Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 12 March 2014 (→WP:Lead RfC: Well...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SpinningSpark is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

My archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stream metabolism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Respiration and Autochthonous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests

I don't think it was harsh at all, indeed, I thought it was exceptionally helpful - for comparison you should look at some of my comments at my declines at WP:PERM that I've been doing for years without any recrimination. In fact I didn't even look at the article that was involved; I was far more concerned with the the experience required for policing pages in general, something that I have been campaigning for for years and been largely successful in achieving some results, not only with the individuals involved but with getting meta solutions developed. If you really want want to work a lot on EAR - which you have apparently made your domain since I have basically moved on from being one its major contributors for a long time, please consider answering customers' queries without constantly criticising your experienced collaborators. Happy New Year :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not a cabal that new members have to be inducted into before they can take part. In general, I probably agree with your stance, but this particular editor does seem to have some clue. At the very least he has an arguable case for deletion of the aricle. SpinningSpark 01:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Youngest British soldier in World War I

On 30 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Youngest British soldier in World War I, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to the Imperial War Museum, the youngest authenticated British soldier in World War I was a 13-year-old machine gunner at the Somme who had enlisted at age 12? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Youngest British soldier in World War I. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

displaying columns

Regarding your recent revert on Nanotechnology, the reason I modified from 30em to |2| was that with 30em the text is displayed on my browser as two columns, but only as long as the font size is 10 points. Once I increase the font size to 12, the text appears as single column. In contrast, when I change the Reflist to |2| the text appears in 2-column format in all font sizes. Do you happen to be aware of an explanation for this phenomena? Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I expect it is because your browser thinks that it cannot fit 30 ems across the width of your screen at a font size of 12pt. This depends on the size of your monitor and the size of the window you are using as well as the size of font you have set. It is working how it is supposed to work, the number of columns are adjusted to the viewing conditions. In contrast, the |2 parameter will try and present 2 columns no matter how narrow they become and on a tablet or mobile they become unhelpfully squished.

For articles I have constructed I would normally set the column width a bit narrower (something like 23em) which will stay at 2 columns for a wider range of settings. Personally, I wouldn't object to that setting on nanotechnology, but other editors frequently change it to something wider. A narrow setting works well for short form referencing (as I use on my articles), but when refs are given in full in inline citations you don't want them squashed onto too many lines. SpinningSpark 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Key ring file may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a certificate request to the CA. The CA then returns a signed ] to the entity. This certificate received from the CA is also stored in the Key Ring.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Around the World in 80 Days (2004 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• deviated wildly from the novel and included a number of ] elements.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• costing 2 tons would cost 200,000 euros.<ref>Bruce Donaldson, ''Dutch: A Comprehensive Grammar'', [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aFN9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA357 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ian Powrie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andy Stewart

Key ring file (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Server

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: waveguide filter

This is a note to let the main editors of waveguide filter know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 10, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 10, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A waveguide filter is an electronic filter that is constructed in waveguide technology. Waveguides are hollow metal tubes inside which an electromagnetic wave may be transmitted. Filters are a basic component of electronic engineering designs and have numerous applications. Waveguide filters are most useful in the microwave band of frequencies, where they are a convenient size and have low loss. Examples are found in satellite communications, telephone networks, and television broadcasting. Waveguide filters were developed during World War II for radar and electronic counter-measures, but afterwards soon found civilian applications. Post-war development was concerned with reducing size, first with new analysis techniques that eliminated unnecessary components, then by innovations such as dual-mode cavities and ceramic resonators. Waveguides can support a variety of electromagnetic wave modes: both a disadvantage, spurious modes frequently cause problems, and an advantage; dual-mode designs can be much smaller. The chief advantages of waveguide filters are ability to handle high power and low loss. The chief disadvantages are bulk and cost compared to technologies like microstrip. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Waveguide filter

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Waveguide filter. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on Waveguide filter!

Congratulations on Waveguide filter's Main Page appearance! Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job on bringing a technological article to such an in-depth state. I'm impressed. I remember the Waffle-iron filter GA a few years ago and had a good inkling who the author of this one might be! SFB 07:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

spinning sparks
Thank you, specialist on the "1920s electronic filter designs and designers", for quality articles such as Waveguide filter and Otto Julius Zobel, for spinning according to "unless you can explain it to your grandmother" and sparking brilliant ideas and kindness, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Er, sorry about that ridiculous edit summary (some Twinkle code must have changed while I was gone in the past year) and sorry about the message in general because I just noticed your thing about not wanting talkback templates. My bad. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 07:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistake editing an entry:

Hi Spinningspark,

You are seems to be a very contribint user to wikipedia. Thank you for that.

II just now see that, you had editted the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/Rubiks_Cube

It was a bit more than half a year ago:

08:10, 15 April 2013‎ Spinningspark (talk | contribs)‎ . . (53,419 bytes) (-65)‎ . . (→‎External links:  Attempts to run a program, probable malware)

You had removed the external link for solving the rubiks cube as he was there: www.rubiksplace.com

I'm am a speedcuber (I solve the cube sub 15 sec) and I spent weeks crafting this guide myself which most of the cubers community uses. This is maybe the most quality guide on solving the cube (including the speedcubing method) online. and thats why the link was there.

The "message" you get is a standard Java applet alert showing before launching a java application! I had made much effort to make this applets run on this site so new cubers could see a "live" example of the rubiks cube steps and algorithms rather than just explanation that are much harder to understand. as it is really difficult to get it on the first time. The java applets make it 10 times easier to understand. Please take a look!

Please revise it again..

Thank you! Maor.

Please read WP:ELNO#Java SpinningSpark 10:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I had researched this issue and became aware to a lot of problems and issues arising from using java applets sometimes (browsers not responding, crashing, not supporting everyone, etc..), therefore many people had problem using the guide properly. I did modified the solution, and removed all the java applets (imaged-based solution), and added an animation solution as an option on another page (warning it includes java applets) so everyone could now use and control it. I would be grateful if you could restore the edit now, Thank you! Maor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.26.13 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make a personal decision on that. Please post a request on the article talk page and if it gets some support I will restore it (or someone else will). SpinningSpark 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Brewery list AfD merger

I understand why you merged these, but I deliberately set them up as separate AfDs because past AfDs on this topic were done as batches and came to no consensus as a result of the variety of lists included. Merging them after being a participant in them also gives me some pause. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If these were footballers they could have varying notabilities even if they were on the same team so of course should be debated separately. However, I believe that the rationale for the existence of these articles is unconnected with the notability of the entries. Certainly, my argument for keeping them does not rely on notability. They are a strongly related set with near identical structure and near identical rationale for deleting. I see no purpose in spreading the debate across multiple pages when a clear consensus for the whole set is really needed. Higher participation is more likely in a combined debate. Also, they are all related to the list of lists for these articles and that issue can only be considered with a centralised debate.

I don't know why you think that being a participant in the debate is cause for concern. I have no investment in these articles, I have only now discovered they exist, and I have no POV issue here (other than happening to like beer). I did not see that the other debates existed until after I had commented, otherwise I would have merged them first and then commented. In fact, I only came to them at all to find out the consensus on such articles while trying to decide what to do with Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/List of breweries in Nebraska. SpinningSpark 16:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A left hand rule for Faraday's Law

I was trying to create a full article about this topic, which included as reference Fleming's laws. However, a reviewer suggested that it should be shortened and included in Electromagnetic induction, so I shortened it. I am confused. Can I discuss all the issues with an editor? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makkabi (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You asked me that once already and I replied on your talk page. Please keep the conversation all in one place. SpinningSpark 22:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Liebigs Annalen

Discussion moved to Talk: Liebig's Annalen

Lorentz transformation and Ampere's law

I posted a better derivation of Ampere's force law here. The question has already been moved to the archives, so I figured you'd probably never find my post unless I mentioned it here. I will watch that archive page for a while, in case you make any follow-up posts. Red Act (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inductor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reactance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

You're welcome. How are you getting on? SpinningSpark 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty good. I went over to Wikia for 3 years and learned some things about editing and dealing with others. I recently started reverting vandalism here again, and actual editing has perked my interest. Again, though, thanks for the help back then. Abce2 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

JPS Outing

Given jps' history, don't you think it would be better to get an uninvolved admin to work with you, and try to resolve the problems by email since you obviously are concerned about further outing problems? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way do you think I am involved? I picked this up from a complaint at EAR and have previously had nothing to do with the dispute, the editors, the articles or the subject of the articles. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to discuss more openly, but as far as I am concerned, jps has been warned and that is the end of the matter if he now desists. SpinningSpark 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you explain yourself to jps as you've done here?

Granted, it's difficult to address COI problems without making them worse, but I can't imagine any justification for: "Don't play cute, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am willing to block you if you keep it up." --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor is deliberately pretending not to understand what the issue is. I am just making it clear that I do not accept that and it will not hold me back from blocking if the problem persists. Granted the language is colourful, but this is not some newbie who needs the issues carefully explained. Rather it is a very experienced editor who has a lot of "combat experience". Given his history I don't think my interaction is being unreasonable. SpinningSpark 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He can bring out the worst in others.

Given the taunting and harassment he gets, I think it would be better to avoid any appearance of piling on with similar treatment. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark! Thanks a lot for the swift reaction to my complaint. Jps still implies I have a COI, for alleged reasons he "can expound upon privately to a neutral administrator" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2). I don't want you to get into trouble for stepping into this, though. Is there any way him and me could present evidence concerning my job or else COI to a confidential WP committee or so? Just to have this dealt this once and for all. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see anything actionable in the statement by jps. He said you colluded with another editor (whatever that is supposed to mean). Granted the word colluded has negative overtones and this is a weasely statement by jps, but collusion is hardly against Misplaced Pages policy. Rather, the whole project is "collusion" on a massive scale. There is way too much "running to teacher" on both sides of this playground dispute.

You are entitled not to reveal your profession, or any other private details. No one is allowed to reveal that information without your explicit permission however vaguely or circumspectly they do so. Even speculating on it could be viewed as outing in some circumstances. There is no need for you to prove anything. Having said that, if you really want to do this . . .

Jps has already stated that he is willing to present his evidence to a neutral administrator. If you wish, I would be willing to take this on, but I doubt that jps would now consider me neutral given my warning to him. I write mostly engineering articles from a science pov and generally have little sympathy for fringe and pseudo science including alt medicine, but I don't know if jps is going to see it that way. You should discuss with jps who would be an acceptable administrator to both of you.

To answer your question directly, Misplaced Pages has an Arbitration Committee and their contact details can be found in that link. I don't know if Arbcom would be willing to take this on. They can be very selective in what work they choose to take up (you can imagine that they are swamped with requests) and I am not really up on their selection criteria. SpinningSpark 13:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind sharing with you what I found, SpinningSpark. I hold no enmity towards you. I just differ greatly on your interpretation of WP:OUTING and the way you've thrown around your administrator weight. I am definitely a critic of the "Respect My Authoritah!" kind of attitude you evinced on my talkpage, and would hope you would take that into consideration, though I won't hold my breath. (I don't know why Misplaced Pages administrators seem to suffer from your affliction so often.) But just because you are a rude and overbearing Misplaced Pages admin doesn't mean that you aren't "neutral" and cannot appreciate a COI when you see one. Only, I'm not sure to what effect such a sharing would be. As you rightly point out, I am simply offering my opinion. (Certainly not weasely in the Misplaced Pages sense, but no matter, snark seems to be your thing when it comes to me.) What outcome is expected here? I think the evidence for a possible COI would be pretty clear to any neutral observer. I could be wrong about something in my interpretation of the evidence, but Misplaced Pages policy does not require me to change my opinion of what constitutes a WP:COI on the basis of a third-party evaluation. jps (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The outcome would be that I would assess the evidence and make a public, on-wiki statement at a suitable venue on whether or not that evidence supported a COI by Mallexikon. No details of Mallexikon's employment or any other personal details would be revealed in this statement without Mallexikon's permission. If you both agree to those terms, then go ahead and e-mail me with your evidence. SpinningSpark 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine, but can't reasonable people disagree on what constitutes a COI? What if you disagree with me that there is a COI, what then? Am I supposed to bind myself to your determination before I understand how you interpret the situation? Just curious. jps (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could comment at WP:COIN#Acupuncture so I could get a feeling for how you approach this subject more generally? jps (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course people can disagree. My assessment would merely be the assessment of an uninvolved party - which is what I thought you were asking for. It would not bind anybody to do anything. I am not going to post at the COIN thread: I am not especially interested and doing so would mean I was no longer uninvolved. You seem to be asking for reassurance beforehand that I am going to agree with you. Any assessment I make will be with reference to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. SpinningSpark 16:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can understand that it might be less than desirable to start sending around evidence that, if posted to this website, would be considered a violation of WP:OUTING. I'm not sure why a neutral uninvolved party would be necessary to me. I'm confident that my evaluation of the situation is correct. jps (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, the suggestion of having an uninvolved admin look at your evidence was entirely your idea to start off with. I have no need to look at it and there is no benefit to me in doing so. I think we are done here. SpinningSpark 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I don't want to start and edit war or get bureaucrats involved given your "stong" history of some kind of ownership of this meaning! However, it should be mems(computing) NOT mem. Get it right please, or I'll reverse/undo you.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to take that attitude, I'm not taking ownership. All you need do is politely discuss why you think it should be at that name. Given the mess you just made of formatting this post you are a fine one to complain about the markup of others. SpinningSpark 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinning Spark Should be removed as an administrator

This editor not only reverted my edits but started a systematic campaign to spam other edits based on history. He/she should be removed as an admin for this practice. Bureaucrats take notice. I am a large contributor to wiki and will let the core team know about this practice and this admin. This person is small minded, into revenge, and using their "power" to harass other new editors rather than educate. No place here for that kind of pettiness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not used, or threatened to use, any admin power against you. Or even mentioned that I am an admin. At all stages I have tried to explain Misplaced Pages conventions and guidelines to you. Sorry if you are taking that the wrong way. I really don't have any need or motivation to persecute anybody. My only concern is the quality of the encyclopaedia. Sorry also, if I have not come across as friendly. I am very willing to help new editors find their feet. You only have to ask and I will do my best to help. SpinningSpark 18:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electrical engineering may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• can be used in almost any household object. The ] and ] are the most complex electronics yet to be used in everyday life.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm really concerned about JesseRafe nonetheless; while I think there's a legitimate content dispute going on, we're seeing the result of a definite pattern of poor editing practices on his part. From looking at his past edits, I'm now considering drawing up an ANI thread to address civility and general policy issues (use of WP:TW as a substitute for rollback, for instance). The incivility bugs me, at least insofar as it evinces a tendency towards BITEyness. Realistically though, I think the likely outcome will be a warning plus a recommendation to start a RfC/U (and I'm sure you know as well as I do how often those get anything useful done). At any rate, I guess we should keep an eye on things. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(as an aside, I think it's funny how EAR has been slow as hell for what seems like months, then all of a sudden we get these monster threads... goes to show that the "teahouse", whatever it does, has yet to replace us —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC))

I don't really have a handle on why this has become so emotive. Possibly it is connected with the origin of the Goths which I believe is disputed by some. So maybe the issue is that denying that "Geats" was a historical term for a Swedish tribal group is tantamount to denying that the Goths originated in Sweden. But it is for the editors involved to spell out what the issue really is and then find sources to settle it. Unfotunately they don't seem willing to go down that path at the moment. I really don't want anything serious to happen to an editor as long-standing as JesseRafe who seems to have done a lot of good work but but s/he is not making that easy to achieve. SpinningSpark 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it either. My gut instinct when more than one established editor has a dispute with another editor is that said third editor may be doing something—perhaps not something improper, but something that is not helping matters. That or there's a hot debate on the topic on other circles (though usually that shouldn't affect established editors, recent arbitration cases notwithstanding). As my grandmother would always say, "It takes two". But despite taking some long, hard looks at the situation, I honestly don't see any serious fault on the part of SW. I guess the best solution at this point is to wait and see what happens. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

I thought I would let you know that I have initiated a request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals, as you suggested. Since you have already looked at some of the issues, I thought I would inform you in case you might like to leave a comment there. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

David Jay Brown

You might want to chime in at WP:REFUND#David Jay Brown concerning an article you deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

HTML error in your sig

Hi! While participating in an RfC in which you commented, I noticed that there seemed to be a nesting error in your sig. While this may not be visible while viewing the page, users with syntax highlighters (like myself) might find this annoying. Your current sig, with the offending tag highlighted, is:

''']]'''

It would be nice if you changed it to:

''']]'''

Thank you very much! APerson (talk!) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I seem to remember that the closing bolding was refusing to work at on time but I can't really recall and it seems to be ok now. SpinningSpark 23:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Lead RfC

Regarding the RfC, have you contacted WP:Administrators about this RfC off Misplaced Pages somewhere? The RfC died down with overwhelming support for "no softening." And suddenly, starting on March 10th, there's been a wave of WP:Administrators (and a couple of others) voting in the Support softening, not necessarily Spinningspark's text section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. I was trying to quietly ignore the whole issue. SpinningSpark 23:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Quietly ignore what whole issue? What can be interpreted as some obvious inappropriate WP:CANVASSING going on? If the administrators/others were not simply voting for your "Support softening, not necessarily Spinningspark's text" option, then, if it's WP:CANVASSING, it wouldn't be seen in too much of a bad light...because that at least indicates that the WP:CANVASSING likely was not done in a way to influence the outcome of the WP:RfC. But as it stands... Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, before you or anyone else mentions it, I know that two of the recent editors (one an IP; the other another non-WP:Administrator) have voted for no softening, but still... Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take your silly accusations elsewhere. They are complete nonsense and I am not interested in discussing it. SpinningSpark 01:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You already know that I took the matter elsewhere. I maintain that I was not accusing you; simply asking. I won't bother you again about this. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that, at least not when I wrote it. I'm not watching the conversation like a hawk waiting to pounce on every word. SpinningSpark 01:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, take notice that I have not been pouncing on every word either; there has not been much involvement from me there, other than my discussion with you about the four-paragraph lead matter. If you no longer care about this lead matter, after having cared about it strongly enough to revisit it when no WP:Consensus formed in your favor, after having cared strongly about it to start a WP:RfC on the matter, then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)