changes. Corinne (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I made the changes to American English. I'm too tired now to find the minor things I wanted to ask you about. I'll look for them tomorrow. Corinne (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Corrine. I didn't mean to make you justify your removal of double spaces, but now that you have, it is fine by me. You did it to help you improve the article. It's drive-by editors who do it just for the sake of it that get me worked up. There are a number of drive-by things like that that get me hot under the collar. Another is editor's who come along and put all the refs into cite templates. Now I hate cite templates with a vengeance, and if they were added drive-by the editor is going to get reverted along with a rude message. Letting it stand means I would have to continue using cite templates if I ever wanted to take the article to FA. But if the editor has come to the article with new material and new references and finds it easier to work that way, that is an entirely different matter. SpinningSpark 09:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What about cite templates? I wouldn't go redo existing references, but I tend to get them wrong without the template. Gah4 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I never add material to articles, so I'm not well-versed on referencing style, but I think I also prefer the simple reference style, with the "ref" at each end of the reference. If you don't like the cite template I don't think you would like the referencing style used at Phineas Gage. I and several others were trying, with little success, to convince the editor that the style was too complicated. See Talk:Phineas Gage, Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 13, and Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 12. I am definitely not encouraging use of that system. I just thought you might like to see it. Corinne (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fonts

Hello, Spinningspark -- I was skimming the article Wikipedia:Typography (linked from Help:Advanced text formatting, an interesting article, and specifically Help:Advanced text formatting#Changing font faces), and in the section Wikipedia:Typography#Common Windows fonts I saw a few fonts that I like. I don't know enough about computers to know if I can use one of these fonts, say, on my user or talk page without installing a whole software package like the one I read about on WP:MediaWiki, or, if I can, how to enable them. I also don't understand the note that appears under that table (the list of fonts) that says all but two don't have bold or italic variants, when I see Regular, Bold, Italic, Bold Italic right there in the table (far right-hand column). Corinne (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You can use any font you like on your user page if they are installed. If you have a Windows machine you will almost certainly already have the ones shown as common Windows fonts. You can see what fonts you have by going to C:\\Windows\Fonts on your computer. Fonts are easy to install, and you can get lots of them free, others you pay for, but bear in mind that other people looking at your page will only be able to display fonts that they have installed. If they don't have them, their browser will take a guess at finding another font to replace it so something will be displayed, but it may be nothing like you intended. You are fairly safe if you stick to the common pre-installed fonts, but if you go out and buy a fancy arty display font, chances are only you will ever see it in its full glory. SpinningSpark 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Well, how do I use these common fonts? Let's say, Georgia or Calibri. Corinne (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If I want to write in Georgia, for instance like this,

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit

I need to write this in edit mode,

<span style="font-family:Georgia;">Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit</span>

If you want to make it a bit bigger, like,

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit

You write

<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:larger;">Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit</span>

Oh, by the way, the answer to your question about bold and italic variants; if a font does not have say, an italic variant and you specify italics, then your browser will take the upright font and display it sloping. This has the desired effect, but can be a bit uglier than a font that was designed as an italic font. Same story with bolding. SpinningSpark 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

FIRST AND FINAL WARNING

If you continue to replace my removed posts without my consent you will be immediately and directly reported to Wikipedia for Harassment. This is your First and Final Warning. Others who have commented can remove their own posts if they so wish to. You have been Warned. Anton Kole (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anton Kole: Did you read the talk page guidelines I linked you to on your talk page? Good luck with your report, but I think you will find that I'm in the right. SpinningSpark 13:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anton Kole: Typing in all capital letters, Anton, is considered 'shouting' and appears to be discourteous. Let's make editing a friendlier thing by staying in lower case when possible. You can still give dire warnings and make your point in a gentle and kind manner. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperance songs

Thank you so much for your edits on Temperance songs. Sometimes I write too quickly and make a lot of mistakes and I am always humbled and grateful to editors like you that catch these errors of mine. If you would like, feel free to go over any of my newly created articles and make improvements. My prose is not that good and someone with more skill can probably improve greatly on what I have written. Thank you again, I appreciate your work. The Very Best of Regards,Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am back to bother you. There is a special place for articles like your Beans and Bacon mine. See my edits here - I hope you are honored to make this wikipedia page, its one of my favorites.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Elm with Stone Heart

The reason why I put an orphan tag was because the author and the book are the only links to each other. This seems to be a Walled garden at the moment. Also, the book may be named "Stone-hearted Tree" based on the sources that I've been finding while expanding the author's page for Wikipedia Asian Month. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Thankyou, but I am already aware what a walled garden is and there was no need to link the page. What you do need to link when you raise a matter about on article an a busy user's page is a link to the article you are talking about, preferably with a diff showing the problem you want to discuss. You should not place inaccurate templates on articles. If there is no suitable template, then discuss the issue on the article talk page instead (you should do that anyway even if there is a template). The walled garden is a non-issue here, it can easily be fixed by adding the author, at least as a see also, to one or more of the following articles: Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, List of Mongolians, Hada (activist), and Index of Mongolia-related articles. SpinningSpark 23:02, 24 November 2015 (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 Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done my review. Thought a bot would notify you of that. Anyway, it's ready for your input. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Economy of Brahmanbaria

Thanks for doing that merge. 😊 I was just having a tea break whilst thinking about the best way to do it. Prepare for the originator to revert it though, as he has just finished a 48 hour block for edit warring over the copyediting I have been doing on the article. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Buckminsterfullerene edits

I am not a troll. The edits i had made were completely accidental, and i am so so sorry for doing what i did.

2601:282:8002:299B:E871:985F:8181:56C (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing that this was accidental. SpinningSpark 11:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Inverted-F antenna

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Bailey Marquis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Bailey Marquis 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 E.M.Gregory -- E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your user page problem... Guy (Help!) 00:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

... might be going away of its own accord, sadly: [2]

DYK for Thomas Bailey Marquis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Real ear measurement

Hello! Your submission of Real ear measurement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

More issues noted. Please stop by at your earliest convenience. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Accountancy in Luxembourg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intertrust. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Significant New Information on Anthony Conway Page Discussion and Closure

Hello, I believe you were the Closing Administrator to a discussion that happened toward the end of October. I am a new contributor (one article) to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and throughout I’ve been very open to constructive advice as I learned the Wikipedia way in writing the first article. Coming back to Wikipedia in preparation for writing a second article I discovered that the first article (Biography of Anthony Conway) was recently incorrectly marked as an “Autobiography” which led to a rapid deletion discussion. I haven’t visited Wikipedia for some time now, and was totally unaware of any discussion on the article.

It appears as the Administrator that closed the discussion you may have in good faith interpreted the consensus incorrectly due to the lack of important information being available to you, and the strong influence of a skewed non-neutral point of view that dominated the majority of the discussion.

It’s very obvious when objectively looking at most of the available discussion, widespread editing, and recommendations for deletion — the majority of the editors, however well intended, were all strongly influenced by the original patently incorrect assertions and personal opinion presented as fact by a new editor. This is contrary to Wikipedia’s policy and expectations in regard to a non-bias, neutral point of view when reviewing, editing, and tagging articles.

Now that I’m aware of the mistaken discussion, I'd like to bring to your attention significant new information as the editor that did the initial research on the subject and creator of the biography I am most familiar with the topic and sources.

The discussion and momentum toward deletion stemmed from an October 14, 2015 post by a self-acknowledged new editor, Seeker1111, which had blatantly incorrect and unsupported claims throughout that were presented in an obviously bias language. This editor incorrectly ended the post with — “It’s an autobiography and should be deleted”.

Looking with an open mind at Seeker1111’s post, their preconceived bias is clear throughout in the use of the wording — “He”, “His” and “He links” in marking the article an autobiography. The MAJOR PROBLEM and MISTAKE with this editor’s unsupported personal opinion is — I am NOT A “HE”. I’m a “SHE”.

My name is Nichole (Niknakc), and “SHE” was the originator of the biography and the editor that made “the links” in the article. NOT the subject of the article as is incorrectly asserted by Seeker1111, and subsequently blindly followed by most editors in the discussion.

Naturally, within a few days of the false assertions by the new editor Seeker1111, led to being a strong influence on most other editors review of the page, which mirrored this incorrect “bias autobiographic preconception” rather than a neutral perspective. An editor’s point of view determines what they see, what they think about, and ultimately what they do.

Taking into consideration this significant new information, when one impartially looks back through what occurred from the original post of October 14, 2015, it is clear that the progression in the inaccurate tagging of the page, subsequent improper discussion, and recommendations for deletion were tainted by undue weight being given to an incorrect, and non-neutral premise. Bias and unsupported reasoning is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia policy.

It is very reasonable that you too may have made an honest mistake in the deletion of the page by incorrectly interpreting the improperly slanted consensus. Taking into account the significant new information provided here, I respectfully ask for the article to be undeleted and restored to prior the widespread bias editing. Thank you for your consideration. Niknakc (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. You did not give your reasoning regarding consensus for the closure of discussion and decision to delete. I would appreciate you providing your reasoning as an experienced editor/Administrator. Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Niknakc: The deletion debate was unanimously in favour of deletion. Under those circumstances administrator's have no option but to close it as delete, whatever they think of the reasoning. As it happens though, I did agree that the article was promotional in tone (even after heavy cleanup by others) and some of the referencing is very suspect. I have restored the page for you as a draft at Draft:Anthony Conway where you can work on it before resubmitting. However, WP:TNT was repeatedly referred to during the deletion debate, meaning that you may be better off wiping it and starting over. It also seems that you are close to the artist, so you should read WP:Conflict of interest and possibly WP:Paid-contribution disclosure. SpinningSpark 10:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thank you for your timely response. I appreciate you restoring the page as a draft so that I may review the article to see what the suggestions of other editors are and their reasoning. I’m very open to input from the Wikipedia community, but the page not being available I was not able to see their efforts. I’m looking forward to seeing what they’ve contributed to improving the article.

While it appears the minimum time requirements of a deletion debate transpired, I don’t see the need to rush through my request for your consideration of new significant information in regard to the page’s debate and deletion. For one, it’s not a practical expectation at this time of year when everyone is busy with holiday responsibilities and end of the year celebrations. Also, it is apparent there are several concerns in regard to both the article, and the deletion debate, which need to be weighed in accord to Wikipedia policy. So, for the sake of a concise and balanced consideration of the issues in their full and accurate context — let’s take it one bit at a time.

A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is the assumption that comments and edits of contributors are made in good faith. To draw conclusions based on appearances alone without reasonable supporting substantiation is contrary to Wikipedia policy and mistakes occur as a result. You now know the “bias autobiography preconception” first asserted on October 14, 2015 by Seeker1111 (“It’s an autobiography and should be deleted.”) as a reason for nominating the article for deletion, and mirrored by a few editors throughout the deletion debate — was an incorrect opinion. Now, let’s first objectively address your valid hypothetical question — “It seems you (Niknakc) are close to the artist”?

I do understand how to you, and perhaps a few other editors, it may seem that the artist (subject) and I (contributor) are close because of my familiarity with the subject. The fact is, my knowledge about the artist is the result of what I learned from the effort I put into researching the subject in mainstream publications from this region of the United States. Hypothetically, if the subject of the article was not a biography of someone of note that happens to live in SC — but instead the Palmetto Tree, I would be just as familiar with the tree from researching information on that subject. By the way, in case you are not familiar with this subject as well, the Palmetto Tree is very well known in the state I live because many of them live where I live, and it’s the symbol on the SC state flag. My relative knowledge of the Palmetto Tree does not inherently make me a fan of the tree, or to have a close connection to the tree in any way.

The only other major thing I have in common with the artist (subject), is that we both live in the same part of the state of South Carolina — and to be more specific — the Upstate. To accurately understand what this means in it’s full context - I (contributor) live in a different city than the city that the artist (subject) lives — and both cities happen to be within the same, and the largest urban area of the entire state of South Carolina — with a population of over 1.4 million people.

This area of South Carolina is a thriving and large urban area, and not a small sleepy southern town as was being assumed by editors in the deletion debate as a "valid reason" to consider any local sources for the article to be judged as suspect. We can discuss this further later if needed.

So, the answer to this concern is NO - I’m not close to the artist (subject). Nor, am I a paid contributor. In regard to how major, or minor, this editor’s contribution to the page may be over time, there is no conflict of interest. After all, let us keep in perspective what the article is about — the subject is a living artist in mid-career, and there is still a great deal of potential history to unfold. This editor shall remain neutral as to what the level of contribution to society and the art world this artist, or any living artist, could achieve in their lifetime.

Improving an article’s perceived tone/style is one of the main things editors discuss and improve upon within the mainstream Wikipedia community. It’s unfortunate I was unaware of the nomination and discussion so that I would have been able to contribute to the debate. Just like the expected process is to go to the Closing Administrator first to resolve potential issues prior to a deletion review — In this case, discussion, and attempt to improve the article should have occurred first in the mainstream Wikipedia community over an extended period of time prior to any nomination for deletion discussion. Unfortunately, this did not happen and only a handful of editors were involved in advocating TNTing the entire page.

With the subject of art and artists, opinions are very diverse and subjective, and this is why a mistake such as this can happen. Because Wikipedia is an open community where anybody can contribute, there are checks and balances that allow Administrator’s the flexibility to correct mistakes when there is evidence that the activity of a User(s) was in bad faith, and unsupported personal opinion has mistakenly been given undue weight and influence in a deletion debate; resulting in this case, in the improper nomination of the article for deletion, and the subsequent discussion and deletion. I’m assuming you only looked at the nominated article and the deletion debate to form your interpretation and decision. Please correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption.

I have raised a valid concern in regard to User Seeker1111. This is not an arbitrary concern, rather a verifiable appraisal that is substantiated by the record of the activity and contribution of User Seeker1111.

I bring to your attention this additional significant new information that you may not have been aware of, that confirms this was an improper nomination for deletion, and in fact was an overzealous deletion. This information shows it would not be rationally possible for any Administrator to have had a balanced interpretation of the deletion debate! Please take a moment to review the initial activity of Seeker1111, and Seeker1111’s contribution, and please share with me how this User’s only activity on, and contribution to Wikipedia — reasonably appears/seems to you? Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Niknakc: Now this is the second time you have posted a long, argumentative post to my page. Please don't do it again, I won't reply unless it is succint and to the point. By the way, all that bolding is considered rude here, it is equivalent to shouting. If you want to change the deletion policy, arguing with me is not the way to go about, I can point you to the right place if you want, but I suggest you get some more experience and understanding of Wikipedia's workings before you try something like that.

The deletion process was perfectly proper, open to the entire community, and kept open longer than the mandatory seven days. The article was tagged as problematic for even longer. You say you are bringing new information to the debate, but I don't see anything of relevance. Whether or not the participants misunderstood who you are is not relevant, it is what is in the article that counts. If you really want to appeal the deletion, I can redelete the draft page and you can take it to deletion review. I guarantee that the decision will be to keep it deleted.

I sympathise with you that you missed the debate, but I don't believe the outcome would have been any different if you had posted there (if you had made the posts above, in my opinion that would have made it worse). You can make sure you don't miss anything important in the future by checking the "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" in your Preferences. Make sure that you have registered an e-mail account and that the article and your user talk page are on your watchlist.

The only thing you have done of significance on Wikipedia is one article with a promotional tone. That makes you a prima facie single purpose account. SPAs are nearly always problematic, and it is not surprising that editors have assumed you have a conflict of interest. It is no use protesting that that is not the case, the only way to counter that is to start writing material that is neutral and factual. SpinningSpark 10:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thank you for your constructive criticism as an experienced editor/Administrator. Yes, I readily acknowledge that I am a new contributor (one article a year ago), and I’m not as active as others as of yet (returned to college), and a novice on Wikipedia workings. As I first stated to you — I was unaware of any deletion debate on the article, and only learned of it when I returned to Wikipedia in preparation of starting a second article on a new subject.

It appears from your reply, that you may have misinterpreted my second post on your page on this topic. I wasn’t arguing with you a change in the deletion policy, nor do I want to change the deletion policy — I was simply referring to potential conflicts with Wikipedia policy that may have occurred in this matter in relation to my request for your reconsideration. You are the Closing Administrator to this deletion debate and I’m merely sharing with you new information that you may not have been aware of, as you reconsider your interpretation of the deletion debate (and the article) in accord with Wikipedia policy.

I was also trying to factually answer as simply as possible, the question you posed of “an appearance of a conflict of interest between the contributor and subject” in your reply to me on the initial post to you requesting your reconsideration of the deletion debate.

I appreciate your advice as an experienced editor/Administrator, as it will help me to become one myself one day. As I recall, my email account is already registered with Wikipedia when I became a registered User over a year ago, so I’ll look into setting my preferences as you suggest. Please forgive my being unaware that bolding the type meant shouting — That was not my intent. I do not want to be unintentionally rude to anyone in my posts. For future reference when making posts on Wikipedia talk pages — what is the corresponding meaning of — italicizing, ALL CAPS, and “quotation marks” — in Wikipedia etiquette? Thanks! Niknakc (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SHOUT. SpinningSpark 01:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the info on Wikipedia Talk etiquette. I’ll be traveling during the holidays so we can discuss further if need be at start of the year. Again, thank you for restoring the page as a draft so I could see what the other editors contributed to improve the tone of the article. I’m starting to better understand the Wikipedia tone when writing on a subject.

The information in the article is factual and from multiple sources. Obviously my inexperience in writing this first article shows in my not using the proper tone. When I originated the article a little over a year ago I had help from editors and none of them ever commented that they thought it was written in a promotional tone. So, it would be very helpful to me in learning how to be a better contributor to Wikipedia if you could explain exactly what was it in the article that made it promotional in tone to you?

And, what still seems promotional in tone in the article’s current state after heavy cleanup? Knowing what is promotional tone by your example as an experienced editor/administrator would be really helpful to me as I learn from this how to improve any article I contribute.

Thank you, and have a merry Christmas and New Year!! Niknakc (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Niknakc, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page, in fact, you don't generally need to ping me at all. Like most regular editors, I automatically watchlist any page I post on, at least for a short while. Pinging is mostly used for new editors who might not understand watchlisting, and also on very busy pages with lots of simultaneous conversations where the reply might otherwise be missed.

@Niknakc: I don't really want to get involved in a detailed review, that was not my role in this. I suggest that you carefully go through the comments raised at the AFD. In particular, the reference to Thomas Eakins in the lead comes across to me as name-dropping. What is it doing in the lead at all? The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and I don't see anywhere in the aticle that Eakins is claimed to be an important influence. The extensive notes were also mentioned in the AFD. While some editors give direct quotes from the sources in the notes to show that an offline source does indeed verify the fact cited, your use of such notes seems to have come across to the AFD as sycophantic. By the way, none of the three notes at the end of the Eakins passage actually mentions Eakins at all, which is only going to reinforce that criticism. You might be able to persuade one of the original participants in the AFD to do a more detailed review. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. SpinningSpark 13:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Printed circuit board merge

Hello, I generally agree with you, and I wouldn't normally do these kinds of merges (I've actually declined a similar request in the past). But in this case, it seemed like just a total rewrite and move to me, per this edit summary, which the user also used when making this cut-and-paste move and this merge. I'll ask the user myself later, probably after dinner. Graham87 10:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the user is still editing, must be one of our oldest editors. Ok, fair enough. SpinningSpark 10:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-experimentation in medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appendix. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Archoefantasies.com

See -[3] - note the co-host is Ken Feder, the academic expert on fringe archaeology with a textbook in its 8th edition. Doug Weller talk 05:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced. ArchyFantasies isn't Ken Feder and her association with him does not make her blog expert. She makes a pretty good job of demolishing the fringe position, but does not really address the scholars like Keyser who support the idea. I find her implication that König's paper doesn't exist particularly troubling. It clearly does exist, Keyser cites it, as does this paper. I suspect she really means she couldn't find it online or cited in any of the fringe rubbish she looked at. SpinningSpark 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari

You salted this title in draft space in May 2015, when it was being repeatedly created for promotional purposes and contained copyright violations. Another editor is now making a good-faith effort to create a reasonable article on this businessman. Would it be possible to unsalt the title so that I can move the draft from his sandbox into draft space, the usual place for AFC submissions? We can keep the title salted in mainspace until AFC decides that the article is ready to be promoted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Real ear measurement

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-experimentation in medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Spinningspark ,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, Spark!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Spark, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25