![]() My archives |
---|
News 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |
Contents
- 1 Template:Cool Air
- 2 DYK nomination of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
- 3 Historical units
- 4 Suwayfah
- 5 DYK for William Montgomerie
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for December 24
- 7 DYK nomination of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
- 8 Merry Christmas!
- 9 Distributed element circuit copyedit
- 10 CS Alert (1890)
- 11 Precious anniversary
- 12 Consensus needed
- 13 DYK for Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
- 14 Re my comment
- 15 St Pancras clock
- 16 Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- 17 Add Bain Code to your Morse Code SVG table?
- 18 DYK for CS Alert (1890)
- 19 Request for comment List of churches in Sweden
- 20 F. C. Webb
- 21 Disambiguation link notification for February 10
- 22 Planar transmission line
- 23 ADJUSTMENT to SkyWay's 'STRING TRANSPORT' page - October 2018
- 24 REQUEST for inclusion of the possible relevance of the theory in the STRING THEORY article
- 25 Planar transmission line TFA
- 26 Thanks!
- 27 DYK for Gutta Percha Company
- 28 Telegraphy vs Telegraph
- 29 DYK for Submarine Telegraph Company
- 30 DYK for British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company
- 31 ohm units
- 32 DYK for Electric Telegraph Company
- 33 Deletion review for Marianna Yarovskaya
- 34 My edit on Reed Custer High School’s Wikipedia Page
- 35 Li Jian
- 36 Reed-Custer High School
- 37 DYK nomination of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom
- 38 \Frederick Charles Webb
- 39 Proposed deletion of \Frederick Charles Webb
Template:Cool Air
Regarding this comment, please note that as demonstrated on the talk page, neither {{Cool Air}} or {{Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works}}} are being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Template:H. P. Lovecraft and the outcome there would not have any bearing on this navbox or vice versa. I do however understand your confusion, due to a number of similarly named Lovecraft templates, and the fact the navbox creator also seems confused by this on the talk page. --woodensuperman 12:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, the bottom line is that deletion would not be uncontroversial and speedy deletion is not appropriate. In my view, navigation templates should not be deleted while they are still in use on articles. Your claim is that the template can adequately be replaced with another. Doing that does not require deletion to proceed. If you can achieve that uncontroversially, then I'll be willing to delete the template as unused. SpinningSpark 12:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I already did that, but the navbox's creator added the template back (example). Both navboxes are currently present on each article. The problem with not speedy deleting a navbox while it is still in use is that you have a "chicken and egg" situation. "Unused" is not a required condition for a navbox to meet WP:CSD#T3. --woodensuperman 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
Hello! Your submission of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird 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! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Historical units
You said "The units used in the source and the historical period should be stated first with the modern units in brackets, not converted to something else to feed into a conversion template."
Where is this explained in wikistyle or any other guide? Ninjalectual (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- For page watchers, the article in question is Transatlantic telegraph cable. Next time, please link the article you are discussing. It is not always obvious to busy editors. SpinningSpark 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The guideline is at MOS:CONVERSIONS. It is fairly obvious that a small degree of WP:OR goes into a conversion. For instance, if the source contains the figure of 200 nautical miles, we must decide whether to show the conversion as 400 km, 370 km, or 371 km. To pick the right one, we must make a decision on the degree of precision the source was using. They may have rounded from 190 nmi, 150 nmi, 199 nmi, or even 200.1 nmi. In many cases you just don't know and would be guessing. By putting the km conversion first and converting back to 200 nmi in brackets, you may be misleading the reader over the precision of the figure, or even completely distorting it. WP:STYLEVAR also comes into this, and that guideline is repeated at the end of MOS:CONVERSIONS. There are times when converting everything to metric in an article is appropriate. This was not one of them. SpinningSpark 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Suwayfah
With regards to your reversion of my redirect: the target does mention Suwayfah. As to whether or not Suwayfah is a part of Dibba Al-Fujairah: if you Google Suwayfah or check Google maps for the area, you get a bunch of hotels, all of which have addresses in Dibba Al-Fujairah or talk about being in Dibba on their websites. Radisson Blu's resort explicitly uses the word Suwayfah on its Google result, yet on its website under location states it is within Dibba, and has an address in Dibba. This job-hunting site shows jobs in Suwayfah, Dibba. Google maps shows the boundaries of Dibba Al-Fujairah inclusive of the area Suwayfah maps within. Per Suwayfah at GEOnet Names Server, Suwayfah is a locality, not a legally recognized separate entity. All in all, that's a pretty reasonable indication that Suwayfah is the name of an area or neighborhood within DAF. Since there aren't any substantial in-depth sources discussing Suwayfah, per WP:GEOLAND it was reasonable to redirect one to the other. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for William Montgomerie
Mifter (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electrical telegraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadruplex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
Hello! Your submission of Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird 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! Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: What exactly is your objection to the referencing style, and how does that infringe DYK rules? SpinningSpark 10:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Distributed element circuit copyedit
CS Alert (1890)
Do you have access to Haigh which you use as the principal reference in the article? Miramar which is usually a RS for ships gives a continuing history for the ship after 1915 with it finally being wrecked as the Norham in 1932. Furthermore it gives the renaming year as 1901 and Graces guide gives it as 1894. I've loath to change anything as Haigh might well be correct Lyndaship (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "do I have access to Haigh"? Are you implying I am citing a source I haven't read? I paid real money to get it on interlibrary loan. SpinningSpark 13:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I didn't mean it in an accusatory fashion, you might have only had some google book sections to look at so the later history of the ship might not be included. If that was the case Miramar's info could well be correct. Lyndaship (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haigh doesn't give any later history. He says categorically that the ship was scrapped, but then, he is only interested in submarine cables. Maybe both are true—the ship was scrapped as a cable ship and its cable gear transferred to another ship (as Haigh said), but the hulk was sold on and used elsewhere. SpinningSpark 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thats what I suspected. Haigh's interest would end when Alert ceased to be a cable ship. Also its possible that when he saw sold in some record he synthed that to sold to be scrapped. Further checking on the plimsoll line site (which has online copies of some Lloyds registers) confirms Norham's details as to builder, launch and previous and subsequent names corresponding to Miramars record (with the strange exception of Alert being missing!). Norham is listed on the List of shipwrecks in 1932 here on wiki. I feel safe adding this detail now. First year of name I'll stick with Haigh - Miramar must be wrong, and Graces fails in light of Haigh as a RS Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haigh doesn't give the year of rename. What the article currently says is the GPO took over the ship in 1890. The rename may, or may not, have been immediate. I think you're probably safe in adding that also. SpinningSpark 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: Are you intending to do anything with this? I'm about to nominate it for DYK, it would be helpful if it was done before it gets reviewed. SpinningSpark 12:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done my best. Its possible one of the merchant ship specialists at WP:SHIPS can flesh it out some more - I don't have access to the Times reports of the casualty and it is possible when she was re-engined the paddle wheels were removed and she became a conventional twin screw. I suspect she was PS until then and MV thereafter Lyndaship (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: Are you intending to do anything with this? I'm about to nominate it for DYK, it would be helpful if it was done before it gets reviewed. SpinningSpark 12:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haigh doesn't give the year of rename. What the article currently says is the GPO took over the ship in 1890. The rename may, or may not, have been immediate. I think you're probably safe in adding that also. SpinningSpark 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thats what I suspected. Haigh's interest would end when Alert ceased to be a cable ship. Also its possible that when he saw sold in some record he synthed that to sold to be scrapped. Further checking on the plimsoll line site (which has online copies of some Lloyds registers) confirms Norham's details as to builder, launch and previous and subsequent names corresponding to Miramars record (with the strange exception of Alert being missing!). Norham is listed on the List of shipwrecks in 1932 here on wiki. I feel safe adding this detail now. First year of name I'll stick with Haigh - Miramar must be wrong, and Graces fails in light of Haigh as a RS Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Haigh doesn't give any later history. He says categorically that the ship was scrapped, but then, he is only interested in submarine cables. Maybe both are true—the ship was scrapped as a cable ship and its cable gear transferred to another ship (as Haigh said), but the hulk was sold on and used elsewhere. SpinningSpark 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I didn't mean it in an accusatory fashion, you might have only had some google book sections to look at so the later history of the ship might not be included. If that was the case Miramar's info could well be correct. Lyndaship (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Consensus needed
I don't know if it is an appropriate way, but as you have worked on the dissipation factor and dielectric loss pages that I find well written (in particular I like the introduction of the reactive power concept), I will like your opinion and, if possible, from other selected contributors, regarding the appropriate introduction of the Q factor page, see the last two threads in the associated talk page: Talk:Q_factor#A_suggested_new_order_for_the_presentation_and_inappropriate_illustration_picture and talk:Q factor#A_proposed_“modern”_introduction_to_Quality_Factors. Henri BONDAR (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Re my comment
No worries at all. I was mostly making sure I didn't miss something. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
St Pancras clock
It is not good to keep reverting, but there are records with National Rail and Thwaites & Reed which show the original clock. It is much smaller than the later copies, about 6 foot diameter, not 23 as now, and there is documentary evidence that the numerals were put on by the current owner, a retired railworker. The clock unveiled by the Queen on the opening of the station was the 1960's clock totally refurbished to English Heritage Specifications by Thwaites & Reed, and taken down when London and Continental Railways commissioned the new Dent advertisment from Smiths of Derby a mere few months later. Later the 1960's dial which was the one authorised by English Heritage was painted black as an art display, totally masking the painstaking conservation work done by Thwaites & Reed. This was reported in the British Horological Institute Journal. Perhaps you might consider reverting your edit as it does not give an impression of the original as intended. If you would like photographs of the original just email and these can be sent to you.Turretclocks (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Turretclocks: please link to the article you are talking about, preferably with a diff. I remember reviewing an edit that removed an image of the St Pancras clock, but afair, I didn't revert it. SpinningSpark 14:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
![]() |
The 2018 Cure Award |
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Add Bain Code to your Morse Code SVG table?
I'm in the middle of researching semaphore and telegraph issues, and came across this reference: https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph-henry-project/telegraph/The_Telegraph_Manual_p114.pdf
Which includes an image of Bain's code. I'd love to see it added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morse_comparison.svg but don't have the time or SVG editing skills at the moment to do so. It would be really cool if you were able to update the image! -- DE K6WEB PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to change the table as it is associated with article text, but I might be prepared to make a new diagram for you. What page is the code on in the document? What Wikipedia article is this improving? SpinningSpark 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for CS Alert (1890)
Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Request for comment List of churches in Sweden
You voted to keep this list during the AfD discussion, ass did I. I am working on editing the list, but it is massive. I would appreciate your comment on the talk page of the article. Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
F. C. Webb
In case you missed it, I added another source to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_61#F. C. Webb. —Bruce1eetalk 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, got it, but I've only got snippet access to that. It will be good for confirming the accuracy of the online web version though. SpinningSpark 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've emailed you the article (4 pages) from this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to match what appears in the web version. —Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. This is a much later article than the series of articles from the 1880s reproduced in http://atlantic-cable.com. The last two pages you sent me (758 and 759) seem to be corrupt, they are showing as zero bytes. SpinningSpark 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've emailed you the article (4 pages) from this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to match what appears in the web version. —Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time signal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Planar transmission line
A fine article, well deserving FA status. Congratulations. I look forward to whatever you may be writing next. catslash (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Right now I am writing Telegraphy in the United Kingdom (draft at User:Spinningspark/Sandbox#Telegraphy in the United Kingdom) but my next attempt at FA will probably be Distributed element circuit. I'll likely put that up for peer review soon. SpinningSpark 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The title Telegraphy in the United Kingdom is very specific (and strangely reminiscent of a popular ditty from the 1970s). Perhaps it should be the even more specific Electric telegraphy in the United Kingdom, if optical telegraphy is to be excluded.
In order to satisfy the (1b) comprehensiveness FA criterion, the Distributed element circuit should perhaps mention tapers in the Circuit components section. At present it says Departures from constructing with uniform transmission lines in distributed element circuits are rare, yet in the lede picture there are two stick-insect networks with tapered bodies. These networks are unusual, but got me thinking of other examples of tapers, including; horns, vivaldi antennas, matched loads and various tapered transitions. Smooth bends and twists are also considered to be tapers.
The Gutta Percha Company article was nice to see. Can the water between Dover and Calais properly be described as an ocean (recent developments aside)? catslash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Distributed element circuit/archive1 and copied your comment there to keep it on record. I'll look at updating the article when there are a few more comments. You're welcome to put something in yourself now if you feel so inclined. SpinningSpark 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
ADJUSTMENT to SkyWay's 'STRING TRANSPORT' page - October 2018
Thanks for mentioning the difficulty of differentiating the Skyway scam from the actual science behind it. As a result I've really attempted to find any references that show how they aren't inextricably linked. The very fact that it SEEMS to be scientific in and of itself shadows meekly behind the fact that you can't find any clear attempt of the engineer to distance himself or at least explain why his theory got connected to the scam. As you seem to be well-informed about historical scientific information, I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know if you can find any references which actually do explain how Yunitisky is not at best indifferent to how his theory is being abused in multinational and complex scams, and at worst profiting from it himself. Maybe then you could create two articles, one about the theory and the other about the dangerous scam. But I can't find any and as much as I'd love to support his engineering concepts I can't find a single reference distancing the two and I'm extremely worried about the references I do find as part of the scam to the STRING TRANSPORT Wikipedia article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Kind regards, Zachar Laskewicz February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
REQUEST for inclusion of the possible relevance of the theory in the STRING THEORY article
Changes I've made to the introductory section to the STRING THEORY article creates an unfortunate dissonance between my possible changes and the contents of the article which refers to the track structure and the 'rolling stock'. If you can find anything to backup this theory, maybe you could either review the validity of the technical information, edit it or adjust the introduction to include valid scientific information with a real reference that isn't either self-referential or circular. If you can't find any valid references maybe you could reduce or contextualize the 'rolling stock' references. It has to be clear because there is a real risk of people being duped by a scam if excessive technical information is not contextualized as abuse within a real existing scam. I know people who have lost money in it and I've seen scammers making changes to this page. I have friends who've lost money in this scheme because they found the Wikipedia article. The user 'Kmarina86' has also made corrections to the article and they also seem to be informed about science without being necessarily biased so I'll try to contact them as well to see if they can help. I'm looking forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm confused about what article you are talking about, and why you have started two different threads on my talk page. I deal with hundreds of articles every week, so next time please link to the article you are talking about. If we are discussing string transport, I have little interest in doing any serious work on it. String theory is an entirely different subject with no relationship whatsoever. It would be inappropriate to write anything in that article. SpinningSpark 20:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about polluting your talk page with extraneous information.Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2019
(UTC)
- Really sorry for misnaming 'String transport' as 'String theory'. It's so confusing because 'String transport' was presented as the SkyWay theory and it is very easy to confuse it with an already existing scientific theory you hear about so often. I find myself typing it all the time. I mean to type 'string transport' but I type 'string theory'; when I check it quickly before posting it I suppose it looks sufficiently okay. I'm kicking myself for making this mistake again and again. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Planar transmission line TFA
Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 15, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Spinningspark, thank you for the kind welcome and the advice at DYK! Very kind of you to reach out and I appreciate it. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Gutta Percha Company
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Telegraphy vs Telegraph
Please note that the Russian entry ru:Телеграф is already linked to the Wikidata unit d:Q6987428 (including a link to the enWiki entry Telegraph). So apparently people consider them to be two different things, don't they? Double interwikis to the same article are misleading. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less what problem Wikidata is having with this; that's for that project to sort out internally. It's the same subject and putting the interwiki on a redirect page is useless to the article readers. There is no double interwiki on the article page. SpinningSpark 13:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Submarine Telegraph Company
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
ohm units
Hello Is there a way to get this table;
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(resistance)&oldid=864372314
back into the ohm page? It is a useful tool to show people how the names and values thereof relate to the Ohm. I just had this today where I informed a fellow that his electric motor windings had zero Megohms of resistance.
Heavymetal308 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Before doing anything with that table, you should look into how you are going to source it. The lack of references was the primary issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (resistance). Once you've identified reliable sources you can think about recreating it at its original location, or (probably less controversially) as part of another article. Alternatively, as stated by the closing admin, you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review to get the discussion reopened. SpinningSpark 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Heavymetal308: SpinningSpark 12:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Electric Telegraph Company
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for Marianna Yarovskaya
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marianna Yarovskaya. 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion review unsalted the title, and I accepted a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
My edit on Reed Custer High School’s Wikipedia Page
The edit I made on Reed Custer High School’s Wikipedia page has nothing to do with promotional or advertising use, thank you. MusicHead24 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Li Jian
Hello! Profssor Li(Jian Li) is my tutor,she called me to create an entry on wikipedia that introduces her.All the information I found from Google and her university homepage.As for the previous photo,I found it from her homepage.As for the photo that was just deleted,it was taken with her mobile phone,and with her consent,there was no infringement.So I hope that you will be able to pass the review and not to delete my photo.Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Guangxidiyimeinan: As I explained on your talk page, you must not create this page by overwriting other information. This is not the only person of that name who has an article here. A new page must be created. You uploaded the photo at Commons:, which is a different project to Wikipedia. You should take up the issue there. According to the log at Commons the file was copied from here. That page says "Copyright 2018 IEEE - All Rights Reserved" so on the face of it, it was a correct deletion. SpinningSpark 08:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry that what I have done has caused you so much trouble.I have realized that I have made a mistake and I am trying to re-create a new page.Since I am building a entry on wikipedia for the first time,there are a lot of unclear places,and I apologize again for the trouble that have caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Guangxidiyimeinan: No problem, I understand how difficult this can be for new users. The golden rule here is that if you are reverted, go and discuss it first and get an understanding of the problem before you do anything else on that subject. SpinningSpark 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! What you mean is that I need to create a new page,When someone clicks on the link in the disambiguation page,does it jump to the page I created? Besides,regarding the picture,I uploaded a photo of my teacher who took my own mobile phone,can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Guangxidiyimeinan: The order you should do things is this;
- First, consider how you are going to prove notability for this person, particularly WP:PROF. Read both those linked guidelines. There is no point going any further unless you can meet them. If you do not, ultimately you contribution will be deleted.
- Create a draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Follow the instructions there.
- When ready, submit the draft for review. If it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the main space. If rejected, the reason will be explained and you can then improve the draft and submit it again.
- When you have an article in mainspace, only then can you add an item to the disambiguation page. And yes, the link will then automatically take the reader to the page.
- Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 13:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey,friend!I have created a new page, but why is my link on the disambiguation page deleted again?Is it necessary to wait for my newly created page to pass the review before it can appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangxidiyimeinan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It must wait until there is an article in mainspace. Disambiguation pages must only list Wikipedia articles, nothing else. Drafts do not count as articles, pages in other namespaces do not count, pages outside Wikipedia do not count. SpinningSpark 14:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Reed-Custer High School
Sorry I didn't see that mess starting before you had to open the RFC. Absolutely clear cut case. Thanks for the 3RR. Meters (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom
Hello! Your submission of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
\Frederick Charles Webb
Hey there, are you intending to expand this at some point? Thanks Cls14 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of \Frederick Charles Webb
![Notice](https://web.archive.org/web/20190326160031im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article \Frederick Charles Webb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
edit summary said the person was moving this between the sandbox and draft space. This article does not Ned to be stand alone but connected to another article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Draft:Frederick_Charles_Webb since it obviously isn't ready for mainspace and per your move summary you intended to put the notes in draft space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)