User talk:Springnuts

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

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

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

"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

Hello, Springnuts. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Springnuts. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might find

Hello, Springnuts. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 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]

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]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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]

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]

Boleh (yacht), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zoozaz1 talk 23:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying the

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]

Hello Springnuts:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by

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

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]

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

• 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

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

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]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy New Year!

Springnuts,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2023 (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

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

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

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]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]