User talk:Carbonix

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

Welcome! Hello, Carbonix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AndyZ 23:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first article[edit]

Congradulations on your first article, Andrew Thomas Blayney, 11th Baron Blayney. However, unfortunately it contains absolutely no content. Please in the future place information on the pages you create. Again, thanks, AndyZ 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - but, in my defence, the Wikipedia server was having some indigestion at the time and didn't accept the content... Still, it's always nice to get congradulations! Carbonix 14:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italic fonts[edit]

Why are we italicizing font names? I'm pretty sure that it's only things like movie titles and book titles that get italicized... everything else is just bold. -Vontafeijos 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Kimber[edit]

Wow! Nice work -- I actually understand now! lol :) Sarah Ewart 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Episcopal Church, McKinney[edit]

Thank you for contributing to the St. Peter's article. Are you a parishioner there? Jason M. Smith 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - I just thought the article needed a bit of love and attention! .Carbonix 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it certainly did. If you're ever in McKinney, Texas please feel free to pay us a visit. Jason M. Smith 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barclays[edit]

You're absolutely right about that, PLC it is. Sorry for creating work, I've got no idea where my idea for that came from. Ian3055 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I didnt read far enough through the legalities to see that there was a "Royal Bank of Scotland Group" company, the .com site being owned by "Royal Bank of Scotland" threw me. Wasn't having a good day was I? Going to put my thinking cap on about how to make our coverage of RBS a bit clearer. Ian3055 19:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Matthew's - Brandon, Manitoba[edit]

I noticed that you revised the name of the church. But I think perhaps it should have remained as it was. Its proper name is the Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew. The word "cathedral" is an adjective, and is most properly used to describe "church." On the diocesan web site under the tab "cathedral" you will see it listed as the Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew. It's not a big deal, as it is not uncommon to see the word used as a noun. Just thought I'd let you know. Sarum blue 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carbonix

I was doing some family re-search on my great-grand father W.A. Elliott and came across this Wiki article on St. Matthew's Cathedral and I see that you are the original contributor of this Wiki article, actually I have read similar pages ,Word for Word, from other websites regarding this particular church so I can say that your Wiki article regarding this church is not original in it's wording or it's source which you do not make referrence of, I have provided that source recently. Also in this Wiki there is a reference of a person that I know rather well as I am related to him, he's my great grandfather, W.A. Elliott, who designed this particular church, among other building's in Brandon Manitoba he has also designed, so I have a problem when a reference is made of an individual without giving the reader some historical mention of other things that particular person has done; seeing that I am the great-grand daughter of W.A. Elliott I have provided sources to his other architectural designs being that his name has been mentioned in this particular Wikii article which has been obviously found from other sources I have found and provided reference to this Wiki article regarding this church he, W. A. Elliott, designed. One problem I am having is that this particular article keeps being reverted back to not include these references to W.A. Elliott as I know them; it's like telling the world about one of Picasso's famous paintings and not mentioning any of his other famous works to give the reader some reference to what this person has done. My reference I have provided for W.A. Elliott may not relate to the subject of churches in this context, but his name is made mention in this Wiki article so I have provided a clearer reference to who the individual mentioned in this Wiki article is and what other works he has done in relationship to architecture. If people are going to write an article that contains mention of a particular individual make sure you know what you're writing about and check if they have other living relitives before writing about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmeyn (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello_My_Future_Girlfriend Deletion?[edit]

You did not do the AfD properly. It has already survived a AfD thus you need to make a second page -- check the links from the AfD macro you put up. I would recommend not doing an AfD since it pasted fairly well last time. --Ben Houston 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no development, and the notice has been there nearly two weeks now, I've gone ahead and removed it. ~ Booya Bazooka 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Hills, Boston[edit]

Good work on this article; could you just clarify the last paragraph under St. Andrew's Parish - it reads as if the school closed twice !?... From the references, was it the Catholic parish that closed in 2000?; if so, is the St. Andrew's church building still there? (You may see I've upgraded the link from St. Andrew's Church.) Thanks! -- Carbonix 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and thanks for paying close attention. Yes, you caught a typo. The text now reads:

"St. Andrew's Church closed in 2000 although funeral masses are sometimes still held there. St. Andrew's School closed at the end of school year 2005."

Best wishes. ◄HouseOfScandal►House of Scandal 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird species new to science[edit]

Hi, I saw you started good work! I tried to make the "decades" pages more readable time ago; one should have an idea for the summary table in the source code. Don't know if you'll find it any good; I'll add bird species as needed. Dysmorodrepanis 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Giles' Church, Tattenhoe[edit]

Hey, I (like someone further up) saw you'd edited the page - do you have any links or did you just do it? Just a little intrigued, that's all! Cheers for what you did :) Guydrury 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - sorry, no connection here, I just did it; I am interested in (mainly) English churches, their architecture and their place in society, then and now. I think such articles are generally not as robust as they could be, and I try to raise the standard generally, adding information or, as here, seeking to upgrade the style, syntax and general readability! Thanks for the kind words. Carbonix 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Worrall Thompson[edit]

Hello. Could you please add a source for the longer version of Antony Worrall Thompson's name you added? I can't find it mentioned in any of the sources we currently have, and it would be good to source this to prevent against people subtly changing it. Thanks! Skittle 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I had no source, simply rearranged article to conform to wiki layout; having said that, the full name appears on several websites if you Google it, eg IMDb OK? Carbonix 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source now found - extract from autobiography! Article updated. Carbonix 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages[edit]

When making disambiguation pages, please make sure you change all the links to that page to direct to the right location, so other editors don't have to clean up after you. I'm speaking of the Suel page in particular. Thanks.--Robbstrd 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! - sorry, I normally do make the changes, but seem to have had a mental blockage this time. Thanks. Carbonix 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Concorde pilots[edit]

I've nominated List of Concorde pilots, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of Concorde pilots satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Concorde pilots during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church titles[edit]

Thanks for your message and support. I think there are arguments on both sides. I looked hard and long for guidance on naming churches when I started doing a series on Cheshire churches and found no guidance. So I followed Wikipedia:Naming conventions which says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which says "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Most English people say "St xxxxx's church", rather than "Church of St xxxxx". The majority of titles of British church articles follow the former style, as do the vast majority of articles on US churches. There is no WikiProject on churches so I agree we should continue with the common format unless there is an authoritative convention on the other style.

There are of course counter-arguments (English Heritage in [1] generally states "Church of xxxxx"). And there are times when the common version does not work; for example Church of St Mary-on-the-Hill, Chester does not really work as St-Mary-on-the-Hill's Church (perhaps it should be St Mary's Church on the Hill!) – but that's an exception. I've copied the first paragraph above on the Vox Humana 8' talk page. I shall also ask the other members of the WikiProject Cheshire for their views. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the following message on the talk page of User:Vox Humana 8'.
"I do not think that "an admin once told me" adequately reflects consensus or that it is authoritative enough to form a policy for Wikipedia. What I have said above represents what I see as the current consensus. I therefore, with support from other editors, intend to continue to use the format "St xxxx's Church" and I will change back the titles of those in the Cheshire category. I shall not of course change any of the titles on the articles you have contributed, and I hope you will not change any more of mine."
and I hope this will do the trick. Thanks for your help. Peter I. Vardy 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on PIV's talk page.--Vox Humana 8' 10:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

I am sending this to everyone who participated about six months ago in the discussion about the appropriate English variant to use for the Mary Wollstonecraft article.

You may wish to read a similar discussion, taking place over a Mary Wollstonecraft pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, currently a featured article candidate.

The FAC discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men

The applicable part of the article's talk page is here: Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men#FAC: AmEng, BrEng, etc

--ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitusapotek: inclusion of legal status "AS"[edit]

Hi. I agree with you on your interpretation of the rules. The reason I did this was that as I see it that while the article Norsk Medisinaldepot is about the company, the article Vitusapotek is about the chain, and not about the company. And since 2007 Norsk Medisinaldept, NMD Grossisthandel and Vitusapotek have been merged into one legal entity. As such I have also added 'AS' to Norsk Medisinaldepot's heading, but removed it from Vitusapotek. Arsenikk (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I can see what you mean and eventually found the 'merging' you refer to; I was relying too heavily on the company's website and even their contact address, which still use AS! Carbonix (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Concorde pilots[edit]

I'm on the "a bit disappointed" side that the list didn't stay in... but if you constructed it, you likely know the answer to the question which *I* wanted to drop into the article: how many pilots were ever type-rated in Concorde? A pilot friend says he thinks 24...
--Baylink (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I don't know how many pilots were ever type-rated for Concorde. It is certainly more than 24 though; the 1986 (an early) edition of Christopher Orlebar's The Concorde Story lists 34 Captains and 28 First Officers in the first ten years of flying, and that's just for British Airways, not including the French pilots. Carbonix (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLW Ranch[edit]

In the article SLW Ranch, you changed the name in the article and image caption to SLR Ranch. Was there a reason that you did this? If SLR is the correct name, shouldn't you move the article from SLW to SLR? - 4.240.165.240 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. In my enthusiasm to fix the general layout, syntax and format of the article back in August I mistyped the name in the first line, and then made it worse by using that spelling when adding the caption to the picture; thanks for fixing it. (Please log in and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) - thank you.)
Carbonix (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of S & R Smith & Son[edit]

The article S & R Smith & Son has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable company.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of S & R Smith & Son[edit]

A tag has been placed on S & R Smith & Son requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Carbonix! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Laurie Bristow - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Dead link in article 'James Mullins (American politician)'[edit]

Hi. The article 'James Mullins (American politician)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?


Dead: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:oMafS5B0Ck4J:www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi%3Fpage%3Dgr%26GRid%3D8553492+%22James+MULLINS%22+shelbyville&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!


PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KQ financial figures[edit]

Hello. Sorry for undoing your edit. I have added financial reports for the last 4 years as external links. You may use them to fill in the blanks. Please stay in touch with this table. I actually like it. Regards.

P.D.: You can reply here. I'll be watching... --Jetstreamer Talk 00:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I do think any airline article lacks balance without the business trends, as these give a more useful overview than, say, a list of current destinations. I keep meaning to try and get 'Corporate Affairs' or somesuch section (similar to that at Scandinavian Airlines) included in the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines), but don't know how... Thanks again. Carbonix (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I archived the annual reports corresponding to the 2007/8, 2008/9, 2009/10, and 2010/11 FYs. The latest one (FY 2011/12) is already used in the infobox of the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Figures for the earliest three years in the table are unsourced, except for the number of employees. Where did you get that information from? As per WP:V, unsourced information should be deleted.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so quick to quote WP:V at me; I'm not an idiot. (I notice you did this at Montenegro Airlines as well.) Lighten up; having a clutch of barnstars does not give you permission to assume that every other author is malicious, you know.
The source was (of course) the annual reports. I'm going to let you add the source information to the article, because you will only change it if I put it in.... The sources are [2] and [3].
Can we not be more elegant in displaying these source references? Having them in the table itself makes the dates in the table ugly and more difficult to read; it is less obtrusive, and no less visible, having them in the introductory line above the table. And although you are technically correct that all information should be deleted if unsourced, there are many examples of much larger tables where the sourcing is implied and does not get in the way of the information itself; you will not be thanked if you go around deleting information such as at British Airways. We are using published audited reports here and trying to write an accessible encyclopaedia article, not addressing a highly contentious issue with a learned scientific paper. Carbonix (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are three policies here, and one of them is verifiability. It won't hurt anyone to recall it exists from time to time. Yes, I raised WP:V at Montenegro Airlines, but just because it included unsourced info, and I believe the user I engaged in the discussion with has understood my point (BTW, I see you took a look at my recent contributions. That's a good practice the way I see things, as you gain knowledge regarding the person you're discussing with). I'm just poiting out that there are a few (just a few!) policies to stick to that are actually evaluated when articles are reviewed. It took me a lot effort (and also some tough discussions with another user) to get Kenya Airways to GA status, and I don't want to gei it demoted just because it lacks references. You mentioned unsourced tables in other articles. Come on! You know that's not a justification to let the KQ's one be partly unsourced. By taking a short survey on airline articles, I found the British Airways' one with unsupported contents. I will leave a note at that article's talk page regarding this issue. On the other hand, I never invoked the barnstars I have (I earned them, by the way, because nobody is forced to give barnstars to other users) to back myself up as you suggest. I really don't know why you came up with this. Thanks for the two references you provided. I will add them to the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines financial figures[edit]

Hello. The introduction of these figures is very appropriate considering the article is under GA reassessment. However, don't you think the section might fit better within the ″Financial performance section″? Warm regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. (1) The "Financial performance" section is currently an uncomfortable mix of facts at different dates in different currencies, and business goals, and is not clear; (2) The business trends I am assembling do not just quote financial figures; (3) Once I have done, I will de-duplicate the content of the existing section. I suggest you await the full outcome for a change - which you will like! Carbonix (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final update from me completed (thanks for fixing the typos); I think the business aspect of the article is better than when I started.... Carbonix (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fastjet to Lusaka[edit]

I removed it because project guideline requires all new services to have a full date and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it has been readded since a exact start date is announced (http://atwonline.com/airports-amp-routes/fastjet-launch-second-international-route-february). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Pearson (garden designer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Bridgeville, Delaware)[edit]

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 St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Bridgeville, Delaware) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malawian Airlines[edit]

If someone reverts your edit, it's basic etiquette to discuss with that editor the changes in question rather than reverting and communicating through edit summaries [4]. Planespotters is not considered reliable. The matter has been discussed many times at WT:AIRLINE. Sad to see that you are just one more editor that prefers warring over talking. I've marked the reference pointing to Planespotters with a {{RS}} tag. Furthermore, there's a citation overkill for the fleet table.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Keep up the good work! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

TAAG Angola Airlines[edit]

Would you mind to add references for some of the recent changes you made to the article? I've marked them as needing sources [5].--Jetstreamer Talk 22:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - missed putting in the reference for board structure/changes. Now fixed. The Angola Air Carrier text was just a grammar change on my part, but I've added the link to an existing reference to make you happy... And thank you for not doing your usual heavy-handed reversion-without-discussion trick! You must be getting older. Carbonix (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm getting older indeed --Jetstreamer Talk 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Content in the above difference was actually a copyright violation. I have removed it.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Carbonix (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

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

Nomination of S & R Smith & Son for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S & R Smith & Son 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/S & R Smith & Son 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. –Davey2010Talk 17:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Danemann[edit]

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 Danemann, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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 removed 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. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions[edit]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Airlink[edit]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://flyairlink.com/about/about-airlink#/timeline. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Airways[edit]

Excellent work!--Jetstreamer Talk 16:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Express Transit[edit]

Hi, ref 49 does not appear to work I get access denied. regards palmipedTalk 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've just tested it a few times on my PC, and each time it goes straight to a pdf document, as intended. Mystified. Perhaps we could also give this link as a reference to get to the document - please have a go: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07599425/filing-history Carbonix (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried original again in two different browsers still shows access denied but using your alternative companies house ref I can see the pdf. regards palmipedTalk 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo[edit]

I'm not sure why you think the other photo uses the old livery, the old livery was the pink one, the tram in that photo is clearly blue, as far as I can tell it's the version of the livery used for trams carrying adverts, but it's still current. Also the photo you replaced was slightly newer than the one you put in. Also the image you used is poor quality, dull and dark, it's ok as a snapshot but hardly suitable for a lead photograph I would argue. G-13114 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you. I think there are two issues here:
First, whether the infobox picture is up to date. Although your preferred photo does have some blue, it's silver with just a 'bib' of blue, whereas the new livery is all-over blue. (Trams with adverts only have them on the middle car and the top edges, the rest of the tram being the blue livery.) a) The tram in question (No. 36) is now completely blue - see Special liveries for before and after pictures of No. 36; b) The entire fleet (bar the Anniversary 'special') now has the new livery, as shown at Fleet list, that so we need to reflect that.
Second, using a portrait photo here, unlike other tram infoboxes, means that on some devices the visible picture (using the original photo) is almost entirely of an office block.
So, yes, the photo you prefer may be a 'nicer' picture artistically, but we are contributing to an encyclopedia here, and accuracy trumps artistry I'm afraid. (If someone contributed a current livery, landscape, top quality photo, we could use that!) Thanks again, Carbonix (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business trends[edit]

Hey,


thanks for creating the business trends table in the Eurowings article. Please just take care, that the EBIT is the operating profit, not the net profit/loss. WikiPate (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonix&oldid=1186704491"