User talk:Arrivisto

I have moved ARV Super2 to User:Arrivisto/ARV Super2. Someone had tagged it for speedy deletion but I decided to be more merciful. This article needs more work before it can be put in the (Main) namespace: a) Context - it seems so obvious but you did not do it - the first sentence must include the word "aircraft"! b) What is this . Contents [hide] 1 Development history 2 Features 3 Safety record crap? You have, I assume, started with an existing article as the basis, copied it the wrong way and not finished tidying up.

Try again, I think you have the start of a decent article here. -- RHaworth 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:AE110 engine.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AE110 engine.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload free media to Commons, please

It is better if your free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Thank you: Jay8g (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Review File:Opus prototype.jpb.jpg

Hi, just to let you know the sourcing of this image was tagged by me at File:Opus prototype.jpb.jpg and is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_File:Opus_prototype.jpb.jpg.2C_please. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a shoulder wing a type of high wing?

Please see Talk:Wing_configuration#Is_a_shoulder_wing_a_type_of_high_wing.3F

Pointers on better editing style

Can I suggest that you read some how-to stuff before doing any more edits? You are making quite a few simple mistakes that can easily be avoided. It also saves us time cleaning up after you.

Look at WP:MOSNUM. Note how units of measure are presented, always with a non-breaking space between the number and unit of measure. Also it may be useful to use the {{convert}} template so that a unit of measure can be presented as different conversions - especially useful for someone used to imperial vs. metric (or vice versa).

Also look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Footnotes. Note that references go immediately after punctuation without any spaces. Do not put the punctuation after references. It would be better to use properly formatted references using {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc., rather than use bare URLs or magazine names.

If you have any questions please ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, but please take notice of WP:MOSNUM for units of measure - so put non-breaking spaces between an engine capacity and the "cc", and put commas in numbers that contain thousands. It's a pain having to clean up articles where this isn't done. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MC-30 little & large.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MC-30 little & large.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Arrivisto. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:MC-30_little_.26_large.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heron head

Good idea for an article. I've been thinking about doing the Ricardo designs for ages now. Can we find some images for this? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! I haven't found any images to date. Let's keep looking! Are you going to write the "Squish" page? Arrivisto (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Low value web sites

There are a number of sites like motorcyclespecs.co.za and motorbike-search-engine.co.uk which contain either copyrighed material without permission, or anonymous user-submitted content. Generally the consensus is they are not reliable sources. The most recent discussion about it was on July 9.

Consensus is always subject to change, and if you'd like to suggest these sites or others be considered reliable, you should start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling, or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. My opinoin is that these sites don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You recently deleted a really good image (of a Commando with a front drum brake), saying, "(Interpretations of what unverified images mean is original research on primary sources. Please don't link to motorbike-search-engine.co.uk It's dubious and disreputable. Cite a source that actually says what you wrote.)" Unless you suspect that the image is not in the public domain, I think the deletion is OTT. I have approached the "disreputable site", asking," Please may I have your permission to post some of your images on Wikipedia?", with the reply,"Thanks for your email. As long we receive a credit/link for each image then I have no problem wth this. Please send me a link to the pages when available. Thanks, Ian" I will follow this up with a query whether "Ian" owns the copyright , or if the image is public domain; and if it is, then it's an excellent image that I propose to upload. If not, I will, of course, observe Wikipedia's copyright policy. Arrivisto (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The original research is where you decide that the the bike is unmodified, and the year is what you think it is. Considering how many Tritons and Tribsas are out there, who knows if the bike in the photo came from the factory like that? It could even be photoshopped. You really have no idea what you're looking at when you find pictures on the web from anonymous sources. You could say the same about any "photographic evidence" on Wikipedia. Again, read WP:PRIMARY. The photo is raw data -- primary source material. We use secondary and tertiary source material, meaning we rely on experts to give us the interpretation.

Primary sources are sometimes cited on Wikipeia, if there is truly no other way and we are extremely confident the interpretation is correct. But considering there are a dozen other ways to cite what kind of brakes a bike came with, there is no need to be reaching for primary sources here. And motorbike search engine still violates WP:COPYLINK and WP:USERGENERATED. Why not use a library instead?

Again, I encourage you to open the discussion up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. Wikipedia is collaborative and it works best when you get others to collaborate with you, and perhaps other editors will even agree with you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Mead & Tomkinson racing. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use more intuitive piped Wikilinks

Piped Wikilinks are meant only to make the wording fit the context, or suppress unnecessary disambiguation descriptions in page titles. Non-intuitive links, such as here, where the reader must click to discover what your point is, are discouraged. See WP:EASTEREGG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point! Taken on board. Arrivisto (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While you are taking things on board, just a reminder that references go after punctuation, not before (WP:REFPUNC) --Biker Biker (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever felt people are ganging up on you?! Arrivisto (talk)

We just want you to be an even better editor than you are right now... --Biker Biker (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of the World.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold move

It's a good idea to discuss bold moves on controversial topics and get consensus first. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with IRWolfie - although I have sympathy for wanting to do the move. "Being bold" was a bit too much in this case - so I've started such a discussion over at Talk:Cold fusion, which you should obviously join into. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to make you aware that I started a thread at Talk:Joseph Smith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tribsa article

Gooday Trevor - I have added citations needed and disputed facts to Tribsa page here (don't expect these to endure....) and new sections to the Talk page here which you may be interested in. Thx.--62.253.80.1 (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guideline

Hello, Arrivisto. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Offshore off-licence, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Denning

Hey Arrivisto :). Thanks for your additions to the Denning article - could you provide a citation for them, please? Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler RfC

I see the RfC has been closed. Since you had already "surrendered" and conceded, of course, this was just a formality but I thought it better to wait until it closed before asking you this. In my vote, I suggested a "conspiracy theories concerning that death of Adolf Hitler" article that would be a better place for discussion of the allegations in the book Grey Wolf. At least two other commenters agreed with this idea, and I wanted to know if you were thinking about it. I really don't have the time until at least some time next year to even think about such an article. I would, however, be interested in providing feedback if you wanted to start it. Thanks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Types of motorcycles, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Types of motorcycles, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the vandal, not me, with your wholesale knee-jerk reversions. My editing is not disruptive, but is thoughtful, relevant and intelligent. Like most editors, I am happy for other editors to correct any mistakes that I have made. But you appear to believe that you have a higher status than editors such as me, and you are continually issuing blocking threats. You are the humourless editor whose level of discourse has been (I quote): "What the fuck!". Twice!. You take the pleasure out of editing with your reactionary and ill-considered responses. I don't like your bullying and hectoring, but I am inured to it, and I will not be cowed. Arrivisto (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Converting types of motorcycles to list

I see you have contributed, or sought to contribute, to the page on types of motorcycles. We are currently considering reducing that page to a list. The list would link to separate pages exploring each type in depth. An example of how it would look is in my sandbox. See the talk page for Types of Motorcycles for further discussion. Do you have an opinion, pro or con?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for this. Yes, I have some views, but I think I'd better take a back seat on this, as my relationship with User:Dennis Bratland has not been entirely happy. (A pity, as I feel DB and I probably have quite a lot of positive things in common.) I wish to avoid being involved in an edit war; so, I'll watch what happens, and may contribute in due course. Good luck! Arrivisto (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I respect reticence. Generally speaking, to avoid situations in which one is reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia just because of animosity with another editor, I follow this rule: Any sentence with "you" in it, avoid. One speaks of the article, the argument, the citation. Never your citation, your argument, and especially never your article. There is no such thing as your article. I find that simply reconsidering whenever I am tempted to use the word you, refocuses me on the article, rather than the editor. With best wishes,ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I'll join in again, taking care not to tread on the rather sensitive toes! Arrivisto (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie

On reflection, now that passions have cooled, it seems to me that this exchange included intemperate and inappropriate language directed at the editor Arrivisto (sometimes avoiding the word 'you' results in awkward syntax). I am going to ask the editor Dennis Bratland what his views are. If it were me, I would consider an apology--but then I am not a young aggressively competitive motorcycle rider. Meantime, a cookie.

ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm! Delicious! Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, thanks for your support, but I'll just put it down to experience in the hope that the dust settles and relations become more cordial. (By the way, I'm still working, and plan to carry on into my 70s!) Arrivisto (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories 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/Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories 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 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. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that this article is a keep, it should be expanded with more detail. I see where you added a bit as to the "new book" as to an alleged "Escape to Brazil". Even though the position of the book is not highly regarded, the article is about conspiracy theories, therefore some detail of what the author contents should be added. I recall it had to do with a similar looking old man (to Hitler) who lived in a village and the author dug around as to info. on him. It is your baby, so I leave it up to you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not so much "my baby" as a foundling to be left on another's doorstep! Arrivisto (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Frame

Just thought I'd mention relating to your Egli edit summary: "Remove Vincent frame" text: (Vincents were effectively frameless, using the engine as a stressed member)". Whereas you are partially - technically - correct, the common Vincent name is UFM = Upper Frame Member here with images of the oil bearing box section and RFM = Rear Frame member here and here (I couldn't quickly find a facsimile parts book depiction for the upper frame and steering head attachment)

Obviously the two frame members are/were linked by massive structural alloy castings, not directly to each other, but equally the text you changed had some degree of accuracy, as it stated Egli based his frame on "a design taken from the Vincent" (although there were many similar much earlier versions than Egli used in sprinting with oil and petrol bearing fat tubes).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for these observations! Arrivisto (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad the Egli page was on my watchlist as it reminded me that today 3rd is the 85th birthday of one of the top Vincent tuner/modifier/racers of the early-1950s — I've sent him a pic of one of his outfits with the number changed to 85. He later became arguably the top journalist, author and publisher from 1955 to his retirement in 1991, after which his publications were administered by a private Ltd company using a similar name and has recently become "in association with" the National Motorcycle Museum, although I've yet to delve into this latter aspect. I'm roughing-out his bio, and I've settled for "Vincent chassis" as a generic term avoiding the word 'frame'! Always a pleasure.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I love a puzzle, but this has beaten me! Who is this ace tuner/modifier/racer/journalist/author/publisher? Arrivisto (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Main-Smith, (BMS, B•M•S) was with Motor Cycling from 1955 to closure/amalgamation with Motor Cycle in 1967. Motor Cycle at that point went from booklet/magazine format to newspaper, and, like everyone else, we threw them away. I have a few clippings only from those days 8¬(

Bruce then went freelance and started authoring/publishing, including contributing to Motorcycle Mechanics and Motorcycle Sport. He's up for surgery Thurs 08 May, so I'll be sending my positive thoughts. I've added another redlink to his name (Velocette Venom)

New publisher's site
Previous Director info, Mitchell family (Leicester) and BMS (Surrey)
Sump magazine 2013, Mitchells ceased trading/for sale (scroll down about 2/3 - on my ageing monitor)
--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wankel engine comparison – suggested move

I think the "research paper" tag on Suzuki RE5 was to indicate an excessive amount of analysis and comparison to the Norton rotary bike. However, it might be appropriately included at Wankel engine#Motorcycle engines. What do you think of moving some or all of the section Suzuki RE5#Two different approaches here? — Brianhe (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You have a point! Yes, it would be a good idea. I'll have a bash at it soon. Arrivisto (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, look forward to working together on this. By the way I don't see your name at the WikiProject Motorcycling list of members, so consider yourself invited. You might want to at least put the project talkpage on your watchlist for announcements. — Brianhe (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've accepted your invitation and have put my name on the list. Many thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Combustion chamber, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What article? What author?

You have recently made content edits giving your source as "'What Bike' Summer 2004". Could you please be a little more specific? More details would be appreciated, including (but not limited to) the name of the article, the author's name if given, the editor's name if the author's name is not given (this would be appreciated even if the author's name is given, but even more so if not), the page number corresponding to the information given (you actually included that in one instance) and the numbers of the pages in the magazine that the article is on. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The"What Bike" edition of Summer 2004 reviewed "every UK bike, all 591 of 'em". I have referred to the reviews of the R1100S (standard & BoxerCup), both on page 41; and a "Quick Spin" road test of the BoxerCup by Phil West on page 39. Arrivisto (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have expanded the citations in History of BMW motorcycles accordingly. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ariel Ace nominated for DYK!

—Cerabot (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ariel Ace

The DYK project (nominate) 20:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Motorcycling barnstar
	To Arrivisto, for bringing BMW R1100S up from a redirect to a well written, solidly cited article. Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values

Great changes, thank you. Do sign up! --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I signed up eighteen months ago! Arrivisto (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Think I need some new lenses in my rose-tinted spectacles. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Canards

Hi, I started a discussion at Talk:Canard (aeronautics)‎‎#Article lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with MiFID?

Hi there, Arrivisto. I'm hoping to make improvements to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive article and I'd like some help to review my proposed updates. I found you on the list of recently active participants over at WP:LAW and hoped you might be interested in providing some feedback. The full details can be found here. To quickly note: I do have a conflict of interest as I'm working on this topic as a paid consultant to the Managed Funds Association and I will not make any edits to the live article. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rhiannon, I'll have a look, but my specialist field is Maritime Law. Arrivisto (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for offering to take a look. Have you been able to read through my suggestions yet? If not, and you're busy elsewhere right now, I totally understand. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry, but I'm up to my ears preparing for next week, when the students are back! I hope you can find someone who can be a bit more use to you. Best. Arrivisto (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Suzuki RE5 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert an edit, like you did at Suzuki RE5, it is important to explain why you reverted in the edit summary. Just leaving the edit summary "pruning" is insufficient. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Points taken; but my earlier explanation " Pruning to simplify the message and make it less journalistic. More pruning to follow!" was intended to explain subsequent editing. The article was, in my view, overlong, wordy, journalistic and in some ways non-encyclopaedic. As is my wont, I tried to slim it down in the interests of clarity. Brianhe: I'm not convinced I ever actually reverted; I just edited. However, some of the recent reversions by others are perhaps ill-considered and I propose to amend the text when I have some time. I'm not convinced Wikipedia needs to know about tank colour schemes nor the "alleged" (sic, without citation!) reasons for carburation hiccups. More pruning (with rationales) to follow! Arrivisto (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Hanging Stars

Hello, Arrivisto. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The Hanging Stars, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

As I said in my original edit, I don't think a paragraph-long description of what turned out to be a fairly minor storm in a teacup in the context of the thousand-year history of the post is really necessary in the lead of the article, but a sentence *integrated with the existing discussion of reform* might be appropriate. Please discuss on the talk page of the article rather than reverting. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have responded on the Talk Page. Arrivisto (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kaliningrad Oblast page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I do see your work and appreciate it but this is really to send you a message as I just couldn't figure out how to get one to you. Re the Suzuki RE5 article and the source needed for the Honda rotary. See link below, half way through article, includes photo re Honda rotary. I just cannot fathom Wiki editing. Stefan did a lot of work for me when I first enlarged and cited the Suzuki RE5 article in 2009. It also appears that some of those original citations may have been jumbled. If you are having trouble locating any of them I originally listed full magazine name, article name and page number and still have all of them in print. Honda rotary: http://thevintagent.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/short-history-of-wankel-motorcycles.html Gtregs75 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have put your suggested "Vintagent" link onto the Suzuki RE5 page, although, as it is a kind of blog, an editor will probably remove it in future. If you can supply to details of the printed article, that would be great! Arrivisto (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vintagent - also an occasional Wikipedia contributor - is treated with more acceptance, I think. I don't find his site easy on the eyes (literally) but I'll have a look at the early pics when I get the chance, as the mags in my house show circa 1974 Triumph-based Norton-rotary prototype, not the earlier BSA-framed testbeds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Geoff Garside

I found the 'other' Garside reference in the house when I was doing some racing stuff off-Wiki. I think, considering the unusual surname and BSA connection, it's too unlikely to be a co-incidence. I've put a pic for you here. Can't recall the date but probably 1966, plus or minus one. There is brief mention online with a small image here, non-public content that can just be stretched enough to see the SU car-type carb projecting from the blower.

As you know, it's already on me list, so I'll continue to keep an eye out for any more.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RnR: Very interesting! Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure, as always.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Next time you split an article....

please remember the attribution:

Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's new to me. Arrivisto (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Monoplanes

Hi, have you anything to add to the discussion at Talk:Monoplane#Lead sentence? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for asking. No, I've said my piece, and am happy to wait and see what happens. Arrivisto (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Norton V engine

Will you have look at this. Not sure what's going on here but, unless I'm missing a big clue, seems unreasonable, nay, misleading (as per WP:CRYSTAL)? Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

True, Norton's V4 experience is in its infancy, but (i) their latest TT race bikes features an Aprilia V4, and (ii) they are working on their own home-grown 1300cc V4 which is intended for a forthcoming Norton road bike. Also, their new V4 is intended to be the basis of a 650cc parallel twin. This is general knowledge, and was confirmed to me at the recent Stafford Classic Bike Show by a Norton mechanic (who had just bought himself a TRX!). Arrivisto (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Norton WP pages for this (not logged in much, so might have missed any changes) but it seems mighty strange to be putting gossip into the 'wrong' article? I did glance for a few seconds at a Google, just factory PR blurb, exactly what's needed as column-inch fillers but entirely un-encyclopedic. Remember, this may not eventuate anytime soon, or at all. Luckily in an obscure article.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, one might also add the Ariel Ace! Arrivisto (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

From where do they/did they source the Honda engines? I'm minded of the Railton at Earls Court in 1989 when they paid full price for a drophead Jaguar XJS then cut it up to be re-bodied. The Wiki page is vague Railton (car)#The 1989 RAILTON revival. An engineer took us on to the stand (designer Bill Towns was also there, but in conversation). I sold the brochure on ebay about 10 years back to a US buyer. I don't know how many were actually made.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If you mean, "from where do Ariel source their Honda engines for the Ace?" well, I don't know! I understand that, having looked at the Ariel Atom, Honda considered that Ariel were a suitably kosher outfit to use one of their engines. I presume Ariel are supplied with all they need by Honda UK. Arrivisto (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Icke

Hi Arrivisto, if you restore your edits again, you risk being reported for violating WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Edit warring. You can't add that someone is unhinged. In additon to that, the article is very carefully sourced; "professional conspiracy theorist" is sourced to an academic who specializes in this area. Finally, you're adding bare URLs as sources, in violation of WP:CITE. Please raise any concerns on the talk page. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 08:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, "You can't add that someone is unhinged". I didn't! I wrote "he has struggled to escape from the overwhelming public view that ... he may be mentally unhinged." I later changed this to "deluded" but this was reverted to "unhinged". Please see: User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. I don't think I'm "edit-warring". If you think what I wrote is incorrect in parts, please amend that part only (unless it is the proverbial curate's egg). Sorry about the bare URLs; I'll try to learn how to do that properly. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of mondegreens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of mondegreens 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/List of mondegreens 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 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm 72bikers. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Motorcycle handlebar that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This was completely unnecessary. - 72bikers (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At last, a well-constructed response that is both brief and to the point, albeit pusillanimously using the passive voice ("so it has been removed") when it should read "I have taken it upon myself to delete it". I doubt that we will ever be bosom chums; and since it is becoming difficult to observe the 4 pledges of the Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, I propose to withdraw and leave our 2016 spats in the past. If only one could consign the Tory landslide, the EU referendum and the Trump victory to the dustbin as readily! I wish you well for 2017, but it is probably best to avoid one another's company until there arises a mutual presumption of good faith. Happy New Year! Arrivisto (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Postponement

Thanks for your information on Yamaha XSR900 § Article layout about your rearrangement. Surely there is consensus, but most people's time is limited. And don't loose your hope. Docteur Pie (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirming lead section requirements

Just confirming the lead section requirements for your recent edits at Negligence. The article currently does not have the material you added to the lead section as a summary of referenced material already existing in the article. You are welcome to start to develop this material in the main body of the article if it is fully referenced with citations just like other sections in any articles on Wikipedia. For now I am removing this material added to the lead section, following MoS requirements, which is not supported by referenced material developed in the main body of the article. The article title ought to remain without change until you complete the other edits to gain consensus. Talk page discussion as needed. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think your reversion of my edits is justified: (1) the article is about the law of negligence, rather than "carelessness" or " neglect", so the title change is sensible; (2) I am happy to remove pro tem the references to volenti and contributory negligence; but since they are the two primary defences, they should get a mention, even if more details are to follow. (3) The questionable and slightly absurd Latin etymolgy which you have returned to the first sentence does not deserve such prominence. (4) My reference to Lord Atkin's definition is reinforced later in the article; the Jay M. Feinman quotation is just a latter-day and enfeebled version of Lord Atkin's dictum. (5) The definition "(negligence) is a failure to exercise the appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances" is a terrible definition; just read it - it's awfull!. (6) the suggestion that economic loss is generally recoverable is wrong (it's very rarely available). Need I go on? It's not a matter of WP:MoS, it's a matter of improving the article with clarity and style and eliminating incorrect or unhelpful statements. As a matter of courtesy, I await your reply before returning to the article, but I feel that my edits made the article a better piece. It is never a good idea to do an unjustified wholesale revert when instead you could have been constructive by editing any new material that you deemed unconscionable. Arrivisto (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with your comments. The question of improvements to articles in general is always on the table, and I was serious when I suggested doing the expansion of the material you wish to introduce into the lead section by first adding it as topic in the main body of the article. This would include adding the references and citations which your comments above suggest you already have. Once you include this material in the main body of the article with the citations and references, and possibly as a small subsection in its own right, then it ought to be straightforward to add the material into the lead section with support. As for the page move to a new title, my suggestion was to do this with normal consensus established first. This article has a long history including previous status as a featured article and many editors and readers expect to see it under the title of "Negligence" which has been the title for over ten years and should be returned to that title until another consensus is made. Otherwise, improving the main body of the article sounds fine. The changed you discuss in your short note above can be brought first into the main body of the article with citations like any other Wikipedia article, and then, after that is done, to summarize them in the lead section. The original page title should remain until you complete those improvements with consensus. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Common law

Arrivisto, my comment[1] was not directed at you, but rather in expectation that you would be revising unperturbed by intrusions such as IP's. Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I knew that really! I'm not thin-skinned, but I do get fed up when what seem to be sensible edits are instantly reverted to earlier inferior versions. I'll be dabbling on the page in due course, but I'm busy marking essays right now! Arrivisto (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The current version may still have remnants based on an imperfect understanding about common law as taught in some US law schools. Is there some way to use the information in the two excerpts below, from The Law in Zimbabwe,[2] to clarify the distinctions (1) between Case Law / Precedent and Common Law of English law/colonial tradition, and (2) between the Common Law of England (and later Wales) and particular local use of "common law"? In point of jurisprudence and historical development, Anglo Roman Dutch Law could be especially suited to show (if supported by RS) that there could be seen a conceptual re-convergence with the 13c. verbal origin of "common law" described by Maitland in EnBrit.: 'The term “common law ” was being taken over from the canonists by English lawyers, who used it to distinguish the general law of the land from local customs, royal prerogatives, and in short from all that was exceptional or special. Since statutes and ordinances were still rarities, all expressly enacted laws were also excluded from the English lawyers' notion of “the common law.” '

1_Case Law / Precedent: Precedent refers to past decisions of the superior courts. Precedents establish the legal position of cases tried in the courts and establish the reasoning for decisions made by the judges in each particular case. Conversely, precedents therefore guide the courts in making future decisions in similar cases brought before them. Zimbabwe relied on precedents of South African origin or those of any jurisdiction in which English law and Roman-Dutch law is applied and the precedents of Rhodesia. The maxim Stare Decisi at non queta movere best sums up the use of case law in Zimbabwe. The maxim means to stand by old decisions and not disturb settled points. Supreme Court decisions in Zimbabwe are binding on all interior courts. High court ruling also binds the lower courts such as the Magistrates courts. The advantage of Precedents is that they ensure informality and consistency in the application of the law and they maintain certainty and equality of the law in similar circumstances.

2_Common Law: Common law of Zimbabwe refers to the unwritten law or non- statutory law. Common law excludes the African customary Law. The common law of Zimbabwe is primarily the Roman-Dutch Law as applied at the Cape of Good Hope on the 10th of June 1891 as per the provisions of Section 89 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The Common Law was transplanted from the Cape and imposed to Zimbabwe. However, the common law at the Cape in 1891 had been heavily influenced by English Law, hence the common law of Zimbabwe must be said to be Anglo-Roman-Dutch Law. A recent development in Zimbabwe ousts the application of Common Law. The recent Codification of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law through the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act jeopardizes the application of Common Criminal law Section 3 of the Act states unequivocally that Roman-Dutch Criminal Law no longer to apply.

Qexigator (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Hanging Stars

Hello, Arrivisto. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Hanging Stars".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:The Hanging Stars

Draft:The Hanging Stars, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Hanging Stars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:The Hanging Stars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion

Hi,

Undersigned requests your openion at Sources of law article talk page.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem with File:V-Prop automaticvariable-pitch propeller.jpg

You recently uploaded this image under a CC-licence and credited the photo to me. The trouble is that I didn't take that photo which I used in my article published in COPA Flight, I got it from the manufacturer and it was used under "fair use", not a CC-licence. It isn't a free image. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Can it be used here as "fair use"? Arrivisto (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but the cc-licenced version needs to go from commons first! - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you can sort it, please? It's beyond me! Arrivisto (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think as the uploader you have to nom it for deletion on commons first and then upload it to en.wikipedia as "fair se" once it has been removed there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now done this on Wikimedia Commons. Arrivisto (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will see it on the talk page. I think you have to go to Commons:Deletion requests or at least tag it with {{Copyvio |1= reason|source= }}. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been following this - any editor can request speedy deletion as a good faith upload by way of {{copyvio}}. I'll do it and the new upload with fair use rationale if you'd like (the code is not easy for an editor inexperienced in images - fair use can only be associated with uploads to Wikipedia not Wikimedia Commons), as a non-connected editor, and refer to this discussion (I've copied the details). I'll be around a bit longer as I have a couple of articles nearly finished and a Norton pic to upload sooner or later. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be great! Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Always a pleasure.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Arrivisto. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.		Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.		How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.		Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.

Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

E-lawresources

Hello. Thank you for the continued efforts to improve English law. You’ve added e-lawresources as a reference, but please note that it is not really a reliable source because it was/is a personal website by a former law student. It is a useful revision resource for students but it would be better to source the original text from BAILII or another well-known reporter e.g. last paragraph, page 4, BAILII. Green Giant (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Would you be able to amend the citation with a more suitable alternative? Cheers. Arrivisto (talk)

Motorcycle frame

Thought you might like to see this Flickr image with USD forks (when I was looking for a Phil Read Yamaha). --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, albeit still a cradle frame! Arrivisto (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a composite! I haven't found the Phil Read image - it's somewhere on my computer. Around that time there were no works Yamahas - Kel Carruthers, Phil Read, Kent Andersson, Rodney Gould. There were two latterly-disputed (1990>) frames on the Phil Read bike - one by Eric Cheney, the other by Eddie Robinson, consultant engineer to Paul Dunstall and Colin Seeley (and 'father' of the Seeley Mk3), this latter (Yamaha) version being a rubber-mounted engine. I'll have to start screen-grabbing the URL as well for the Flickr details. Still got to sort out the folders, though. Could be under Temp, Racer's images, Bikes...that sort of thing.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

English law

Good to see that your recent edits - rearranges, additions - (except the few from which I have dissented!) have been doing good work improving the English law article. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Qexigator: Many thanks! It is always a good thing good when editors work together to knock an article into shape. Arrivisto (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Gold wing

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me your input on a motorcycle article if you're interested. I have recently updated the Honda Gold Wing article with the 2018 model information. It has had a major generational update and I have sources that state this new model is the 6th generation. I would like to have your input on how it would be best to incorporate and format this generational model information from the first generation to the current 6th generation into the article. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm very busy for the next fortnight, but I'm happy to have a look after that. Arrivisto (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we are complementing each other well in this collaboration. I think you are accurate in stating " Perhaps this stuff deleted can be re-used elsewhere?", perhaps Flat-four engine or Opposed-piston engine or Flat-six engine or Motorcycle engine. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree that co-operation beats the bickering that we once engaged in. I acknowledge that much of my editing on the Gold Wing page has merely been sub-editing and pruning stuff that others have written; but hopefully my facility with language makes the article more succinct and readable. I've just done a bit of work on the ST series pages, if you want a look-see. Arrivisto (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Arrivisto, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Flathead motorcycles. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Racing certainty

Although it is not over until it is over, the Matt Ridley opinion piece is not at all a helpful or useful citation, for reasons previously covered at talk: Brexit. Whether or which, we can only report what has happened, not speculate on what might happen [see WP:CRYSTAL. You are close to breaching wp:3RR, I suggest that you drop it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Matt Ridley is (in addition to being a hereditary peer and the architect of Northern Rock's difficulties) an ultra-right Brexiteer. So when he appears in the Thunderer to moan about so many parliamentarians doing their damnedest to undermine Brexit, this would seem "helpful and useful". The crystal ball sentence "The precise impact on the UK depends on whether it be a "hard" Brexit or a "soft" Brexit." could do with a codicil such as "...or a non-Brexit". Brexit a racing certainty? I wouldn't put money on it! Arrivisto (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Harley-Davidson Fat Boy

When you get a chance, could you check this article out. It needs trimmed down for superfluous content and possible grammatical errors. I want to move on to the Knievel tribute yesterday. -72bikers (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've given the page a haircut! Arrivisto (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Prout catamarans

Hi Arrivisto, thank you for your contribution to Catamaran, describing Prout designs. Could you please provide a reference? Even a bare url would suffice, which can be converted into a proper format. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do; I'm just trying to find a non-copyright drawing. Arrivisto (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Polynesian multihull terminology) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Polynesian multihull terminology.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice article! I love it. Just clean up your referencing. If you get it up to shape you can nominate it to be in the DYK section on the front page of Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Barbara (WVS)}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried Visual Editor?

Hi Arrivisto, from a comment that you made earlier, I wonder if you have tried Visual Editor, yet. At the top of each section, you may see [ edit | edit source ]. I usually "edit source"; however, sometimes when I want to drop in a reference without using the templates in Wikipedia:Citation templates, I use "edit", which takes me into Visual Editor. There, at the top, is a Cite button, which gives you three options 1) to have the editor automatically convert a URL into a reference, 2) build one your manually, or 3) re-use one that is already there. I've found this to be a wonderful tool. Sometimes, it misses elements of the citation, so I go back in to fill the missing fields. If you have any difficulty, give me a ping! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Lagoon catamaran 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bradv🍁 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing! I've been trying to write and develop an article. I'd just restored it and was in the process of adding well-sourced citations, but before it could be published, you, FOR THE THIRD TIME redirected it to a paragraph THAT DOESN'T EXIST!!!! Any person wanting to learn about Lagoon catamaran will get no help from your actions. Why not delete the Beneteau or JeanneaU page while you are in the business of pointless demolition? How dare you accuse me of an edit war and threaten to block me? I've been a bona fide WP editor for more than a decade, and these ill-advised reversions to non-existent paragraphs is petty and mean-spirited. I'm so furious, I'm going to bed. In the morning, I will continue to develop the article, a BONA-FIDE article abut a prominent French manufacturer. Arrivisto (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry this is frustrating to you, but turning redirects into unsourced promotional stubs is something that is done by spammers every day, and the article as you created it looks very promotional. When creating an article, I find the best method is to gather my sources before writing anything, especially in mainspace. This accomplishes two things – it proves that the subject is notable enough for an article, and it ensures that my work won't get immediately deleted or reverted for being unsourced. It looks like what you have done is create an article based on content from the company's website, which is backwards. Start with what other people say about the subject, and then add their website in as an external link.

Also, the Lagoon section of the Beneteau article did exist for years, and at some point it was removed. I'm not sure why that was – perhaps a discussion at Talk:Beneteau would help sort things out. I hope this helps. ​ Bradv🍁 01:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto Would you like me to move a copy of the article to your user or draft space so you can work on it there? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 & co: You'll be relieved to know that I'm in a less grumpy mood. To recap: a few days ago I looked for Lagoon catamarans on WP, and up it came; but it turned out to be a redirect to a page that did not mention Lagoon once. So I used my sandbox and cobbled together an article which served a purpose. I also put in a lot of links from List of multihulls. You may say I should have put in good citations at that point, but given that the useless redirect had been first created in 2008, with only two other edits (2009 & 2012), it didn't seem a priority. So I was surprised (and pretty annoyed) when, having written an article, two separate editors came down on me like a ton of bricks for what seemed no good reason. In my view it was over the top, and it would have been both more helpful and more friendly to insert in a tag saying "citations required" instead. So: I'll rework the article on my sandbox, I'll add a whole lot of quality citations, and then I'll post it as an edit and not as a revert. Hopefully the fuss will now be over. In the meantime, I've got a Brexit to fight! Arrivisto (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrivisto, again, I'm sorry if I "came down like a ton of bricks" - that was not my intent. Long-standing redirects that get turned into articles show up at the top of the new page feed, so they usually get looked at fairly quickly (and rigidly enforced as this is a favourite trick of spammers). At any rate, the article is in much better shape now, so thank you for your work. Cheers. Bradv🍁 15:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No hard feelings! Arrivisto (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious

"Taken on board."

Thank you for quality articles about airplanes and motorcycles, such as ARV Super2 (2006), Colomban MC-30 Luciole (2011), Norton RCW588 (2015) and Flathead motorcycles, for oldfashioned values, for "Good point! Taken on board." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2392 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Precious: I'm flattered and delighted! I love editing (and sub-editing) on Wikipedia, and it's very satisfying to be recognised and appreciated. Many thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Splash lubrication

Hello, Arrivisto,

Thank you for creating Splash lubrication.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The references currently used in the article don't meet the requirements of WP:RS - they're blogs, or commercial websites. These should be replaced with some reliable sources - a student textbook about mechanical engineering would probably be a good start.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for your advice and suggestions. However, I reckon I've spent enough time on that page, and perhaps some others may chose to contribute. I note that before I created the page, there were a few red links for "splash lubrication", so I'm glad to see they've turned blue. Arrivisto (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Hi, Thanks for this. I chose to take the highly mathematical "Propeller theory" elemnt out of the more practical Propeller page, and give it its own page. Now both pages are a reasonable length, and each serves the purposes of general and mathematical readers (I hope). Arrivisto (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Arrivisto, sounds reasonable, I have no opinion on whether that's a good thing to do but it sounds reasonable. However, we still require attribution. The link I provided tells you how to do it. Let me know if you don't see how to do it because it still should be done. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Just looking over Propeller theory - I am assuming you will add some refs soon? - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I've had a look at the "Copying_within_Wikipedia" page, and found it very informative. However, I haven't seen how to make the attrribution, and I'd be grateful to be shown how. Arrivisto (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt Yes, I'm planning on doing so, but I hope other editors will assist. Arrivisto (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Arrivisto, I did it for you. The instruction are at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution, see the mention of a dummy edit S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Arrivisto

Thank you for creating Propeller theory.

User:Usernamekiran, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello,

Thank you for creating a new article. Kindly see the talk pages of similar articles, and add relevant "wikiproject banners" on Talk:Propeller theory.

Also, kindly see similar articles, and add relevant categories to the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Usernamekiran}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—usernamekiran (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Arrivisto! This is to thank you for your systematic review of sailing-related articles. Even if I occasionally disagree with an edit, I wanted to convey my gratitude. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HopsonRoad, Many thanks for your kind words. Of course, I get things wrong from time to time, but I am happy to be corrected! Arrivisto (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lithuanian escapees

A tag has been placed on Category:Lithuanian escapees requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

UserTalk!: I'm sorry; this page was created in error. (No need for details!). Please delete it. Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Piper Boats moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Piper Boats, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Piper Boats (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by EDG 543 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Piper Boats and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Piper Boats, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Arrivisto! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guardian of the Castle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Guardian of the Castle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.channel4.com/programmes/guardian-of-the-castle/episode-guide/ and https://theeurotvplace.com/2019/08/guardian-of-the-castle-croatian-political-thriller-set-to-premiere-in-the-us/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You got mail!

Hello, Arrivisto. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Excuse me for somehow sending it twice. The messages are identical. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The second copy has just arrived. No problem! I have sent a reply. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Me again

Hello, I believe that I mentioned you on my talk page unintentionally. I noticed a gross typo of my own and could not resist correcting it, which inadvertently mentioned you again. My apologies. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Piper Boats

Hello, Arrivisto. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Piper Boats, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Piper Boats

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

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. If 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!} 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leopoldstadt (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaperone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help submit a new article on Collaboration with Russia During Russo-Ukranian War

Hello, I am a new editor

Can I ask for your help editing and submitting this draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Collaboration_with_Russia_During_Russo-Ukranian_War?

I believe timely publication can help nudge countries and companies away from collaborationism behaviour, hence the sense of urgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I0ving (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made some edits; but I'm not sure that Wikipedia will let this page stand. Arrivisto (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

James O’Brien

What more do I want? Quite simply, a source. Considering that claim (that JOB voted for Brexit) is so out-of-step with the position that has elevated his fame to new levels, I think it would be incredibly helpful if we could evidence a statement like that. If, like you said, it was perhaps meant ironically, I still believe the original source is necessary as it would help in clarifying this. A statement like that - without source - could be misunderstood by somebody reading the article & perhaps used to disparage JOB. I did some brief research and could not find any evidence for your claim. As such I believe on balance it’d be unfair & potentially misleading to leave a claim like that in the article. 92.40.201.55 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it will take some trawling and it will then be YouTube, which WP doesn't like. Arrivisto (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cut-and -paste move

User:Arrivisto, in 2015, you moved the Semimonocoque article to Semi-monocoque by a cut-and-paste move. However, 7 years later, some messes remain to be cleaned up. The original talk page was orphaned, so I have moved it to the correct title. Also, I've tagged the article for a history merge. I hope by now you've learned not to do cut-and-paste moves. Perhaps you should check your contribution history and see if any such moves remain that need to be cleaned up. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:BilCat Thanks; but your comment "I hope by now you've learned not to..." is patronising and unnecessary. Still, I'll have a look to see what "messes" have survived the last seven years on WP, and I may make any changes that seem appropriate. Arrivisto (talk)

You'd be surprised how many users haven't learned by now! Anyway, we all made plenty of editing mistakes when we were new, and I still make plenty even now. BilCat (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:BilCat I've just responded to a 2015 "citation required" tag. Any other messes? Arrivisto (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keele World Affairs

The article Keele World Affairs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence found of any notability

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. Fram (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ferro-cement

The British Ferro-Concrete ships of World War I and the FCBs of World War II were constructed of reinforced concrete. The ingredient you miss is the stone aggregate. Cement, Sand, Stone and Water make concrete 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:803A:5275:F300:FD92 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. (I'm not sure to which edit of to which you are refer, though!) "Proper" ferrocement has no aggregate, only a cement-rich mixture of cement & sand (complimented sometimes with additives to protect the steel/iron armature). Arrivisto (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suranne Jones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Manx and Garda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wankel engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AE series.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Emil Mahl

You need internaal references and Wikilinks, eg. to pages describing persons. Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flat-four engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flathead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malecon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)