Jump to content

User talk:Spinningspark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K00la1dx (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 5 February 2023 (→‎unsourced or poorly sourced posting: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Induction

<conversation moved to Talk:Induction> SpinningSpark 17:28, 10 October 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hosiery

Hi Spinning, How should I proceed if I have a suspicion, but no firm evidence of sockpuppetry? Thanks catslash (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases there isn't hard evidence until a checkuser looks at it. Editing behaviour is enough to open an WP:SPI case. This could be similar interests in articles, common turns of phrase, typos, or formatting habits, or a whole heap of newly created accounts turning up to support a discussion. I've myself blocked a fair number of sock accounts on such evidence without an SPI if it looks warranted. Can't really help you much more without details of the actual case. If you're reluctant to publicly name the suspected sockmaster, you can talk to me on email. SpinningSpark 09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help with this. catslash (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butler Matrix

Hi, yesterday I made a revision to the Butler matrix article in Wikipedia, and you undid my revision. You clearly understand the issue, but you don't agree with the revision. May I comment?

The sentence that bothered me was "It consists of an n by n matrix ( some power of two) with hybrid couplers and fixed-value phase shifters at the junctions."

You are right that later in the article it is stated that the number of physical pieces of the hardware that implements a certain multibeam phased array can be of the order n log_2 n. I agree that there is a factor of 1/2, which I didn't include because it comes from counting each hybrid as a unit device even though it has two inputs and two outputs. Most people using the order notation will ignore a constant factor just as some a matrix multiplication algorithm may be said to require n^2 multiplications and additions, when it is really n^2 multiplications and also n^2 additions. I have no quarrel with the factor of 1/2.

Of course, a Butler matrix might be taken to mean the matrix achieved by the hardware. I have always taken it to mean the hardware itself.

Let me relate an experience from many decades ago. I was doing signal processing and was excited to read a paper by John Tukey and Jim Cooley, disclosing the fast Fourier transform. This was about an algorithm, certainly by now one of the most important computer algorithms. I was the first person to introduce this algorithm to the MIT community, just a few days before the Cooley/Tukey paper appeared. When I gave my talk, someone in the audience (Ed Muehe) said that the flow graph of the algorithm was identical to a Butler matrix, which he then explained. The Butler matrix, an array radar multiple beam beamformer, was in use for several years before Tukey discovered the FFT algorithm. Both the Butler matrix and the Fast Fourier transform are important because they reduce the complexity of their respective tasks from n^2 to n log n.

Charlie Rader 2601:18E:C182:2190:A5E6:EB02:88EC:AA26 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

মোঃ মশিউর রহমান চৌধুরী again

Hi Spinningspark, you blocked মোঃ মশিউর রহমান চৌধুরী in July for disruptive editing, specifically related to copy-pasting and train stations. Well, they seem to be back at it again. I just redirected two train station articles they created that were word-for-word copies of Habiganj Bazar–Shaistaganj–Balla line. This user also seems to be unable or unwilling to respond to talk page messages (maybe WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). A block might be necessary again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked is largely the work of the user, so it was his copyright in the first place (unless he copied it from somewhere else). It's not therefore a big problem if he has used the same text somewhere else. Please provide links to the pages you redirected if you think there is still a problem. SpinningSpark 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguably disruptive editing to be copy-pasting the exact same article with essentially no changes, but I suppose you are right that it's not a copyright violation. Earwig doesn't give me any hits. Nevermind, I guess, though I still think there are CIR issues with this editor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback/twinkle

Hello. I saw that you left a message on User talk:FMSky about misuse of rollback/twinkle a few days ago. I happened to leave a message about the same topic after they rollbacked my edits. I was wondering if you could take a look at the history of these two articles to see if they are appropriate uses of rollback/twinkle. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please use WP:DIFFs to link to the actual edits in question, not just the user history. That forces me to guess what you are talking about and those links will rapidly become meaningless as relevant entries scroll off the page. But in answer to your question, I don't think edits like that should be done with regular rollback, and if done with Twinkle rollback a proper explanatory edit summary should be provided. However, the user did self revert on one of them and you have reverted the other one. So the specific issue is closed, no? SpinningSpark 12:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while so I may have forgot some of the formatting for these types of things. Their initial rollback was self-reverted, but they later used twinkle to restore their earlier version of the article and re-instate the rollback. Same as here, reverting without explanation in order to restore their last revision of the article. I haven't edited those articles since the initial edits, so I haven't reverted any of these rollbacks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you blatantly lying now and saying i didnt leave an explanation? i clearly did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimebag_Darrell&action=history saying that there's no reason to delete that part --FMSky (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I initially used twinkle to restore the earlier version to get back the parts that were deleted. Then i reintegrated the edits that i thought were improvements --FMSky (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well none of that was explained, or explained very well. Your first edit in the sequence was a Twinkle rollback with only the automated edit summary. You did not even use the Twinkle good faith button which you should do for edits that are not vandalism or other disruption. You then self-reverted again with no explanation. Your next edit had no edit summary and the one after that was "restore that part". You then restored your initial rollback finally giving a meaningful edit summary, but imo not really answering the edit summary of the original edit you were reverting. Likewise on the Pantera article we have this edit again rolling back the edits of a good faith editor with no explanation. SpinningSpark 09:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That last edit you showed wasn't even a rollback, but yeah i should've left an explanation, so that was a mistake on my part. Note that most of your edits have been reintegrated now --FMSky (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "restore that part" is just a description of the reversion, not an explanation for the reversion. And saying "I dont get why that other early life part was wiped either" is not an explanation for reversion either. In that edit, you not only restored the content I removed from the early life section, you also reverted numerous copy edits without any explanation. I stated in my edit summary that the early life content was removed as it was repetition, and I've mentioned on your talk page that it was also a direct, unattributed quote from the source material. You haven't corrected that WP:COPYVIO despite me mentioning it to you three days ago, and you having edited the article in the meantime. You are responsible for content when you purposefully restore it to an article. This reversion here was also unexplained as I mentioned, you simply restored your own previous version of the article prior to my edits. You have not given any explanation or justification for that use of twinkle.
Do not accuse people of "blatantly lying" or of being liars without presenting any evidence. This is not acceptable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, most of your edits are now in the article. Go ahead and reinstate the other ones that still bother you. --FMSky (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are only "most" of them in the articles, and not all of them? You've given no explanation for the ones you reverted and haven't re-added. You're not admitting fault or apologising for your misuse of rollback and twinkle, and are trying to dismiss this as though you don't care. If you don't care to discuss, then don't mass revert people's edits without explanation. Apparently you've done this not just to me, but to other editors as well. This is what bothers me more so than the fact my edits were reverted without explanation. This is not how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the rest i though werent improvements. But if you think differently please go ahead and change it again. --FMSky (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You thought restoring a copyright violation to the article was an improvement? Why haven't you removed that part considering it was mentioned to you three days ago and you have edited the article in the meantime? Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wasnt so much a copyvio but a close paraphrasing issue. but yeah agreed, not optimal, but maybe a rewrite wouldve been better than a straight up deletion as it is definitely useful info. however, i have deleted it for now --FMSky (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a direct, unattributed quote from the source, that is a copyright violation. But thank you for re-instating my edit and removing it. That was one of my edits you thought "werent improvements". Why have you not re-instated the others you reverted without explanation? Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking christ, can you get off my ass please??? Move the fuck on already. That was even before Spinningspark left the final warning on my page. What you are doing rn is WP:HOUNDING, and if you countinue to do so, you will be the one going to WP:ANI. We've been discussing for 5 days now because i reverted 2 of your edits, and i literally said, "PLEASE RESTORE THEM AGAIN", leave my alone already!!! -FMSky (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not "move on" if you continue to revert good-faith edits without explanation, just as I would not "move on" if a vandal were continuing to vandalise articles. You can report me at ANI if you want, nothing is stopping you. I don't recommend including unnecessary expletives in the ANI report though. If you refrain from reverting good-faith edits without explanation in the future, then I won't have much to discuss with you. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark detection

I withdrew the AfD and moved the article to landmark detection, but I noticed none of those bad-ass sources from the AfD made it in. If you want to go expand the article now, it's safe (i.e. not about to get steamrolled) :^) jp×g 11:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to take a look, but I may be too busy to do anything until after Christmas Eve. The Yue Wu and Qiang Ji source (which I now have in full) has a good description of the various methods used and will be a good place to start. SpinningSpark 12:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohm's Law reversion

Concerning your reversion of my edit, does not Charge density#Definitions explicitly state:

"similarly the surface charge density uses a surface area element dS "

--Ben Best:Talk 11:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benbest: That's a different context using the same symbol for a different purpose. There are far more parameters in science and engineering than there are letters in the Greek and Latin alphabets combined. The same letter gets used for different things all the time. Another common use for is stress, but that would not be a correct link for electrical conductivity either. Even , which everyone thinks they know what that stands for, can also mean nucleotide diversity, population proportion, and a type of calculus. None of those would be suitable links for the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter of a circle. If we include the capital letter , there are even more uses. SpinningSpark 20:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

something very strange happened

greetings,

i hope your holidays have been decent so far.

ok, the other day, i created this new talk topic, and when i went to check and make sure it read ok, i noticed the strangest thing.

from out of nowhere, and through no doing of my own, a footnote appeared at the bottom of my newly created post, with a url that linked to some sort of gay hookup site.

like i said, i didnt add this footnote when i wrote the post, and there wasnt any code in the pages source to explain its existence.

i even copied the exact source from the post, band ran it through my sandbox a few times to see what would happen. the footnote and link showed up in my sandbox maybe the first five or six times i ran it. after that, it was gone, it just disappeared without any obvious reason and i was no longer able to replicate the page with the footnote and link at the bottom using my sandbox.

fortunately, i did everything in my sandbox and i didnt edit or reply to, the actual talk topic. i feel like performing either of those actions would potentially cause the talk topic page to rerender without the footnote at the bottom like it did in my sandbox. at least this way, i still have evidence that it happened so nobody thinks im crazy or imagining things.

if you know what might have caused this to happen, or have any advice on the matter, i would really appreciate it. it would help ease my mind. i tried posting the screenshots and links to the wikipedia subreddit, but i didnt get a single reply. at this point, i dont have the foggiest idea whom to ask or how to even begin to understand it, and thats kind of bothering me.

if youll notice, i posted a direct link to the talk topic in question, and fortunately, the footnote is still present at the bottom. i suppose i didnt need to also link the destination url of the footnote in here, but i wanted to be sure you had the infornation in case somebody edits or replys to the post and causes this "ghost link" to disappear before you actually have a chance to take a look at what im talking about.

if you respond to this message, could you please ping me or @ me or whatever its called so i get a notification as soon as it hits my inbox..

thanks either way.. i look forward to hearing your thoughts. have a good new year and a solid 2023. happy holidaze! Snarevox (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarevox: it wasn't you who added it, it was on the page before you started editing. It's caused by someone adding a link in <ref> tags somwwhere on the page. This is a dumb thing to do on talk pages because talk pages don't have a references section, but people insist on doing it all the time. On pages that don't have a ref section, the software automatically renders the refs at the bottom of the page so that at least they are visible. To fix it, click on the little up chevron (^) at the beginning of the link. That will take you to the section that contains the ref. Add {{reflist-talk}} to the bottom of that section and save the page. The link will then stay attached to the section it belongs to. SpinningSpark 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinningSpark:
ok that all makes sense..
i found the culprit, but i noticed the link just points to the homepage of a nsfw messaging forum, the actual reference being cited appears to be one of the posts somewhere on the site.. the id data for the post is in the url, but it still just takes you to the homepage, it might be deleted or you might need an account to read it, idk.
since it appears to be a questionable source according to the discussion, would removing the link entirely possibly be a better solution in this case??
im also wondering if you might have an idea why that link rendered the first few times i copied just the source from my topic over to my sandbox and then just stopped showing up after like the fifth or sixth time i did it? i never pasted any actual code for the link, but it still appeared when i published the first few sandbox tests, and then for no reason, it just stopped and i couldnt get it to replicate again. almost like it had something to do with time..
i still feel like if i were to edit and republish my topic without changing any code, the link will disappear, just like it did in my sandbox.
i realize it could have been a bug, im just wondering if you have any thoughts on it? its really not a big deal, i just found it curious.
thanks again! Snarevox (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no, I don't think you should delete it. It's part of the record of discussions. If it were on an article page, that would be a different situation, but past conversations on talk should be preserved. I don't think it is worth trying to fix the link either, the conversation is 15 years old and no longer active.
I doubt that you have found a bug in your sandbox, but I'm not going to go through all the edits there to try and find out. If you give me the diffs of the last edit that rendered and the first one that did not I'll take a look for you, but otherwise it is too much work for no benefit. SpinningSpark 10:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Spinningspark!

Happy New Year!

Spinningspark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Heaviside

Hi, with this change, I believe you've reverted the wrong part. I did no more than disambiguate Steinmetz; the substantive edit was made by the editor before me, and which you have left in the article. Your edit comment has left a permanent record in the history that I am inserting a POV into an article. Thanks —BillC talk 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that mistake. I have also left an apology in the edit summary so that there is a permanent record. Nevertheless, your edit needs to stay reverted since it is within the problematic edit. SpinningSpark 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says in my source, The Forgotten Genius of Oliver Heaviside that Steinmetz was an admirer of Heaviside. Don't you think it is a little peculiar how Steinmetz is so similar Heaviside's operational calculus?
How do the courts of Wikipedia work, I site one source and you site another source, who wins? I think I should win because I am a EE and when I was in college I took a class called systems theory. My professor wrote a big H on the board. We called it taking the H of the system. If H does not stand for Heaviside what does it stand for? The French that invented Reactance?
Don't you think it is a little peculiar how Steinmetz is so similar Heaviside's operational calculus?
K00la1dx (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Smoked salmon cheesecake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smoked salmon cheesecake 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/Smoked salmon cheesecake (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

RudolfSchreier (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smoked salmon cheesecake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Better Homes and Gardens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High-pass filter

original png
replacement svg

Hi! I made .svg file of .png scheme. SVG files are prefered in Wikimedia Commons as they can be directly translated, have smaller file size etc. Why did you revert my edit? If so, can you give any tips for improvment. A09 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the original was beautifully drawn with great clarity. The replacement was terrible in comparison. I don't disagree that svg is the preferred format for diagrams, but that does not mean it is ok to always replace a png format with an inferior svg. Besides which, you rationale does not make sense. The svg diagram remains in existence on Commons so continues to give the advantages of svg to Commons users. Removing it from a Wikipedia article makes no difference to that whatsoever. SpinningSpark 12:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. So do you have any tips how to improve overall if it is so terrible? A09 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd question whether it is worth the effort. The png resolution is perfectly serviceable for online use and probably any conceivable print use as well unless you are considering putting it up on a hoarding in Picaddilly Circus. There are so many subtle ways the png is better that my best suggestion is try to make an exact copy, but here are some specifics (not necessarily exhaustive),
  1. You have put the feedback into the +ve input, so you have probably built an oscillator rather than a filter
  2. The png lines are thicker (relative to the diagram size) so show up better at small size
  3. The png is more compact (the interconnections are shorter) so the components are larger and clearer than the svg for the same size frame
  4. Thicker strokes are used in the png for components than interconnections making the components stand out. The svg has them all of one size.
  5. Components in the png that have internal white space are coloured (only one in this case) giving them better visibility
  6. The fonts are nicer in the png. The font size is larger compared to the components and more easily read.
  7. You have specified the font-face as Arial in the svg. This is Microsoft proprietary and will not be available to every user so will not always render how you see it. You should either use a generic font, or a solution I often use, convert fonts to paths. This forces the text to render exactly as I drew it. Especially important when, as here, maths representation of variables is required. Admittedly, that has maintainability issues.
  8. Variables should be in italic font
  9. Subscripts should be in upright font (unless the subscript itself is also a variable). Your svg file has not rendered the subscripts as subscripts at all. They are just part of the same text.
  10. The earth symbol is badly formed
  11. The earth symbol does not line up properly with its connecting line
  12. Having R2 so badly off-centre is not very aesthetically pleasing.
SpinningSpark 16:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of these tips! I'll admit it was my first such scheme and will think of your guides in future. I'm going to fix SVG later this evening. Sincerely, A09 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colin, I have uploaded a new SVG with all of your tips included (File:Active Highpass Filter RC.svg). Thank you for your convenience and consideration. Sincerly, A09 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't replace the image in High-pass filter again. This is still not an improvement and has certainly not taken into account all my comments. SpinningSpark 12:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced or poorly sourced posting

Please clarify to me how if I post things on Wikipedia that does not have a source or that the source is not to your liking, that I will be banned from editing.

Where in the policy of Wikipedia is that so?

As far as I am concerned people post all the time on Wikipedia that they have no source or that the source is not that good. In fact, this is the case of most posting on Wikipedia.

Why don't you take your threat and ban 90 percent of people who edit Wikipedia?

K00la1dx (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K00la1dx: The relevant policy is WP:V. The problem with your edits is that they have been challenged, but you continue to insert the same old claims (in slightly variant forms) either without a source, or with a source that doesn't check out. It is not acceptable to do that, regardless of what is, or is not happening in other articles. SpinningSpark 17:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make any sense. This is Wikipedia! We are not professional researchers or editors. People post things all the time that is under-sourced and sometimes has no source at all. That is not grounds to terminate someones account. Lets be real!
Anyways I should be allowed to post in the Heaviside-Layer, that Heaviside used Reactance to describe it, the ionosphere. It in the source that you showed me where Heaviside credits the French to the word Reactance. He also used it to describe the Heaviside-Layer. K00la1dx (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

howdy captain!

i came across another anomaly that i cant find any explanation for.. this should be an easy one for you.

ok i know that normally when i want to link to another wikipedia article/page, i need to enclose prettymuch the exact title of the destination page within a double set of brackets, with either underscoring or traditional spacing between the words..

so either:
[[The Exact Title of the Destination Page]]

or: [[The_Exact_Title_of_the_Destination_Page]]

my question is, with the above syntax being the standard for interwiki links, how is it that on this page, just double bracketing a characters name takes you to that characters subsection of a destination page with a title that is completely different than the text that makes up the link?

for example any of the following three versions of this characters name:

[[Donna Tubbs]

[[Donna Tubbs Brown]]

[[Donna Tubbs-Brown]]

all render just like other interwiki links that use the exact title of their destination page as a syntax:

Donna Tubbs

Donna Tubbs Brown

Donna Tubbs-Brown

except they dont link to three different pages with different versions of "donna tubbs" as their titles. heck, they dont even list to one page with that title, they all three direct to the same destination page that has the totally different title: List of characters in the Family Guy franchise, and i should add that they even go so far as to put you right in the #Donna-Tubbs_Brown subsection of that page, even though the syntax used to create those interwiki links just use three different versions of the characters name instead of using the title of the destination page.

so im basically just asking how those three different interwiki link versions of "Donna Tubbs((-)Brown)" all link to the same subsection of a destination page that has a completely different title of "List of characters in the Family Guy franchise"?

im not at all familiar with this, i dont know how or why it works or where else this type of, i guess syntax leniency, might also be allowed as far as interwiki links are concerned? is there maybe some sort of css or redirect deal set up in advance? a scripted function perhaps? i really am curious, since ive only had access to a mobile device for the past however long and ive been typing all my markdown manually without the aid of any fancy pants editing suites, i find all these little quirks absolutely fascinating.

for quick reference just in case, here is a quick link to the page and the source for the page those links appear on.

one last thing while ive got your attention.. why does putting two spaces before a bit of markdown always seem to render almost as though it was wrapped in <code></code>? its not exactly the same, but it appears to be very similar.

for example:

double bracketed link wrapped in regular code tags:

Donna Tubbs

same double bracketed link, just prepended two spaces: 

Donna Tubbs

both wrapped in code tags and prepended with two spaces: 

 Donna Tubbs

as always, i hope this finds you well. i unsuccessfuly tried finding answers to both questions before resorting to sending this to you, if the answers are out there to easily be found, i might not have been asking the proper questions to lead me to them. i appreciate any information youre able to share on either matter. no need to rush, just whenever you get around to it. lastly, if it isnt too much trouble, please ping me if or when you reply, so i can get notified.

take it easy!

thanks again.
Snarevox (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarevox: You will find the answer to your first question at WP:REDIRECT. On the code markup, that is just a feature of the software. It is a quick and dirty way of getting that markup. Wiki markup was originally extremely simple, it had none of the complex templates that exist today. It would probably not be put in if the software was being written from scratch now. There is guidance on the use of code markup at MOS:CODE. SpinningSpark 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&oldid=1137689777"