Jump to content

User talk:Chris55/archive 1

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


List of waterways

Just dropping by to let you know of these discussions: Talk:List_of_waterways#We need a Lists of waterways article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of waterways Regards —G716 <T·C> 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. The first page seems to have a problem - I can't load it and I don't think it's my network. I personally think that article is very badly conceived. For a start, its definition of a waterway doesn't include the vital word "navigable", and it is different in several other respects from the other uses in Wikipedia (not that they are bang on either). But if it could be completed it would have thousands of entries and there's no point in that. A pointer to a category would be far more useful. But I'll have a look round when I have a moment. Chris55 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

The recent edit you made to Hospice has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The text you added seems to have been copied from http://www.thecarer.co.uk/TheHelpOfAHospice.html, which site bears a notice that it is protected by copyright. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

fair cop. The section really needed a brief statement of what the 'modern' idea of a hospice was and it's always easier to use someone else's formulation. I've now used my own words, not so good, but... Chris55 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

James Brindley at Turnhurst

Hi Chris55. I have akeen interest in Turnhurst Hall and wrote that page on Wikipedia. I am interested to see that around June 2008 you added the following text to James_Brindley:

At this time Brindley had never built a lock and he first built an experimental lock in the grounds of Turnhurst, a house he had bought near the summit, and this determined the design of the narrow canal lock which characterized most of the canals in the Midlands.[1] These were for an elongated version of the boats which were designed for the underground system at Worsley, the so-called 'starvationers', and this decision was to cast a long shadow on the English canal system.

I understand that Brindley rented part of Turnhurst Hall from the Alsager sisters, the other half being rented by my forebears the Cole family. I am also aware of the local tradition that Brindley built an experimental model canal at Turnhurst. I have also read an archaelogical report following excavations of the site, prior to the building of the present Brindley's Lock pub, and have severe doubts as to the authenticity of this tradition. I note that you cite L.T.C. Rolt as a source, I wonder do you have a copy from which you could copy any relevant section relating to Turnhurst?

Kind regards, Billysugger 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Billysugger,
I can't find your user page so I'll reply here. (Use 4 ~'s to generate a proper signature).
Rolt's statement in Navigable Waterways (p40) is "There is a long-standing tradition that Brindley first built an experimental lock in the grounds of Turnhurst, the old house conveniently near the summit of the Trent & Mersey canal which he bought when, at the age of forty-nine, he married Anne Henshall."
Not exactly definitive is it! The main reference for Brindley is to The Canal Duke, by Hugh Malet, David and Charles, 1961, but he also references Samuel Smiles, Lives of the Engineers, in that chapter (not noted for accuracy). Hope that helps. Chris55 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the miniature canal that Pierre-Paul Riquet constructed in the grounds of his house a century earlier when constructing the Canal du Midi and I've added a note to that article about it. In From Sea to Sea, Rolt says "One is irresistibly reminded of the miniature lock which James Brindley built in the grounds of his house at Turnhurst". There also he questions the need for the models, tho he says that the remains of the model at Bonrepos can still be found. It's not impossible that the Brindley story was based on the model of Riquet. I've now checked the Google books version of Smiles and it mentions no models but does mention renting Turnhurst from the Alsagers. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rolt, L.T.C. (1969). Navigable Waterways. W & J Mackay, Chatham.

NowCommons: File:Zhenghe-sailing-chart.gif

File:Zhenghe-sailing-chart.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Zhenghe-sailing-chart.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Zhenghe-sailing-chart.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:TrevithicksEngine.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:TrevithicksEngine.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TrevithicksEngine.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:TrevithicksEngine.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Battle for God

I've replied on my talk page. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:CA House.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:CA House.jpg is missing information as to its authorship, or if such information is provided it is confusing.

If possible, please add or clarify this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

When adding authorship information to self published work please do NOT use describers such as 'I made this', 'own-work' , 'self-made' or personal names, without making your user name explicit.

This is so that media can be more accurately traced, if it is transferred to Wikimedia Commons.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hatfield Chase image

Hi, I have been working on the Hatfield Chase article, and noticed that the map was uploaded by you, and says it was copied from a booklet issued by the Bishop of Sheffield in 1993. I wondered if you had any more information, such as the approximate period of its origin. That is, does it show the results of Vermuyden's work, or is it later? Bob1960evens (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. ALLC

Hi! I just checked the deletion log. The initial edit was nothing but some gibberish and a few external links and the second edit was to blank the page. Nothing on which to build an article, I'm afraid. However, please feel free by all means to create a new article under the title. It sounds like it's more than worthy of inclusion. Thanks for letting me know! Best, PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

L.T.C. Rolt

Hi Chris; I have two photos of Bridge 164 on the Oxford Canal (to save you looking it up, it's at Banbury and named "Tom Rolt Bridge"). I also have a photo of the plaque attached to one abutment of that bridge. Before uploading, I first would like to know if these would be suitable for the L. T. C. Rolt page; second, should they go on Wikipedia or Commons; third, what should the licensing be? I think that the bridge photos can go on commons, where they will fall under {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (ie commons:Template:Self enclosing commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 and commons:Template:GFDL). The plaque, I'm entirely unsure about. It's made of cast iron, with raised lettering. Being basically text, it's probably copyright, and not a work of art. It's dated 27 July 1999, and has the logos of the IWA and British Waterways; these are almost certainly copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Redrose - thanks, I was wondering about getting a friend to take a photo. (My boat's too wide!) Yes, I'm sure they'd be suitable. I assume that you took the photos yourself. If so, then I'd suggest the Creative Commons 3.0 attribution. As you may see from my talk page I've had problems with this in the past. If you're using the new look theme, there should be an "Upload file" link on the left hand side and yes, they go in Commons. But remember to fill in explicitly your user id in the form where it has the "I created this by myself" line (tho I see it now has 3 ~ so maybe you don't need to) AS WELL AS selecting the appropriate attribution option. Otherwise the bots will be after you. To place them on the page, copy one of the existing thumbnail image links already on the page and adapt. Taking a photo of words on a plaque isn't something that infringes copyright in Wikipedia's eyes. It's only the photo itself. ok? Chris55 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Smashin' - I've uploaded to commons before, my work (such as it is) may be seen at User:Redrose64#Images, and as you can see, none of these are photographs of art which itself had been created by others within the last 75 years. That's where I was unsure about licensing. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 Uploaded, and gallery added to article. I wasn't sure which could go within the text. They're not brilliant - the two plaques are on the slant, I think I tried to get one side vertical, and didn't notice the other wasn't also. I've never been particularly good at photography - I only notice the mistakes afterwards. Plus, I was a bit distracted that day by a person accompanying me... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine - I've put the Chester plaque further up and put the Oxford pic next to the text. I straightened your other pic on my home machine and then realised that only you can update it. How do I get it to you? Incidentally I've played with the "website" entry according to the guidelines and it seems to come out the same as before. Is the template wrong, or me? Chris55 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure I've come across cases where one user has amended another's commons image before. If you go to the image's page on commons, at the bottom of the "File history" section, you should be able to see a link like Upload a new version of this file.
As for the website in the infobox, it's now showing a bit better than your previous version, which showed as
[[1] Official website]
My alteration was intended to remove the "[1]", and gave:
Official website
You have altered it to:
[ltcrolt.org.uk Official website]
I don't think it's right though. As you noticed, the documentation for the |website= parameter of {{infobox writer}} states:
The proper syntax is: [http://www.example.com/ example.com] or {{url|www.example.com}}
but immediately prior to that it states the opposite:
Enter just the url. Do not use syntax such as [http://www.example.com/] or [[http://www.example.com Great person]].
Having examined the code of the {{infobox writer}} template, I see that it passes |website= through to the {{official}} template, which does a job which overlaps somewhat with the {{url}} that you used. Therefore, it expects a bare URL, and not one that's been processed in some way - and the last sentence of the documentation is therefore incorrect. Since I can't amend the template to match the self-contradictory documentation, I shall amend the doc to match the actual behaviour. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't scroll far enough! Have updated the pic. As for the website link, I think what's there is the best of a bad set of options. You can see the name of the website as well as getting a link. If you put in the bare url you get an anonymous link. Chris55 (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

If I may say so, your latest edit, I believe, may have unintentionally added unsourced information to the infobox at the top of the article. Could you cite the references for the "influenced by"? (P.S. Is the "influenced by" section collapsed? Cause I can't see it.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw you deleted a "influenced_by" attribute with similar information and checked that it should actually be "influences" so I changed that and corrected the list where necessary (only Whitehead actually). From my knowledge of Russell's work it seemed an eminently sensible list (except that I wouldn't have included Einstein). Since none of the other information in the infobox has sources, I don't see why that's a problem. On my page there is a "show" button which reveals the sources. I tried the attribute in several positions and it always came at the bottom. Perhaps it is a "deprecated" attribute. I didn't track down the source of the template. Chris55 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's at {{Infobox philosopher}}. As with all other Wikipedia templates, the order in which named parameters are supplied to the template is irrelevant; it is the template source itself that determines the order of presentation. The parameter |influenced_by= has never been valid in this template. The template source permits both |influences= (which shows as Influenced by, but prior to 14 January 2008 it showed as Influences) and |influenced= (which has always showed as Influenced), and the documentation agrees: both are mentioned, and neither is described as deprecated. The difference between them is that |influences= is for the people who Russell was influenced by, and |influenced= is for the people who were themselves influenced by Russell. The template source has both of these set up as collapsible lists, and so by default they will be hidden: a link like [show] should be present, unless your browser is very old. If present, they show as ninth and tenth items in the infobox: there's only one item displayed after them, the signature.
Entries like these need not be referenced in the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary of the key points of the article: thus in the section of text describing Russell's studies and early career, all the people named in the |influences= should be mentioned, with references; and in the section describing his later career (those who studied under him, or who studied his work), all the people named in the |influenced= should be mentioned, again with references. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
no problem with any of that. The influences are mainly mentioned in the text -- though some (e.g. Santayana) only in their own articles. Wittgenstein is interesting as the influences clearly went in both directions. But I doubt if an "influenced" item would be of any value with someone as famous as Russell. Chris55 (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Then we need to include Santayana and Peano, in the article, complete with refs and all, to legitimize their mention in the infobox. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Permanent way

Following your recent edits I was trying to check whether there were any anchored redirects that linked to the 'Fish belly' section that is no longer a heading. I didn't find any, but I did find lots of mentions of fish-bellied rails in other articles, which may benefit from linking to this article (perhaps with a new redirect?)

Just a word of warning: I discovered that fish belly exists as a redirect to List of ethnic slurs, although there is no indication why it should, and I have left a query on the talk page to alert the editors of that fact.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Googling it shows a large variety of connotations, even lingerie :-) I did consider adding an extra section on cast iron edge rails but thought it was ott. But thanks for reminding me that linking to section heading occurs. Incidentally, I don't believe the reference in Rolling (metalworking) except that, as with any patent, Birkenshaw tried to cover all the options. But I don't have access to the book and anyway it wouldn't belong in this section. Chris55 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Silliman Memorial Lectures

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Silliman Memorial Lectures, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/SeriesPagePrinter.asp?Series=78. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag

I have no idea why you keep removing this, but I am asking you to stop. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "summarily" remove it, as you claim. I changed the claim in order to make it more obvious. I realise that in the age of television it's not really sensible to use the word "taught" when you can see images of the earth from space any day of the week. Maybe you find it hard to imagine what it was like before television.
A citation needed flag is often used as a way of flagging up a questionable statement and the appropriate respones is often to change the statement. I certainly wouldn't bother to remove the tag again. Chris55 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Your addition to Silliman Memorial Lectures has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Theleftorium (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have checked the talk page before removing the copyrighted material. However, the way you put the text into the article, without attribution or quotation marks, is plagiarism. The next time you copy something from the public domain, please insert a template such as Template:Source-attribution somewhere in the article. Feel free to undo my edit to Silliman Memorial Lectures and add the template. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You still need to include some kind of attribution (such as Template:Source-attribution). A footnote is not enough. Please read WP:Plagiarism. Theleftorium (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lenski10.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lenski10.png. 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) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tide mill

Hi Chris55. I see you identified this edit as vandalism but it looks as if it could have been good faith. If you have time, it may be worth looking at again. If I'm interfering in an ongoing debate, please accept my apologies. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm replying here: ok I see what you're getting at. Each "terminology" category leads in two directions so that the original category is maintained. Yes it's probably good faith - he's been doing this all over the place. But it seems to be unnecessary and misleading. Should a "terminology" taxonomy be mixed up with a taxonomy of real entities? Chris55 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a shame s/he didn't leave an edit summary. I can't see the point of the change. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Shenton

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Samuel Shenton, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.kevinlaurence.net/phpgedview/individual.php?pid=I206&ged=20050323.ged.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Dialogue with Andrew Schlafly

Hello Chris55. I am just letting you know that I deleted Dialogue with Andrew Schlafly, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Geo tagging

Nice work adding geocodes to UK articles. I'm trying to do some as well, but it quickly becomes tedious. Care to share how you go about it, in case you have some tricks to speed up the process? I'll be happy to share how I do mine–if either of us has a more efficient process, it would be good to collaborate.--SPhilbrickT 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is tedious - so it helps to be tagging things that have some interest :-) I doubt I've unusual techniques. I'm basically using Google maps - it appears to be encouraged. Right-clicking on the (centred) location and choosing "what's here" puts the coordinates in the search block. I have a set of templates in a file such as |coor = {{Coord| |type:edu|format=dms|display=inline,title}} which can be pasted in, using "format=dms" to convert the decimals. Finding educational institutes in Kenya is pretty easy as Google finds the majority of them or one gets a lead from the home site, but old priories in Oxford are harder - I give up after a few minutes if there are no traces. So what tricks have you found? Chris55 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In short, I'm using a javascript to pick up the coordinates. I'm away from my computer until tomorrow, so I can share it with you then. Oddly, I once read about the technique you used to get the coords, but I must not have understood it at the time, because I didn't get it to work. I just tried now, and it did work. I'm going to have to experiment to see if it I faster than my javascript. I copy the results of the javascript into an OpenOffice spreadsheet to convert the pair of coords into the components. I found that OpenOffice works better than Excel, but there's room for improvement. (I have to reproduce the convert text to columns each time, I wish there were a way to save the settings, or more likely, there is a way, and I wish I knew it). I prefer decimal coords, so I always convert to a decimal format rather than degrees, minutes and seconds. I think both are acceptable, but I prefer decimal. The other "trick" I use I I recently added in a functionality to Mozilla that allows me to open multiple links at once, so I can load a dozen or so locations in a couple clicks. I've noticed if I search in Google maps and it finds a unique location, the position is centered, so I can get the cords immediately. Otherwise, I right-click and use the "Center Map Here" option. I wish there were a way to feed a batch to Google maps and get coords, even if only for the unique hits. --SPhilbrickT 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I'd have to use javascript till I found the other way. Letting the template do the decimal->degrees, minutes, seconds is much faster than doing the conversion yourself and has the advantage that someone can still get it back from the source document. The only conversion is , to |. I don't know if dms or decimal is a "preferred" notation, but assumed the former as that's what usually is there. Incidentally, some Infobox templates use latitude, longitude instead of coordinates and they take priority. I wish there was some consistency in the infoboxes! Chris55 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to decide whether to use your technique of getting the coords from Google directly, but wanted to check one thing on the javascript I was using. I did a Google search, and interestingly, it popped up a site with a better javascript - of course it was a wikipedia page. See Obtaining geographic coordinates, specifically Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools, and the look at the second javascript. It returns a completed Wikipedia format. I've found it speeds up my process.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. It'd be easy to customize that in various ways by having several bookmarks. The only thing I don't like is the spurious precision, but .lat() and .lng() do take an integer parameter for the number of decimal places so .lat(5) &c will work too. 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Drop of new users after March 2007

Approximation of Wikipedia long-term growth, projecting a slow decline in the numerous types of new, follow-on articles being added each year.

I have repeated this drop-in-new-users topic, under WT:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth, as to why enwiki user levels slowed after March-May 2007, so you can invite other WP users to read and reply with any explanations they might offer. The new-articles graph (at right) shows a similar slowing in the addition of new articles, as though the major factor(s) which generated new articles had also been thwarted in early 2007. Some analysts have noted how new users often create new articles about musicians, artists or authors they know (sometimes a current girlfriend, or themselves), to expand the bio pages. Meanwhile, I feel strongly that the drop was mainly due to the notorious banning of Wikipedia in various schools and colleges, as demanded by more academic officials beginning in February 2007. Recall the essay about those bans, with 19 news articles:

Other bans were suggested in England. Those early bans, coupled with the typical 3-month school vacations (June-August) seem to be what thwarted the English Wikipedia. Continue this at the above project talk-page, if interested. -Wikid77 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For this edit, which added a great source of data to Wikipedia:Wikipedians that should have been there long before. So obvious many others passed it over! Steven Walling 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Catharism

I have re-removed this material per the guidelines in WP:VERIFY. If you feel it is non-contentious and should be in the article despite a lack of sourcing, and despite the fact that the article was tagged for a lack of sourcing for over one year, please start a discussion at the article's Talk page. From my perspective it is inappropriate and frankly unjustifiable to include the material without sourcing; there's no way to prove that it is not original research as-is. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the article: I can count 32 references at the bottom of the page in addition to those cited in other footnotes. The article may be lacking in in-line citations WP:CITE but it's stupid to remove one section which is essential to the meaning of the article. Chris55 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Then there's nothing stopping anyone from re-adding the material with appropriate in-line citations. Doniago (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, did you recently email account@stargate-wiki.org about an account. Please only reply from this account not an ip. 120.146.71.41 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thorium fuel cycle & SimpleNuclide2

Please read this: it explains that FF2 compatibility was dropped as there are too few people using it and those that do really should update. You are using software that hasn't had any security fixes in three years and are at serious risk of having your computer compromised.     — SkyLined (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Digital Fortress

Hi. Regarding the concerns you raised in the edit summary that accompanied your reversion of my edits:

All material added to Wikipedia articles must be found in a reliable, published source that is explicitly cited in the article. Material that is derived from personal observations or original analyses of that material, but is not found in that source, is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted. 71.0.21.44 did not cite a source for the material he/she added, so it had to be removed.

Material needs to be written in the third person, not in the second person, which is inappropriate for the formal tone of an encyclopedia. One does not say, therefore, that if a reader cracks a code in a book that "you get 'WECGEWHYAAIORTNU'". It should be written along the lines of something like "If the reader cracks this code, then the letter sequence WECGEWHYAAIORTNU is revealed". One does not directly address the reader with "you" in an encyclopedia, and should only use that term in cases such as a directl quote.

I included links to the policies/guidelines that govern these two points in my edit summary, and included them again above.

As for the citation you added, material on websites that is user-generated, such as personal websites, blogs, web forums, wikis, imdb, etc. is not permitted under WP:USERG, since anyone can post in those venues, which certainly does not make them a reliable source. While Alex Kasman himself could be considered a reliable source, none of the material added by 71.0.21.44/yourself is found in the portion of that webpage written by Kasman, but comes from visitors to his website. The phrase "we are watching you", for example, comes from a 16-year-old visitor named Sam, the number sequence and the 4 x 4 square is derived from a pair of posts by visitors named Becky and Gino Tramontelli, and the letter sequence "WECGEWHYAAIORTNU" doesn't appear on that page at all. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, what you're saying is utter rubbish. Wikipedia does not require that "All material added to Wikipedia articles must be found in a reliable, published source that is explicitly cited in the article". At most it warns that material that can't be so found may be removed. Your "third person" argument is totally inapplicable when applied to quoted material.
As for the citation,the guidelines include the provision: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author is a recognised mathematician in a reputable university. Any idiot can confirm the decryption as I did partially before responding and the fact that the author of the page left that comment standing is evidence that he thought it worth reproducing. In fact, Wikipedia does not allow people to reproduce material verbatim unless within quotes. Chris55 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "rubbish", it is Wikipedia policy, and it indeed indicates what I have said it does. It does not reflect your assertions about it. The material in question does not come from Kasman, it comes from a visitor posting on his website. Many notable people have websites on which people can post. I myself often visit Peter David's blog and post there. That does not mean that I can add material to his article on the basis of something said by me in one of my posts. In addition, many trolls and flamers make uncivil posts on his blog, which David usually leaves up, as he wishes to foster an atmosphere of free expression. One cannot conclude, therefore, that this is "evidence" that David thinks these missives are "worth reproducing". The same applies to Kasman. You cannot conclude what Kasman thinks on the basis of posts to his website, as this is simply your interpretation.

It does not matter what you think "any idiot can confirm", as this is not the threshold for the inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The threshold is support by reliable sources. What an anonymous nobody says on someone's blog does not qualify.

Lastly, that letter sequence, WECGEWHYAAIORTNU, does not appear anywhere on that webpage, yet you re-added that as well.

As for WP:YOU, the material in question was not a direct quote, it was paraphrased in third-person wording, which is precisely why it indeed applies.

Since you've racked up over 3,300 edits since March 2006, you should know this by now. But if you don't, I suggest you familiarize yourself more closely with the relevant policies, and feel free to ask anyone else with good knowledge of them, and they'll corroborate their proper application for you. Please do not re-add that material without citing a reliable source that supports this material. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream, let us take this one step at a time.
1. Your claim that every statement must be "explicitly cited in the article" does not correspond to WP:NOR.
2. It is not mandatory to remove any material that does not have adequate citations. A common procedure is to add a citation needed marker. Many of your edits on that article are abrupt and partial as they apply to any material that doesn't present the novel in a good light. WP:V includes the advice: "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself."
3. In your revert you claim "It is not established that Kasman edits the posts". It is perfectly clear that the page is edited by him and that he selects what is there. He is acting as a good teacher by encouraging his correspondents to voice the opinions. Nor is the person an "anonymous nobody"; it is signed. I don't agree with your analogy with other blogs and there are other posts in the same article which confirm and corroborate the opinions expressed there.
4. The website is not a blog but a compendium of information about "mathematical fiction" and widely recognized as such. Kasman is the author of "Reality Conditions, Short Mathematical Fiction" published by the Mathematical Association of America. ie. he is an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" You previously removed a link at the bottom of the article to the same site which underlines your partiality.
5. I've edited the other uses of "you" in the paragraph. You could have done the same and it would be a more courteous and helpful contribution than simply removing the whole thing.
6. Are you seriously challenging the truth of what is stated in this paragraph? Because this is the basic premise of WP:V and is why it is relevant that the truth of the decryption is easy to confirm. The fact that he or she spelled out a step not given in the cited source is typical of any mathematical demonstration. The number/chapter code and rail fence cipher are the only two essentials.
It would be more helpful if you could discuss improvements to the paragraph than simply deleting it and being condescending to me. Chris55 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit on March of the Penguins

Could you comment on this edit that you made on the March of the Penguins article? Specifically, it is about the reference to http://www.celibritywonder.com/ :

  • The url does not point to the information it is supposed to be a reference for, nor does any other page on that site;
  • the access date is incorrect.

I found a different source, but I'm also trying to understand how the above reference ended up there. Han-Kwang (t) 11:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hankwang, it looks like the site has been moved and now uses a different organisation - not unusual. A bit of googling shows the original interview here. Though the reference you've substituted sounds more scholarly, there are no citations and it might be they drew on this original interview. But I can't find the origin of the Jacquet quote even here. It looks like they've chopped up the material in a different way.
You're right about the mistake in the access date, should be 2011. Couldn't find it on the wayback machine. Chris55 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've added your second reference to the article. Han-Kwang (t) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ofwat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPI (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) 10:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thames steamships

Nice work & an interesting read. Kind regards, nancy 17:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Thames steamships, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingston and South Eastern Railway (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) 09:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fred

It's good to see someone with a copy of the great Thacker. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris. :Two independently added bits of information do appear to create an alignment problem. The entries for "Distance to next lower lock" come direct from the EA source whereas old weirs were added from perusal of Fred. That heading does not mention "reach" but does have the ambiguity of "lower" that hasn't in this instance been replaced by "upstream" and "downstream". It would probably make sense to change the heading to "Distance to next lock upstream" and move the distances down if you fancy having a go. Some time I'd like to register the old ferries, but I think they belong in a separate article about the towpath. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of the ferries were mainly used to take the tow horses across the river so did not survive beyond the age of steam. All the extant ferries are listed under crossings. I only added the former ones I had had some dealings with - often showing a picture of the site and quoting Fred. It may be possible to find appropriate links for some others or even create articles. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

French election

please dont remove the tag without it being answered, mve it if need e nand Hollande is NOT president becuse he is not sworn in, makes the summary deceptive.Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I did move it and I only said he was elected president not that he was. Chris55 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

 Hello, Chris55! I have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and I would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page or visit the Academy's information page. ~~~~

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi Chris55, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 20:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please confirm your Wikiquote usurpation request.

Hi. Please confirm here whether you are the editor seeking to usurp User:Chris55 at Wikiquote. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Chris55 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It is done. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed tag on Foss Dyke

Hi. I have removed your citation needed tag on the Foss Dyke article, as the ref covers the whole paragraph, and explained the situation on Talk:Foss Dyke. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right- and left-hand traffic

Hi, Chris55. The title of the subject article is under discussion again. I am alerting you because you participated in a previous discussion on the matter. —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddystone Lighthouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Start Point (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) 11:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Death, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (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) 11:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prime meridian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Godfrey (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) 11:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

split proposal for Aqueduct

I note your contribution to Talk:Aqueduct and I would like to bring to your attention a proposal that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please feel welcome to comment on the proposal at Talk:Aqueduct#Split proposal (2) Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see about halfway up the talk page).Nankai (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris55. You have new messages at Talk:E. coli long-term evolution experiment.
Message added 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— raekyt 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for sorting out the history of Aqueduct; I'm horrified to learn that I didn't do the split properly, but believe me, I tried. These things are fraught with peotential for going wrong.Nankai (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution as fact and theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (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) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Plague

Hi, re this edit. The entry was previously

  • The disease caused by Yersinia pestis. There are three major manifestations:

which has one bluelink. You altered it to

which has two bluelinks. At MOS:DABENTRY it states

  • Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.

Therefore, one of the two links must be removed - either the one that you added, or the one that was there previously. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, finally understand. Presumably that was the original reason for the oddly placed link to Plague (disease) Chris55 (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from ‪Evolution as fact and theory‬ into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have done. I made it clear in the edit comments at both ends. Chris55 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue Riband, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Ball Line (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) 13:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Elder (shipbuilder) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flyboat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Alfred Ewing Medal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Edward Appleton, Hugh Ford and Eric Eastwood (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) 10:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chris55. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Yeoman.
Message added 11:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please help with referencing, if you can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johannes de Sacrobosco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toledo (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) 11:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant

I've replied to your comments on my talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your last on my talk page. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Flat Earth and historical sources

Chris,

I'm becoming increasingly troubled by your claim to find "hints" in the sources that Columbus's opponents argued that the Earth was flat when the two texts you cite (Robertson and Ferdinand Columbus) both explicitly recount arguments that are based on the sphericity of the earth. Such a tendentious reading of the sources really challenges the fundamental assumption of good faith.

If you want to state, contrary to modern historical research, that early sources demonstrate that Columbus's opponents were arguing on the basis of the flat earth, you should cite specific reliable sources in support of your position. Allusion to undefined hints doesn't qualify as citing reliable sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The texts from which you are apparently drawing this inference of a flat earth are as follows
"Others, who incln'd more to cosmographical reason, said that the world was so prodigous great, that it was incredible three years sail would bring him to the end of the east, whither he design'd his voyage, and to corroborate their opinion, they brought the authority of Seneca, who in one of his works, by way of argument, said, that many wise men among them disagreed about this question, whether the earth were infinite, and doubted whether it could be sail'd, and tho' it were navigable, whether habitable lands would be found on the other side, and whether they could be gone to. They added, that of this lower globe of earth and water...." (Ferdinand Columbus, p. 520).
"Others concluded, that either he would find the ocean to be of infinite extent, according to the opinion of some ancient philosophers; of, if he should persist in steering towards the west beyond a certain point, that the convex vigure of the globe would prevent his return, and that he must inevitably perish,in the vain attempt to open a communication between the two opposite hemispheres,..." (Robertson, The History of America, p. 88).
Although both of these texts introduce the argument that some philosophers (F. Columbus specifically names Seneca) considered the possibility that the earth was infinite:
  • They are considering an infinite earth one of several possibilities.
  • Infinity does not necessarily imply flatness, philosophers discussed infinite spheres.
  • The discussions of infinity are directly coupled with discussions of the sphericity of the earth.
To infer from these texts that they were arguments for a flat earth smacks of original research, especially without testimony from modern historians who have examined these texts and find them to support a flat earth cosmology. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If the infinite earth is one of several possibilities, why did you delete it? An infinite sphere is infinitely flat. I didn't exclude the discussion of sphericity - clearly there were several views expressed. Chris55 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Any reasonable review of these sources makes it quite clear that at the Spanish court no one explicitly said that the world was flat while they repeatedly referred to it as being spherical. There was one opinion that the earth was "prodigous large", perhaps even, as Seneca had said, infinite. To cherry pick this one ambiguous passage as evidence that there may have been a belief in the flat earth falls upon Wikipedia's policy on fringe opinions. When dealing with primary sources, like Ferdinand Columbus, we are to rely on the interpretations of scholarly professionals, not to make up our own interpretation.
It's quite clear that a one-on-one discussion on a User talk page is going nowhere. I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Flat Earth in order to bring in further comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Yeoman

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gould, Genesis and Magic (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) 11:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ramsden theodolite

Hello Chris55. Your name seems to come up on many English language articles I consult for mine on nl-wiki. I repaired one of your citations on Prime Meridian just yesterday. I've seen you've done some work on the Ramsden theodolite, but I can't see whether you were aware of this source, which I found te be pleasantly informative. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sander, I've added this reference to the article. Chris55 (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wandering star (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) 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two New Sciences may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of the experiments and even indicated the particular results that led to the time-squared law).<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two New Sciences may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • were discussed in [[Physics (Aristotle)|Aristotle's Physics]] and also the Aristotelian school [[Mechanics (Aristotle)|Mechanics]. It also provides an introduction to the discussion of both of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De Magnete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heraclides (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) 11:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (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) 11:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pierre Gassendi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parhelia (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) 09:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution

Hi there,

I just undid your reversion of the scientific revolution page, as the quote from J.D. Bernal is not from Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science (which is available here http://www.marxists.org/archive/bernal/works/1930s/dsams.htm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollieha (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Scott Russell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strand (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) 08:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society‎

It took me a while to figure it out, but that was a migration to a different server and domain.[2] Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That explains it. Having done several such migrations - they can be very painful with open source software! - it will probably take several months before things settle down: it may be they mean to leave the old server as an archive, we shall see. Also the "tfes" domain name may be simply for the transitional period. Chris55 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Chris55 Nope, this was not a transition to a new domain! They simply took our content and made a new site. WakingJohn (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CarewTideMill.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Ransome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Ross. 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) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 July

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

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) 00:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Split, name

I invite you to the discussion here, since you were interested in that question recently. Asdisis (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons

Aloha! :-) You just got a new message on Commons. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 14:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

TemplateScript

Hello Chris55. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of TemplateScript. This is just to enable automatic updates, so you shouldn't see much difference. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 August

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

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) 00:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River Whitewater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Malta

Chris I'll get on this. Dapi89 (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas McLaughlin (engineer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian Brothers and Killaloe. 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) 08:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Death

Your edit to this article seem to have removed the sources for this claim entirely from the article. Could you please fix that? Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get access to a previous version, click on "View history" and click on the version that contains the reference you want. (You need to use desktop not mobile version.) I don't think this should go in the lead: it's a good story but is a detail dealt with in the article. Chris55 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

BNA access

Hello, Chris55. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Rutherford and Thomson

Hello. Could you look at my question at Talk:Ernest Rutherford#Thomson's role in ER obtaining McGill position? concerning the statement that Thomson offered Rutherford a job at McGill. The revision history indicates that you inserted that statement in January 2013, so I would be interested in your comment. Dirac66 (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Grantham, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Rennie and Killaloe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dutch inland shipping company 1864-1950

Hello Chris55. I know I've been here before, but I can't remember what about. Anyway, would you like to have a sneak preview on what's in my User:Sander1453/sandbox? And if so, any comments are welcome of course. Sources are yet to be added, but they will be mostly in Dutch, I'm afraid. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, Chris55. I'm taking a different route. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Chris55,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex and the Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gospel of James may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • been practiced in Judaism since the days of the prophet Samuel ({{bibleref2|1 Samuel|2:22}}),<ref>[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin Mary: Ever Virgin</ref> and the idea of Mary being

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De sphaera mundi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

In case you weren't aware, this discussion is ongoing about you on Wikisource, at s:Wikisource:Administrators#Chris55. — Cirt (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cousin marriage in Europe

There is nothing in the section to support the notion that cousin marriage was "quite common" in Europe. It's not even clear what time periods are referred to. The basic problem for the thesis is that the Catholic church banned even distant cousin marriages in the Middle Ages. Royals who wanted to marry their cousins had to get a special dispensation from the Vatican. Commoners were unlikely to get or even want such dispensations. Protestant churches were also generally opposed to cousin marriage.

The marriage systems of royals or the aristocracy cannot be generalized to commoners. Even if all royals married their cousins, it would not make cousin marriage "quite common" in Europe. Darwin's prevalence estimate of 3.5 percent in the 19th century does not support the notion that the practice was common, and there is no data on earlier centuries.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to discuss this further on the talk page. The cases I quoted were all between 1600 and about 1900 which fits the 'centuries' comment. In addition they were mainly protestants who rejected (from Henry VII onwards) the Catholic rules for marriage. (The last one quoted raised the ire of the Russian Orthodox Church however!) I wasn't trying to generalise but rather to give an indication that it was happening − maybe somewhat more frequently among royalty but not excessively so. The main advantage is that royalty are better documented than others
It's clearly an emotive issue in some countries (such as the US) but before I put the comment about Louis XIV, the impression was that it never happened in Europe. One in thirty isn't a high number but it means for instance that most people would know of at least one case, probably more. Can you suggest better phrasing that doesn't get technical too early? Chris55 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Having looked back on the history I see that the phrase used for a long time was "England maintained a small but stable proportion of cousin marriages for centuries". This was generalised and then changed about 3 months back to what is there now (I only changed the order not the phraseology). But I suggest a lead sentence of "Northern Europe maintained a small proportion of cousin marriages for centuries." Is that better? If we want to go back to Theodosius then the section will need to be enlarged considerably. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I replied on the article talk page. I think the claim of it being "quite common" should be removed. No generalizations based on the marriage practices of the royalty should be made. Sourcing is pretty bad in that section in general.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Historic Helston

User:Chris55 Thank you for your recent edits as to Helston port and for removing 'citation needed' after footnote 15, as I have not yet had time to complete my newspaper article research as to the account of slipways being found under St. Johns Road, Helston. What gave room for Geomorphologists to press their views about the age of Loe Pool is that up until 2013 no one really had the proof that the Loe Valley was built up from 25 foot depth of silt from the mines up toward the source of the Cober, upon 7 foot belt of sea sand above peat on the rock bed. I would have been caught out my the modern scientific hypotheses as to the Bar and the Pool had it not been for research and practical evidence been (and some of it still) seen. For example, when in around 1932 when the foundation for the gasometer was laid, water gushed up from the subterranean lake and ship's timber was discovered above the 34 foot bedrock. I copy a section sent to Jowan-in Pensans earlier this year as to some of the facts that came to light, not including my own finds of anchorage hooks at three different levels. Stephanie Russell's account of Helston as a whole is excellent, but she does not show any research as to the mediaeval details that I have seen, as well as mis-placing the chapel site that was mediaeval with the old Coinagehall. Archaeology has subsequently been confirmed by an archaeologist as to remains of the port. Please read this section: ' This has become a very involved subject due to a number of reasons: 1. The Geomorphologists' conjectures (normally correct), if their ideas were evidence, they would be able to cite other bays or beaches where the flint sand was washed up between Loe Bar and the perceived drowned terraces around 120 miles away. There is no proof either that, during the roughly 250 years of sea encroachment, the flint sand was washed up from under Mounts Bay. 2. The configuration of Nansloe Valley and the site of the 1208 church (reckoned to be built upon the site of a "'lan' = monastic cell" here), according to Mr. Derek Kneebone (researcher for Helston Old Cornwall Society), and according to others, signify the area of an inland port as being commonly situated in such an area in Roman times.

Neither take into account the date of Mounts Bay's indundation. The first mention of St. Michael's Mount as such, according to Padel, is in the mid-eleventh century, and no one has come up with any proof for the existence of the sea there before 1014 AD. If Helston had a port 2,000 years ago its depth would have had to be as deep as the sea just beyond the limit of Mounts Bay forest! Currently there is no evidence for this. This means that, although I find that DVD as providing the most reliable and up-to-date information, the drowning of Mounts Bay, including hills up to nearly 2 miles beyond Marazion in the sea, compared with 2 furlongs walk to the Mount, has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, that minimum of 20 foot depth of silt must have accumulated over the past 800 years for Helston to have been a port. Also, in answer to your mildly put statement that there is no evidence of the Bar being thrown up after the 13th century, the evidences are clear that it was thrown up either completely (except for occasional breaches by the River Cober) or partially before the 14th century, since, according to Toy, the lake is mentioned both in 1302 and 1272, if the latter date be accurate. Yesterday, I also visually witnessed that the Bar width is twice that which is depicted in the c1700 etched picture in Helston museum. From the houses of Chyvarloe a pool was seen in 1235, because the name 'Tywarlo', as it was then, means 'house above the pool' = LO, at that time. Therefore at least during low tide the Bar must have separated it from the sea. If this name were applicable by 1015, then sea going ships were only able to access the estuary at Helston during high tides; however there is no evidence for this.

Unfortunately, I can see the whole picture of how the port was formed, together with the evidences that I witnessed myself. Even the formation of the Bar presents no problems for me, like the beaches at Praa (Prah, as it should read) and Perranuthnoe when the shingle and pebbles were thrown up over night! Is it not significant that the first mention of the River Cober was dated as in 1260, the first mention of St. John's Bridge was in 1260, the Helstonians bought in their shipping rites from Gweek in 1260; and the first record of anyone from Penrose estate was after 1270? I realise that earlier records could have been lost and that there were no printing facilities then - that also possibly explains the absence of customs' records - although some mention of 'lestage', meaning room for storage, lading or cargo, is to be seen in the 1201 charter by King John. However, I wished to balance my findings with other views (and contrasting evidences that I have not yet seen!)'

Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg That's all very interesting. I was mainly concerned to improve how that section read as it was obviously the scene of many disagreements in the past! The weakest part is the lack of proper references to the 1260 episode – or episodes if that's what they are. A vague reference to a DVD (with no publisher) isn't really good enough. Can you improve those? Obviously your own findings are OR unless they've been properly written up. Even the Gweek connection is being used on the other side: I'm unclear why they should be buying rights in 1260 if the river Cober was still open at that point. Were they running out of water even then? I don't know enough about the geological processes to know whether the presence of Eocene material means that it must have been there since Eocene times - but it seems inherently unlikely to me. Like you I know how quickly a storm can shift shingle around. And we're talking about the top 20' not prehistoric forests much further down. Chris55 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris55 Thank you very much for your message; I had qualms about the DVD reference not being sufficient - I will sort that out. I have to avoid presenting my own findings on the main page as they are not suitably documented, (except for those already cited) to suit Wikipedia. The problem is that it was so long ago and until the Cattle Market moved down from the foot Coinagehall Street there was very little above ground evidence for any port. The trees and shrubs had to be cleared for the old Cattle Market in Castle Green, so the pitched mooring rings were not visible until then; and the other half of the wall was demolished in my time. However, there was no printed material when Helston ceased to be a port; and there seems to be no proven literature on the subject, thus giving way to the presentation of fictitious ideas. If there was a pool in 1235, it was at least deeper than any formation of the Bar, but the general consensus is that the port was losing its navigability before 1260 and that, through the silting up of lower Helston, before any complete blockage by Loe Bar. Henderson was the source of my DVD reference. Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew
Werdna Yrneh Yarg I wondered how deep Mounts Bay is and looked it up on a chart. Within a mile or so of the bar it's over 20m and is so even in Penzance Bay. (The water around St Michael's Mount is of course very shallow.) So even when the sea level was much lower there would have been a substantial bay, which is presumably responsible for the eddies that keep the bar in position. So it would be reasonable to argue that the material which forms the bar could have arrived long ago and been moved progressively into its current position, being the lightest material. This leaves the question of when the bar happened entirely open.
Btw I was confused in my remark above about 1260 - Godric's date is of course given as 1182. A proper reference for that would be a great addition to the article. Too many of the references are nearly self-published blogs which are not acceptable for WP. The Loe article also needs to be tied in with the Helston article. Chris55 (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris55 Whether the area of Mount's Bay was below sea level was bordered by Lethowsow, (Cornish for Lyonesse) - before the 6th century, at a contemporary altitude to that of Seven Stones Reef is controversial. Your impression of the formation of the Bar is logical, and the general consensus is that the foundation of the Bar was in the Holocene period. All the sites in the immediate area: the Cober, the Loe and Helston tied up in their reports as to the completion of the blockage of the Cober, (then Chohor) estuary in the 13th Century; until a new Administrator came on the scene and changed them because of lack of suitable documentation. This gave rise to scientific theories taking the place of those documented reports by some whose ignorance about the facts of mediaeval Helston was glaringly obvious. The clause emboldened in the Loe Bar site, for example, discredits the site, as being nonsense, by those who have witnessed the relics of this history in Helston. It was 'Dan Nicholls' of Exeter university who published the DVD and all the accounts, for and against were welcomed for its publication in an unbiased manner. My reference was by historian, Charles Henderson. Also, remains of the same forest as in Mount's Bay were found when digging for the foundation of the weighbridge, about 34 feet deep, near the roundabout at the bottom of Helston. The fact of the forest being between three and six thousand years old, completely rules out an earlier port, unless the sea inundated the bay again just before the Roman times; but the names of the subterranean hills: the Great Row, Mount Amopus, Carn Mallows and Iron Gates - apart from Carn Mallows - all reek of being not much more than 1050 years old. There was still over 200 years for the Bar to form after 1014 AD. What do you wish me to do with The Loe article, please? Kind Regards.

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg I've managed to find a better reference (which I'll add) for Godric in Spencer Toy's History of Helston p17,18 thanks to the Truro Records office and email. However it doesn't really prove the Cober was navigable then. I've found a piece of negative evidence in Domesday: whereas Helston had 118 housholds, there appears to be nothing at Gweek apart from a hamlet of 8 households called Mawgan about a mile away. You can read all that courtesy of web volunteers. If Gweek had always been the main port in the area one would expect something there. And why was Helston the largest settlement in that part of Cornwall at the time (bigger than Truro if we assume the web maps are accurate)? Having a port would certainly be part of it, although Domesday doesn't seem to be concerned with fishing or anything similar. Chris55 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Chris55 I believe that you might be interested that in October 1862, under the right of, and just below the sharp turn to the left, of Chyvarloe lane, in one of the deeply channeled cart ruts, the heavy rain that fell for a few days washed away the bottom of the ruts to leave bare stonework just over one foot below the road surface. After a careful excavation on the second day from the initial discovery a small building within 12 feet in total diameter included two culinary or other purpose stone ovens of considerable antiquity, for boiling "tan-water" or pitch to 'pay' the bottoms of vessels. [Archaeological journal, volume 20, 1863]. This was presented to me by a Christian friend from Scotland whilst on holiday this week, amongst eight other copies. Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 10:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Andrew talk

Andrew, that's certainly fascinating. But I'm not sure where Chyvarloe Lane is. Is that the road that runs past Chyvarloe Farm? Because if it is, then it's quite close to the Bar and may not prove anything about the use of the Looe. If you can identify the exact map coordinates of the site referred to, then it could well be worth including in the article. Chris55 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your all your time on this. The Cober would not have been visible south of St. John's bridge (that was not even built) then as it drained into the estuary sea at around that point, ten feet lower than it is now. By your last edit, it will not only save wasted time for other Administrators, but will raise credibility of the Helston site, that has for long been undermined. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 19:48, 2 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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian Beginnings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Nicea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Schuyt <-> Dutch barge merger

Hi Chris, I would appreciate if you can share your expertise at Talk:Dutch barge! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Young, Baron Young of Dartington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumers Association. 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) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss with me?

Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dying to Win, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Institute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Migration chart: to be updated?

Hello Chris55, I found your migration statistics very interesting. Do you intend to update this graphics regularly? E.g., create a new graph UK_Migration_1970-2015.svg ? --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 11:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Furfur, that's an interesting point. I did just update the numbers on the Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom page but I had to do it from the UN Migration figures because I couldn't find anything past 2013 on the ONS pages (and the last two years have changed the numbers significantly). The graphic used the Statistical Bulletin and I may be able to dig around and update it. Can't promise anything, but I'll try. Chris55 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I would be interested to translate it then ... --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 17:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it's certainly topical, tho mostly for the wrong reasons.:( Chris55 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Furfur, I've now updated the graph to 2105. Whilst I was at it I added a couple of lines, for EU citizens and refugees. As it's an SVG file and therefore XML, you should be able to translate it to German easily as long as you respect the format carefully. Chris55 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Chris55, thank you very much for your time and effort. The graphics looks really nice – very informative but it is nevertheless easy to grasp the content. And the additional data on EU citizens and refugees are interesting. Thank you for providing it in SVG format. But I suppose if you keep updating it one should perhaps rename it (UK Migration since 1970 or else)? --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 13:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree it needs changing but I don't know how to do it! "since 1970" is the right tag. I'll look up the help stuff on Commons unless you can tell me. Chris55 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, found the way, there's a template for that. Thanks Chris55 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, there is ONS data for 2014, if that helps. I created Template:ONSCoB2014 to reference this source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry but it seems the UN is making the data available quicker than the ONS. It must come from the same source so I don't know what policy they're implementing. Chris55 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Comparing the 2010 data in the UN spreadsheet with the 2010 ONS estimates, they are different. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Heat maps

Hey Chris I have a bunch of WHO data I would like to see turned into heatmaps. I saw the one you made for road traffic collision. Are you interested in making more? I have struggled to made them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James I can't claim to be an expert on SVG files and the one I adapted was relatively easy. But I'm willing to give it a try. Is it a world map or something else? Chris55 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
World map. The data is here.
Just click on "WHO Member States, 2012 xls, 8.34Mb "
Our prior ones are from 2004[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, James, that was the file I used for the RTAs. At a rough count there are 140 maps there. Are they all used?
I'd need to hack up a script to do many. Now I've done it once it shouldn't be too difficult, though I'm not sure that the shadings are appropriate to all stats. There are also some issues with the minor countries but I hope we can fudge those. And then another script for doing the submission to Commons. That might be more difficult, but we'll see. If there are a few priorities, then maybe we could start with those. Chris55 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
We will need to take the number of deaths and divide it by the population to get a number we can compare.
So for example 588 deaths in the USA for tuberculosis pop of USA 317,505,000 so 1.85 deaths per million people.
Uzbekistan 604 deaths for tb, pop is 28,541,000 so 23.6 deaths per million people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The WHO spreadsheet has the population as the first row, so that's no problem. What's slightly more difficult is the number of colors for a particular picture. I'll have to think about that. But I think the base of 1m people is sensible. I can think in those terms and I hope others can too. Chris55 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Doc James Can I be clear about what sort of death figures you're wanting as the page you pointed to has many sets of data. I had initially assumed raw death figures (which was relevant to RTAs) but the earlier graphs used DALY numbers and I hadn't realised how different they are till I realised that one was 25 times bigger. i.e. do you want an update of the maps in c:Category:Health maps of the world, specifically the DALY numbers, or something different? Chris55 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Am wanting heatmaps of "deaths per million" for 2012 [4]
Would also be good to update the heatmaps of DALY for 2012 [5]
So yes two different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
ok, James, so treading on toes isn't so important. :) There are still a number of issues, so I'll set up a talk page on Commons. Chris55 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lincoln High Bridge.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lincoln High Bridge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Glory hole.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glory hole.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

clpo13(talk) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Aquatic ape hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. NeilN talk to me 16:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that Maunus has deleted my insert three times and I have reinstated it (with some corrections) three times. The ball is in his court. I will report him next time not revert him. Chris55 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Re Auditory exetoses at Lake Ndutu. This is mentioned in The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis By Elaine Morgan pages 159. She gave a reference of Rightmire, G.P. (1990) The Evolution of Home Erectus. Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species. Cambridge University Press. It has always seemed to me that any adaptions that occurred over a few million years would be preserved if they improved the chances of an intelligent species finding food in widely distributed sources of fresh and salt water that are not available to other primates. In fact, it would be strange if the adaptations hadn't happened. JMcC (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

User question

Interesting question we both just answered. I wonder if the -ess on the users's name suggests an organic connection with a certain author in the field... Hmm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, That one eludes me :) Btw I've just added a picture of one of the caves at Pinnacle Point to your dolphin pic at the top of the article. I'm aware that my article doesn't add to the more romantic aspects of the AAH so having both is probably a good thing. Chris55 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FOC

Please take care to WP:FOC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, and try and avoid commenting on other editors. As you'll be aware that article Talk page has seen some very bad behaviour and further personalisation is only likely to encourage it. Alexbrn (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn Actually my comment about Skeptics was about Eugenie Scott comparing it to alien-human interbreeding and Bigfoot, which you've introduced to the article, not you. Chris55 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, but you've gone personal a couple of times. I really wouldn't. Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Aquatic ape hypothesis. This addition is bald original research. Please stop POV-pushing. Further actions in this regard may result in sanctions. jps (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

jpsWhat an extraordinary statement!
The section is about the relationship between wading and standing upright and the photograph you object to shows that in another primate, demonstrating what the section is talking about. Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons. There's nothing original about it.
It looks like you dont have any rational arguments so you are resorting to bullying. You even hide your identity on the edit pages which is typical of internet bullies. Chris55 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE. jps (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
As a ps to this, I found the exact same picture in Verhaegan's article "Early Hominoids: Orthograde Aquarboreals in Flooded Forests?", 2011. So not only am I unoriginal but he also thinks there's some connection with gorillas. Chris55 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bender article

Hi,

Do you have a copy of the Bender 'Savannah Hypotheses' review? I think it could act as the stake through the heart of the "this is extreme fringe" viewpoint. I have it on PDF. Urselius (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC) For example, I quote (square brackets are my addition to the text): 

"Langdon 's definition implies a clear distinction between SHs [Savannah Hypotheses] as re-
lated to research carried out within "the collective discipline of paleoan-
thropology" and AHs [Aquatic ape Hypotheses] as models defended by non-scientists or scientists
working outside of paleoanthropology. This distinction is misleading for
several reasons. First, we saw the crucial role of science writer Robert
Ardrey in the popularization of the SHs in the 1960s and the role of
science writer Elaine Morgan in the process through which the savan-
nah model was recognized as a hypothetical construct. Second, not all
proponents of the aquatic model regarded it as completely incompatible
with the classical views. We saw that Alister Hardy proposed his AH as a
phase between forest and savannah. On the other hand, not all scientists
working within paleoanthropology or engaged in the popularization or
development of classical paleoanthropological ideas saw the SHs and
AHs as completely incompatible models". p. 169

"After pointing out that the AH is "one among many 'alternative theories'
of human origins, and indeed in that light is one of the most cogent and
best argued" (Lewin and Foley 2004, 283), they continue:
The existence of such models does raise the question of what it is that
distinguishes a plausible model from an implausible one. What is it that makes
it reasonable to discuss one model and to dismiss another out of hand? Is the
aquatic ape hypothesis a reasonable explanation for many unique features of
humanity, and ignored because it is a challenge to scientific orthodoxy, or is it a
crackpot theory? If it is the latter, then should the scientific community spend
time and resources refuting it? If it is the former, how can it become accepted as
a good model?" (Lewin and Foley 2004, 283) p. 172

This is from an academic review!!!

Urselius, sure do. It's excellent and has always been on the page. I'm just reading the Erlandson (2001) article that Pants Chakazul just included and it's also excellent. His contribution to Human Brain Evolution 2010 (which can also be found in PDF on the web) is quite short and I hadn't really appreciated him. e.g. a list of over 50 archeological sites from 2.3M to 16K where fish remains were found.
A lot of the AAH supporters seem to consider the "aquatic phase" quite short and argue whether it's early or late. My view is that it's long term but how far that can be worked into the article I'm not sure. But what I think most of us want is a better recognition of the aquatic influence. Chris55 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jps (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

See the thread. It looks like you have already made four reverts at Aquatic ape hypothesis on 30 March. The question is whether you still have time to avoid a block by making a proper response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR sanctions

Hi. You can choose between the following sanctions: 1. block for 48 hours, or 2. a week of 0RR. Please make your choice or I will choose 1. for you. Thanks. El_C 21:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a little surprised you chose 1., but okay. You've been blocked for 48 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 22:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Blue Riband

Hello Chris
I noticed you added a section here on Packet ships a while ago. I have had to remove it, for the reasons I've given here, but have moved the content to the Black Ball Line article, where it is (I think) a better fit. The reason I am contacting you is that the section was essentially unreferenced. There was a cite to 'Cutler p66-68', but nothing in the references to say what Cutler is. There was also a cite to a book by Gibbs, but again, little indication of how much of the material it covers. Can you remember what sources you used for this, and if so can you add them to the new section at the BBL article; thanks. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Xyl 54 The reference was there. At the time it was embedded in ref 19:
{{cite book|title=Greyhounds of the Sea|first=Carl C.|last=Cutler|page=410|edition=3rd|year=1984|publisher=United States Naval Institute/Patrick Stephens, Northants|ref=harv}}
As for Gibbs I can't help you. It was there already and I didn't find a copy, only the Greyhounds book.
I'm reasonably happy with the briefer treatment of the packet ships in the Blue Riband article: I added the section to point out (a) that the packets were the first to offer regular scheduled crossings and (b) that steam-assisted boats took quite a time to beat the sailing packets. (Obviously they won handsomely in the end!!) Chris55 (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that: You're right, it was there, but some idiot deleted it a couple of months ago (O mea culpa!) Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chris55. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

Modern Flat Earth Societies

Hey, Sorry to bother you; since you were a part of the original discussions with Daniel Shenton regarding the logo and links, would you mind looking at the request to edit to finally add back in The Flat Earth Society logo Modern flat Earth societies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakingJohn (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WakingJohn, I've looked at the discussion and can't really work out what is at issue. Are any of the current web groups using Flat Earth names notable enough (a) to be mentioned (b) to justify their logos being included? They've now had time enough to be mentioned in reliable sources if they are notable. I notice there is only one 3rd party citation in the "Relaunch" section. I'm certainly glad Dubay has been banned by Twitter--the most cynical abuser of the media. Chris55 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Chris55 We'd like to have 2004 The Flat Earth Society logo featured as it once was as per the discussion now that we have secured it and made it available under a free license on commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakingJohn (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Chris55 If wished, I can supply additional outside sources for the article, though I feel these should be under another request to edit. Since there are now currently 2 on the page, I'd love to wait for those to be resolved rather than flood the request for edits page.WakingJohn (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Chris55 Some more context; At some point all links to https://theflatearthsociety.org were removed and replaced with https://tfes.org. The talk lead to these links being reverted. This lead to a lengthy discussion with yourself, Apples grow on pines (who is possibly under conflict of interest as well), myself and Daniel Shenton (both self identified as conflict of interest) to have the logo added once the license was properly provided. This has now been done, and I'm looking for resolution to this discussion by the addition of the logo into the Relaunch section as previously agreed. I hope that clears it up a bit! WakingJohn (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
WakingJohn, I think all logos should be removed. TheflatEarthSociety.org seems more moribund even than it was 3 years ago: they record one new member since 2014. The logo on their home page looks very similar to that on tfes.org so what's the point? Chris55 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
We are about to record a new set of members as noted on our facebook page. The one member you do mention is extremely notable, as it is the rapper BoB. We have also been active in interviews and lectures for the last 2 years as well as on our extremely active forums (especially in comparison to the tfes.org group) which I can supply some links for. The logo on their home page, and in wikipedia commons, is extremely different - and it is a logo representing one organization --not the other. The point is to give non-biased information. The agreement you were a part of was to feature theflatearthsociety.org logo. Featuring neither logo removes valuable information about the already agreed upon notable groups at play. Your judgement of 'moribund' is a personal evaluation and does not necessarily reflect the facts which are in opposition to this evaluation. WakingJohn (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Either way, thanks for taking a look Chris55! Cheers and have a great new year! WakingJohn (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Map

Deaths from lymphomas and multiple myeloma per million persons in 2012
  0-13
  14-18
  19-22
  23-28
  29-34
  35-42
  43-57
  58-88
  89-121
  122-184

Trying to understand this map.

The date it is build upon is the absolute number of deaths correct?[6]

Than divide it by the population of the country? I guess the big reason for the difference with the 2004 map is that it is not age standardized.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Doc James yes, you are correct. That’s true for all the similar maps. I’m not sure which 2004 maps you are referring to. The only 2004 ones I can find are the age-adjusted DALY raté maps which are obviously different. I put a discussion of this on c:User talk:Chris55/who2012 at the time but nobody bothered to comment. Chris55 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Lymphomas, multiple myeloma world map - Death - WHO2004
Am referring to this one which is age standardized.
We can only build maps based on the data we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
user:Doc James Fair enough. I missed those when looking, not sure how. `Probably the main reason they look different is that the groupings are by deciles of population not rates. Chris55 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It is per 100,000. But age standardised. Your map is per million but not age standardised. Both provide useful information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The denominator won't make the graph look different. I agree the age standardisation does make a difference. Looking at the rates in Africa cf US is very obviously different. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
user:Doc James Is there a sense that the crude rate is more basic? Looking at those two gives me that feeling. The non-specialist might look at the age-standardised graph and think that the problem is worse in Africa than in the US. The fact that it's mainly a disease of old people and those in the US live longer doesn't change the fact that it's more of an issue in the US. Chris55 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chris55. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

The River Cober and Mounts Bay

@ Chris55: Dear Sir, it is a long time since I have made any contact; but have just managed to recall the Mounts Bay sea contour map which I had lost on the computer for a long time and, in perusing it again, I do not see any reason why the Cober did not flow down a valley, the sides of which led out to the sea and also joined the outer bank of the bay each side to form a barrier to the sea encroaching into the bay that was possibly well below sea level before 1014 AD, if we are to believe the geomorphologists' hypotheses as to the gradual rise in sea level that I believe. It is a mere hypothesis; but otherwise, the sea would have filled the bay by means of the Cober's estuary. There is also c 1540 painting of Porth Plement to the west of the mount in Mount's Bay, before it was said to be inundated in 1755 after the Lisbon earthquake tsunami. I have not yet got round to investigating the ancient ovens off Chyvarloe lane, but hope to do this in the Summer, D.V. Kind Regards. Andrew Andrew H. Gray 08:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrew, that's most interesting. Is it possible you could email me the map? I see you haven't got your email link set up, but I have: under the Tools list on the left hand side of this page is a link which says "Email this user". I think you can use attachments but if not, send me an email and we can arrange it. Chris55 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chris55 (talk): Thank you so much for your email, but currently, I have tried in vain to find any link that states: "Email this user", in or around the section you have mentioned; nor do I know your email - the message service rejected two that I tried to send. My email is , so then I shall try to send them. Or you could try to download "Mounts Bay and its ports before 1600". Kind Regards Andrew H. Gray 17:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Andrew
Andrew I've tried emailing you several times with no success. You may need to check your spam box or similar to find the emails. Chris55 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris55/archive_1&oldid=1144573605"