User talk:Springnuts

See the archive here.

Springnuts (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also find that you are attacking known editors. Because you dont have this information within Wikipedia, I refer to the Wladyslaw Sikorski pages many are trying to add to. There has been information that is published both professionally in 2 books and solid evidence. Yet your stuborness to even acknowledge there are some references to his assassination. What tripe. We will try to get you removed. What rubbish are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.102.218 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even dignifying this with deletion. Please see the policy at WP:LOUTSOCK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. Springnuts (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have left me a message saying that I am attacking editors. What editor have I attacked? You left a link to writer D.M.Thomas page, but D. M. Thomas is not an editor here. The plagiarism is undisputed, and it is appropriate to say that in the article. Irishflowers (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man, you`re nuts. I removed some sentence on elephant and castle which said `sarah kimmit loves it and calls it the elephant!` how is this vandalism? 58.81.137.194 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the vigilance, but his terse inquiry was in regards to the argument we are currently having over the Vladivostok article. He has the right to ask, albeit his tone indeed leaves much to be desired, I have thick skin to mind that kind of crap :) Anyway, just letting you know that I restored his inquiry and removed the warning you placed on his talk page. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:21, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks and apologies for the edit - I thought it was vandalism to an article. Springnuts (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my page too! I wonder why that guy did that... I really don't know him... ムーカオズルール^{(Talk to Moo)} 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somthing needs to be done about that user.

Despite me having given them 4 warnings and then reported them for vandalism they are still vandalising.

Any ideas?

Kira Chinmoku (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Kira Chinmoku (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, congrats on 'fixing' my 'vandalism' three seconds after it had been done, at 3:40 AM no less. Are you a ninja?

At any rate, what I did wasn't so bad. The movie itself is vandalism of a perfectly good series. They went as low as to attack Dragonball, as opposed to Dragonball Z, or even Dragonball GT (which nobody would've minded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.8.211 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE THE MOST MORAL PERSON I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SINCE THE ATTACKS ON ME BEGAN. THANK YOU FOR ACTUALLY READING INSTEAD OF VICIOUSLY ATTACKING ME.

 Done — Aitias // discussion 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springnuts,

I noticed that you said that the sockpuppet had made good faith edits--sure, but those edits restored all the peacock terms I had painstakingly removed from Dean Wells (guitarist)... But thanks for keeping your eye on the case. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article that does not exist. Springnuts (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected this to Spontaneous worship#Singing in the Spirit but the article still needs improving and sourcing - please contribute. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carlyle Research, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlyle Research. Thank you. Ndenison ^talk 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. He vandalised my page about 8 times in a row and it was cleared by a whole range of users. Thanks!--Patton^t/c 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A chaplain is a 'chapelain' when the context is of a private chapel. You might notice that the french article for chapelain starts by saying "a chapelain or almoner is"; the distinction is rather blurry between the two. However, they are distinct entities (we have an article for the chaplain and an article for almoners), thus I thought it was better to keep that distinction. Cheers Philippe Giabbanelli (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please see my comments on the Talk:Ecourier page.Travisb4279 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to continue to contribute your opinion on the Tom Allason article about WP:AB and WP:NPOV. The editor adding the questionable content is continuing to re-add his info and has resulted in the start of a edit war, so I requested a WP:RFC. Your opinion as a previous editor would be greatly appreciated. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article was also redirected--can we put discussion on the article talk page so we can discuss this one separately from the above please? Sorry, also can you restore the last edit of this page to a sub-page on my page so I can edit it? Thanks! Travisb4279 (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, (a) he didn't need a disambiguation in brackets as there is no other article at this name, and (b) if you had needed to add a disambiguation, remember that "(theologian)" wouldn't need a capital "T"! I moved the article, so it's OK now. PamD (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and (c): what does "(Ag)" mean? Could you explain it, please. PamD (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the ship been renamed back to Malcolm Miller? If so, do you have a reference for it? Thanks for improving the article by adding a photo. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Helena C" reveals that she was up for sale in last few years at £2.6M. For the moment I won't alter infobox name. I'm a member of Ships Nostalgia so will see what I can find out from there. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was a fire on board last year. This article details it, but no mention of ship's name. Will search further. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springnuts! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. John Green (Royal Navy chaplain) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Springnuts, thanks for pointing out that mistake by me, I've fixed it now :D. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I should have had a better look at the context - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working on the article, I suggest adding a gallery at the foot. There is a lot on commons to choose from. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment, phrased, perhaps, as Sherlock might to Watson. I can't help thinking, though, that Doyle wouldn't support your adjective for my work. 7;-> --Rich Janis (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in Brum- Cofton park is next to the old Longbridge plant- see linkandycjp (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions.--Player23 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is good for putting in chronological order. I added some extra found in searching files but some images that I cannot find their year painted. I don't know the modern work in Lot's images in searching wikis. Thanks your effort.--Player23 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you keep them until the creation of arcticle of Lot (Bible) in Art? It could be easier to find them.--Player23 (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just keep them for reference. If you have any other suggestion or disagree, please talk to me.--Player23 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created the page List of meetings of the United States President and the Pope and was wondering if you would review it? Any suggestions would be welcome as well. Thanks in advance! Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there.... It appears that the 'Christian View' has been removed from the Lot (Biblical) page. It wouldnt be fair to have Jewish and Islamic views without a christian view. I believe that you had removed it... but I could be wrong. If you did remove it, could you simplify or capture something from the original to put back on the Lot page so there is at least a section for it? Or at least redo it. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got it. I baiscally merged New Testament info into christian views as this is more appropriate anyway. Thanks Jasonasosa (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite a major change you made to Conference Bike. Perhaps you'd like to discuss your changes on the talk page. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cunnie Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnie Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding! You are editing that page [but] with scissors, and, on the way, you lost three or four references. The following is still used in the article:

<ref name="LOC">Library of Congress Veterans History Project: Arnold Resnicoff collection, AFC/2001/001/70629, May 2010.</ref>

I was lucky enough to work a little bit on that article. It was (and still is) assessed as B-class unto three different WikiProjects: Biography, Judaism, and United States (and IMO it also belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history). If you have the time to spare I (and the whole Wikipedia community) would be extremely grateful if you could work on that article and nominate it at WP:GAN. Obviously I'm ready to help, whenever and wherever it is possible. I am pretty sure that in this way, the end result will be a step forward and not a step back. Happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Oops....
You are welcome. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I do love kittens :) QueenAlexandria (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have used a more fully-explained edit summary on that edit. I wasn't referring to User:StAnselm, who recently re-added that content, but to User:Leucosticte, who originally added it on July 1:[1] Leucosticte is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Sarsaparilla and has since been banned himself. As such, I don't think his contributions should be in the article; although if there's a consensus to nevertheless include that content, I'll accept it and won't object any further. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the need to keep it balanced, however the current lead says it "was an episode", as if it actually happened, when in fact there's not a single credible source to confirm it, which is very heavily unbalanced. It's important for the lead to express such doubts, as people will often not read past the first sentence and form their opinions based on it. I'm open to alternative ways to express it, but I think "supposed" captures the fact it's only ever mentioned in a single religious text fairly accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathrick (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a historical source, Matthew is very much not a credible source, so yeah, wholesale :). I like the edit, putting emphasis on the biblical narrative part of it is a good idea. Thanks. mathrick (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts - the reason I changed the DF-21 speed was because the speed listed was unfortunately ridiculous. I cannot source my estimate but Mach 10 to Mach 15 is at least ball-park for an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. 500knots is the speed that a subsonic sea-skimming cruise missile travels at. Not many people would be scared of ballistic missiles if they travelled at that speed. For reference to back up my comments, check out some other ballistic missiles like the Pershing II (Mach 9, 1800km range), Agni V, SS-12, SS-14 etc. You won't find any other ballistic missiles that slow.

Here's a reference:

http://www.asianweek.com/2010/12/29/chinas-df-21d-anti-carrier-missle-new-threat-to-us-carrier-supremacy/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springnuts. Just a small heads up on the discussion here. It appears that a consensus is forming to restore HRW on Palestinian militants' stated aim, while preserving your addition on allegations against both sides. Feel free to chime in, if you have any reservations. Cheers and Happy New year. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note, "David Letterman, - Please see Talk:David_Letterman#Removal_of_section_on_Letterman_and_John_McCain. Springnuts (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)" I did not do this-198.161.2.241 is someone else, Sorry Twhanna (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a religious figure as "a philosopher" is not unlike describing one as "a scientist". Like that of science, the rational tradition of philosophy can sometimes be at odds with a more mystical understanding of the world by religious thinkers. So some specific basis for assigning such descriptions to clergy is usually present. And that's usually in the shape of a degree.

Rabbi Bernheim's thinking seems to be mostly religious. His "Quarante Méditations Juives" for example was a religious work. And as far as I can tell, that he was thought to be an agrégé of philosophy is the reason Rabbi Gilles Bernheim was being termed "a philosopher" (including by that referenced article in the Forward). Since the revelations, I don't think he has been referred to as "a philosopher", at least not in the Le Monde article, nor in the Huffington Post one.

It's not that plagiarism "is enough to discount all his thinking". Plagiarism has nothing to do with any of this. "All his thinking" is not being attacked in any way. But we describe Gilles Bernheim as "a philosopher" before even as "a Rabbi". Why? Being a Rabbi is what he is know for. And we are talking about the chief Rabbi in France. So, I suggest that, if we need to introduce Gilles Bernheim as something other than "rabbi", the more general "author", instead of the very specific "philosopher", allows us to present a more accurate biography ... without in any way discounting his thinking. Alexscara (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. But you've reversed my edits twice. That's enough from me. You should be the one to revert it back. Regards Alexscara (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are still introducing Rabbi Bernheim primarily as "a philosopher", even though, while the rabbi part is certain, the "philosopher" part is uncertain to say the least. I don't care if was just you or you and somebody else. You explained that this was a "judgement" call. But if it is, not to be imposing my judgement on others requires consensus. I rectified it twice. It was changed back twice. Enough from me. Whoever it was that considered the correction incorrect is the one that needs to restore it. Cheers! Alexscara (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholicism in Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (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) 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear? Let me explain. The issue is the identifying all Hoverflys as Mk Is, which they weren't. (I'll confess, right offhand, I can't say how RAF broke out the Hoverfly mark numbers, but that's really not on point.) I'm also not impressed with the "I's": it's not a possessive, it's a plural. The confusion you seem to think will insue, IMO, is near zero, & doesn't warrant such a common (& wrong) use of apostrophe. Any further confusion? Do message me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Topaze (1858), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance. 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) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of the RAF Hoverfly Mark I helicopters" as opposed to "Many RAF Hoverfly Mark Is" is straining to avoid the "Mark Is" for no good reason. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I took note of what you said. Sorry for marking the edits as minor. I noticed you were right that I usually mark my edits as minor. My way of thinking was along the lines of: "if the edit is smaller in size than the original article, it's minor." Perhaps this was wrong. I'll try to keep that under tabs; thanks for the friendly tip! Jgefd (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-faa-warn-787-pilots-of-bad-airspeed-data-423735/, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this back to murders, because there's no doubt that these were murders, and it's the common title. Even if you believe one was a suicide, the others were clearly murdered, and the suicide theory does not have strong support. If you disagree, please open a requested-move discussion. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might find this link useful. - ^theWOLFchild 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Devenney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Devenney until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed unjustified accusation of being in an Edit War. '2R and stop' is not 3R!) Springnuts (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Burial at sea— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a section on the article's talk page here to discuss your deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_socialism#Removal_of_Acts_verses_and_info_on_Hutterites_from_New_Testament_section Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Warrenpoint ambush article, as well as other Troubles related articles, is under a 1-revert-restriction, meaning no more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springnuts, I saw you reverted my edit on Sucker Punch. Can you please explain why. It is confusing to have two ors in one sentence and in many forms of english such as that used in the UK and AUS wrong. I think a comma best represents it and is less confusing. Life200BC (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening and thank you for your friendly question. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" says "one of the first requisites for the writing of good clean sentences is to have acquired the art of enumeration, that is, of stringing together three or four words of phrases of identical grammatical value without going wrong. That cannot be done by blind observance of the rule of thumb that "and" and "or" should be used only once in a list." The awkwardness here is caused by the phrases in brackets. Could you clarify which alternatives belong to which language please? Then I think we can rewrite the sentence to be clear and elegant. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I think coward punch, king hit or one-punch attack are the words used in Australia. I'm not sure about this so probably best to leave as is. Thanks for your explanation about why you reverted my edits. I now see that both ways have lots of flaws. Your time explaining this to me is very much appreciate. Life200BC (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the name I gave you, LOL.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol  :) Feel free to revert! Springnuts (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying the WP:3O on this. I take you rather gentle point, I think it might be a good idea. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Thanks Ward20 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Springnuts (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just to say thank you again for your third opinion on the UK Holocaust Memorial - a great example of how an independent viewpoint giving an issue some thought can resolve an impasse! Jontel (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Boeing 787 Dreamliner have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Reason – The references you added is not for Boeing 787 but Boeing 777. Hence you should be adding it into Boeing 777 instead. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The ref states “ The company has halted deliveries of its 787 Dreamliners to check for manufacturing flaws.”. The reference may be wrong, but that is what it says. Springnuts (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first I ever requested a 3rd, so I didn't know what to expect, thinking it would be more along the brief admin interactions I've had in the past. However I was fully blown away by the depth and care you took in trying to help. Not only did you look into the points discussed, you also went ahead and did your own search, as well as looking at the whole article itself. Thank you very much! 8ya (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks; you are welcome. Springnuts (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there is a template for referencing Crockford's Clerical Directory at template:Crockford. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

I was wondering about deleting Uk4u-Thanks!. I am not on a crusade if you think it is notable just let me know for remove the notice. And if you did not make the page and do not care, well then you know what to do.

The article Uk4u-Thanks! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This charity, now likely shut down, has a very low internet footprint even for what it purports to be. What little coverage it has seems to be in Daily Mail or similar. I do not think it is notable as an organisation.

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. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recap:

1. You removed material from Entheogen for no reason, but you claimed it was fringe
2. You were asked on the talk page to specify what was fringe
3. You said you weren’t going to edit war and you asked another editor to step in
4. That editor stepped in and said, and I quote, "I think it is better to discuss and reach consensus before removing longstanding material"
5. You ignored the advice from the editor you requested help from and resumed edit warring
6. You are again asked to join the discussion on the talk page.

I hope this helps. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: "The burden is on Springnuts to explain why they removed sourced material. I have asked repeatedly and I have not yet seen a reply.”

I am not against removing material. I am against page blanking for no known reason. You might be able to drum up support for removing material (including my help), if you can explain what needs removing and why. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re interested in learning a little bit about the subject, check out Religion as a Product of Psychotropic Drug Use (2013) by Richard J Miller, professor of pharmacology at Northwestern University. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider how long humans have been using drugs. Now consider Neanderthals, which we have evidence of using drugs as long as 48,000 years ago. Now consider that their earliest settlement is dated to 125,000 years ago. Do you think, it’s just slightly possible, that after experimenting with drugs for so many thousands of years, a system of beliefs would be passed around over time? Think about it. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Gazelle’s discussion on Talk:Entheogen is to mitigate and discuss the dispute before engaging in edits. In other words, bring your proposed edits to the talk page so we can agree on them. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, although the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service was closed as no consensus, I have gone ahead and reconfigured the content into Deaths of United States federal judges in active service, as discussed. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts. How silly. :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well … not the silliest :D. Origin lost in the mists of time … Springnuts (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I did not find this during the AfD discussion, but this is certainly the in-depth treatment that the discussion contemplated. There are a few others of this type in the recommendations on the Amazon page, but the rest appear to be self-published, while this one is from a reputable publisher in the field. BD2412 T 18:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I look forward to seeing the article develop :) Springnuts (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sandbox (2nd nomination), was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance to provide a third opinion in the ongoing dispute regarding sourced views on authenticity of the Shapira Scroll, as detailed in Talk:Shapira Scroll# Vandalism. As I explained there, it is a dispute between only two editors. Would it be better if I turned to WP:DNR? Thanks. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:DC39:5D03:C939:E794 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Shapira Scroll# Vandalism. Springnuts (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and thoughtful response as a third opinion request on the SBF article! --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re this. I am not impressed by the sources, but maybe moving this to Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash the would be useful? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smart idea. Thanks Springnuts (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have a Query. Is there a way retrieve the last version before deletion of this article for my reference. I am still working on this. Is there a way to go for deletion review?

Thanks Kbala1055 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an admin to "userfy" the article to your own sandbox. FWIW the deletion was pretty convincing, so rather than go to deletion review I think it would be better to improve the article if you can, then re-create it. But it's not worth getting bent out of shape over the issue - there are 6,633,290 articles left on here and you can do good work on some of them :) Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Springnuts. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have to say I’m a bit bewildered as to why you’ve removed some content from the Jeremy Griffith page about his search of the thylacine on the basis of WP:UNDUE. It’s pretty clear UNDUE applies mainly where there are competing points of view, although the policy does include that “Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail…”.

The deleted material is only one and half sentences. It’s highly relevant to establishing Griffith’s notability and includes the interesting connection with Australian politician Bob Brown, who is well known here in Australia. It is supported by reliable sources. It meets WP:BLP. Griffith (and Malley’s ) search is included on the | Thylacine page.

Your edit summary is “Remove undue detail of fruitless search for an extinct animal”. If you have a look at the | Extinction section on the thylacine page, at the time of Griffith’s search in the late 60s and early 70s (which is only 30 odd years since the last captive thylacine died), it was not known if the animal was actually extinct or not. As the thylacine page makes clear, the thylacine held the status of endangered species until the 1980s, and was only “declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 1982 and by the Tasmanian government in 1986.” Reliable reports of Griffith's search show that the search was far from “fruitless” because it was the seminal empirical study that formed the basis of the now-accepted view that the thylacine is in fact extinct.

So I can’t see that there’s anything in UNDUE or any other policy to justify the deletion of this material, so I’ve undone the edit. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thoughtful revert. To me, the whole article seems overlong. Springnuts (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Russian destroyer Admiral Levchenko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Springnuts. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 years! I had no idea. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious years.. - ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]