User talk:Mjroots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I miss the "Orange Bar of Death" notifying me when I had a new talk page message.
Mjroots
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
nl-2Deze gebruiker heeft een middelmatige kennis van het Nederlands.
fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Obscured jaguar.jpgBeware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Please add new comments at the bottom of the relevant section if it already exists - e.g. Railways, Places, Ships, Aircraft & Airlines etc. Please add new subjects to the bottom of the relevant section; If you are unsure where to add your contribution, the "New messages" section at the bottom of the page will be fine. I'll move it myself if necessary.

Please note: I do not watch article talk pages. If you wish to raise an issue, please drop me a note here.

If your post is an Admin-related matter, please post it in the Admin section on this page. If you e-mail me, please leave a note in the "New Messages" section of my talk page so that I am aware one has been sent.

Contents

Barnstars[edit]

  • For barnstars I've been awarded, see here
  • If you feel that I deserve a barnstar, please add it here.

DYK & ITN[edit]

Symbol question.svgThis user has written or expanded 233 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.




My DYKs are on this sub-page and my ITNs are on this sub-page. Earlier discussions are archived here

Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Medal
For achieving your 25th Did You Know? I hereby award you this big fat medal. Well done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Dyk50CE.svg The 50 DYK Medal
Trams, mills, railways ... I think Isambard would have been proud of your approach particulary the French ideas, but he would have barred our veteran editor from further progression for supporting a railway that was merely a metre. But he's not here! So more seriously, thank you on behalf of the wiki. (Let me tell you though that the 100 one s a really cool yellowy gold colour). Good luck with the GA and cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Dyk100CE.svg The 100 DYK Medal  
As I told you at 50 ... the 100 DYK medal is a really cool shade of yellow. I hope you are not disappointed, as the wiki is not regretful at all of your efforts. Well done. The wiki gets better due to your contributions and its a pleasure to thank you again on behalf of the wiki. See you at 200? Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dyk200CE.svg The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your tireless contributions. The Interior (Talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for PS Castalia[edit]

Thank you for thanking me. I actually noticed only one of the typos, but I use Firefox and it apparently spellchecks everything by default. When I went into edit mode, not only was the error I noticed underlined with a wavy line, so were other things. I had to sort out the genuine mistakes from a lot of "false positives"; I hope I didn't change anything that was right.

You are obviously a very active contributor to Wikipedia. I am mostly a consumer -- I benefit from the work you and others like you do. Thank you very much.

I have no idea whether this is the right place for this comment. You replied to my talk page and this is your talk page, so I hope it is. If not, you will move it. Gms3591 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to expand Peace in Africa for a DYK?[edit]

Hi Mjroots, you and Haus seem to have good access to merchant marine sources. Want to expand Peace in Africa (ship) for DYK? Djembayz (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Any additions to Malahat (schooner) at DYK?[edit]

Hi again! I've put in a self nom for Malahat (schooner) at DYK. Perhaps you can spruce it up a bit. Djembayz (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/De Akkermolen[edit]

Ping. Hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/QSMV Dominion Monarch at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wendhausen Windmill[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Wendhausen Windmill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Eckwersheim derailment has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK nomination of Godmersham Park[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Godmersham Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Godmersham Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Old discussions are archived here.

Request for reduction in protection level - Windmill[edit]

The article has been semi-protected since 2011. It has had very few incidents of vandalism so I don't think it needed to be indefinitely protected. Its risk level should be about the same as any other article of that size. What do you think? Greg (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Greggydude: - I'm willing to unprotect and see how things go. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added NakonScott
removed SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Boing! said ZebedeeAnsh666Ad Orientem
removed TonywaltonAmiDanielSilenceBanyanTreeMagioladitisVanamonde93Mr.Z-manJdavidbJakecRam-ManYelyosKurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
removed Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

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)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Aviation[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

balloon crash[edit]

pilot had taken drugs and weather was not clear, may be time to name the pilot if he was at fault Bachcell (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bachcell: Have replied at talk:2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash, which is the better venue for this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash[edit]

Regarding this edit, the cited source says 93. Other sources I have looked at give 92 as the number of dead. The one that said 91 yesterday (Sky News) has been changed to 92.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hmmm, ASN are pretty good at correcting errors so I'll let them know. Feel free to change the ref to any of the others that state 92. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoreham[edit]

Hi and thanks for your work. Can I ask, are you editorially interested in the field itself or just the crash? The only reason I ask is that I was a bit nonplussed by the latest contribution from a new editor here. It is by no means all bad - far from it - but does have some regrettable features. Simply reverting is perhaps not what is needed but unthreading the good bits (e.g. checking what is still referenced etc) looks a bit of a job - I'm not sure I'm up to it. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I'm interested in both the field and the accident, but am concentrating on the accident for now. Just finished reading the final report. Plenty to absorb and digest. The issue you raise, and the final report, are probably best discussed on the respective article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. I see that someone else is already helping with the airfield so I think I will stand down from that concern! Yes, much to take in in the final report. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
With the greatest respect to you, whose contributions to this article (to judge from the edit history) indicate a lot of hard work on your part, you have reverted a minor change I made on the basis the text I altered was (you say) a contemporary quote from a printed source. Wiki guidelines do indeed cater for verbatim quotes, saying they should go in quotation marks, while paraphrased text should accord with the tense of the surrounding paragraph. I changed the tense as there were no inverted commas to show quotes starting and stopping, so I presumed I was editing a paraphrase. I'm happy for the reversion to stand if quoted material could be marked; else, please undo the reversion. I've no problem with my edits being reverted per se but for consistency am simply proposing staying within Wikipedia's published style guide. Humboles (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Humboles: - I've added quote marks per your request. As you say, I've put in a lot of work. This should make an easy GA once the trial is over, and maybe even a FA after that. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk discussion[edit]

Take it here[1] That's the applicable WikiProject....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Graham Hill plane crash for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Graham Hill plane crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Hill plane crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire over Heathrow[edit]

Hello! I am very grateful to You for offering me help. If You have no objections, I think we can begin with setting common reference grid. What are the first pages of the chapters in Your copy of the book? In my E-copy (when viewed in the 'original format') they are as follows:

  • Introduction - p. 49
  • Chapter 1. Early Days - p. 51
  • Chapter 2. The Birth of Whiskey Echo - p. 59
  • Chapter 3. The Final Briefing - p. 67
  • Chapter 4. The Last Flight of Whiskey Echo - p. 84
  • Chapter 5. The Tragedy of Flight 712 - p. 103
  • Chapter 6. The Evening News - p. 117
  • Chapter 7. Headlines - p. 128
  • Chapter 8. Replacements, Investigation and Reports - p. 139
  • Chapter 9. A Lonely and Courageous Action - p. 160
  • Chapter 10. Then and Now - p. 172
  • The Legacy of Jane Harrison - p. 182

Yours faithfully, Эйхер (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Эйхер: The book pages are :-
  • Introduction - p. xix
  • Chapter 1. Early Days - p. 1
  • Chapter 2. The Birth of Whiskey Echo - p. 10
  • Chapter 3. The Final Briefing - p. 19
  • Chapter 4. The Last Flight of Whiskey Echo - p. 40
  • Chapter 5. The Tragedy of Flight 712 - p. 62
  • Chapter 6. The Evening News - p. 78
  • Chapter 7. Headlines - p. 92
  • Chapter 8. Replacements, Investigation and Reports - p. 105
  • Chapter 9. A Lonely and Courageous Action - p. 130
  • Chapter 10. Then and Now - p. 145
  • The Legacy of Jane Harrison - p. 157

Suggest you use these page numbers to reference the book, although I appreciate you are reading a digital copy. Might be worth you buying the book, should be available on Ebay, Amazon or similar sites. Good luck with the article. It's 50 years since the death of BJH on 8 April. Don't know it ru-Wiki has an on this day section, but would be nice to see it featured if it does. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

What I can't understand: why my E-copy have the same ISBN (ISBN 978-184415-7396)? Theoretically: "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. For example, an e-book, a paperback and a hardcover edition of the same book would each have a different ISBN.". Эйхер (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand it either, but it is what it is. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Well. I indeed will consider buying the hardcopy via Amazon, but, as an interim solution, substituting chapter numbers for page numbers in references (in the Russian version of the article), I believe, will suffice. Thank You very much for help! Эйхер (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Geotags, Grid refs etc,[edit]

Geo Links and Geograph[edit]

There are problems with your suggestion- which is the reason I haven't done it. There is a discussion forum Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that is discussing the whole thing. The crux is that many people are unhappy if the link goes to one site, no matter how useful, and believes that the link should only go to GeoHack, where the reader can choose the map they want. There are a lot of unhappy people there. I have a problem with the way we are doing the conversion. It looks great, but if we edit either gridref or the location then the other doesn't change. In looking for a solution, I have been looking at the maths and a lot doesn't add up, this coupled with the volatility of forum, I have been hanging back. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for the contact. To me this looks good, but (and it is a big but) I'm afraid the issue appears more complex and contentious than I had first anticipated. I'm also not particularly "clued-up" about which system is good and which is bad, which seems to be part of an ongoing debate. All I know is that there should be a standard system, and these should be included as part of the text for settlements in the UK. Have you taken this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox geotags- looks as it will take some time. Its on my list! ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking inline geotags[edit]

  • Now the accuracy of OStoWiki has been corrected (+/- 2m) all previous references may need tweaking.
  • The GeoHack tool now has a new interface and at the bottom of the GB section, under the dangerously inaccurate grid reference is a fantastic tool called Map of all Coordinates in article.
  • I tried it on the Loose stream, and because of it I I'm going to make another tweak to OStoWiki.

ClemRutter (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly safe to use: the next tweak will be an enhancementClemRutter (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscoor[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. Although I use OS maps within multimap to find things, multimap gives DMS output, and the numbering of the OS gridlines in the display tends to be hidden; so I tend to think I'm not ever going to use {{oscoor}}. However your intervention did cause me to go back and read the national grid system article, so as to understand the resolution of various lengths of OS coordinate. As I would not have done this without your intervention; thanks! --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with gbmapping and oscoor templates[edit]

Hi, There seems to be a small inaccuracy in the translation of OSGB coords to WGS84. I've mentioned it here and here but haven't found anyone who might be able to fix it. Do you know where it would be best to raise it, please?--Cavrdg (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Grid refs[edit]

I did not like having to display grid refs without spaces. At long last I have got round to asking someone and doing this very simple edit. The php that it calls was already prepared to receive spaces. That means you could do this edit to other articles that call oscoor (which is now a redirect). But certainly, I suggest using {{gbmappingsmall}} in any future case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now implemented oscoor elimination as a tool - see Template talk:oscoor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Geograph[edit]

Moved from my user page
Yes indeed! A terrific place for browsing old memories and old haunts as well! Thanks for the reminder. Palmeira (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the FAQ says CC-BY-SA-2.0 but I think that should still usable. We just have to maintain attribution. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mills[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Medway watermills[edit]

Dear User:Mjroots. For what I have understand, you are a main contributor to the template page Template:Medway watermills diagram. As of now, this page is on overflow, and I am trying to empty the Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. My opinion is as follows:

  1. your original page, written using {{BS-map}} could be renamed as Template:Medway watermills diagram/src.
  2. by the way, a new option, all could be added (beside upper, middle, lower), to reproduce what happens when <notinclude>1</notinclude> is set.
  3. thereafter, this page could be compiled to a new page Template:Medway watermills diagram, written using {{routemap}}. This gives a new template, with far less transclusions, and therefore more efficient when itself transcluded into some other page.
  4. And now, we can have side by side the all map and the upper+middle+lower one. And we can see that the junction middle--lower is correct, while the junction upper--middle is not optimal.

I have reproduced these steps at 2=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/src, 3=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram, 4=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test. Could you fix, in your template, the point .4. (see the test page), i.e. what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill ? And, moreover, what is your opinion about the whole process ? In fact, I really have no practice of these BS-map templates and I can't figure if people are really working directly with {{routemap}} or are using {{BS-map}} and then compiling. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: - I understand that there is a size issue, but I'm not sure what you mean by "what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill". I see not problem with the diagram at all. It is displaying correctly. I created the diagram line by line using the BS-map system, if that helps you. It is complete and is unlikely to need to be altered, which is a good thing. There has been talk at the Trains WikiProject recently where an alternative system was proposed which gets around the size issue at a cost of needing a degree in computing to be able to edit the diagram. Is the size issue that bad that the diagrams need to be tampered with? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots:. Please open User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test and search for Yalding Mill. On the left, i.e. on the 'all' map, the next object after Yalding Mill is Wateringbury Stream. On the right, i.e. on the middle+lower map, we have Yalding Mill, a to mouth link, a to source link and then Wateringbury Stream. This behavior is what was expected. Let us now compare with the junction between upper and middle. Searching for Salman's Farm, we see that some objects, namely Ensfield Mill, Limit of navigation, Ramhurst Mill, Powder Mills, Town Lock and Town Mill, are on the left, but not on the right. This shouldn't occur, but I have no idea of how to proceed, since I know nothing about the Medway river. Concerning the other points, I will try to find the discussion your are mentioning, at Trains WikiProject. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: It would appear that you are using the new system. Looks like a few lines of code have got missed out somewhere to cause that error which you describe. I see it now I know exactly what to look for.
Can't help with the fix though. Don't understand that system at all. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots:. Oh no, I am not using the new system ! To tell it crudely, there are programmers, you, me, other people. They are using programming languages. Here, {{BS-map}} and the sequel. There are computers. They are using assembly language. Here {{routemap}}. Obviously some geeks are writing directly in assembly language, but most of the programmers are using a compiler, to translate from programming language into assembly language. Here, the translation is not too difficult: what should be done on the human side is described at Template:Routemap/doc#Transition_from_legacy_BS_row_template_to_Routemap_markup i.e. some substitutions that are easy to automatize. And all the rest is computer made when the subst are proceeded.

Again, Medway watermills[edit]

Hello. I have done some work about Template:Medway watermills diagram. I came here from a general concern about overflow. My interest for this specific template comes from its complexity that provides some clues about the problems to solve for compiling {{BS-map}} into {{routemap}}. May I recall that I do not consider replacing the former by the later, but organizing the coexistence of both systems, where people can write and test in their favorite language, and compile their sources at any moment of the process.

Once again, I know nothing about the Medway river, and it would be great that you control User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway/full written solution and see if my proposals for the upper, middle, and lower maps are sound. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: If I understand it correctly, the full diagram is now on the left. Looking good although there is some random bolding of names that needs addressing. I'm sure this minor problem can be overcome. As I said earlier, this diagram is very unlikely to need to be amended, apart from the names of a few mills not identified by name which may possibly become identified in the future. I see no benefit in adding roads, railways etc. It would all become far too complicated and cluttered. This is a river and mills diagram, best to keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The diagram on the left comes from the actual template i.e. Template:Medway watermills diagram. The only changes were compilation (and bolding four locations near the jointures of the partial maps). On the contrary, the three maps on the right (each one below the other) are the new ones, obtained from assembling the parts and changing the visibility of block14 (at the junction of upper and middle part). This is to be compared with the previous User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway_watermills_diagram/test. What is your opinion about taking back block 18 (Eldridge Lock etc) in the middle part ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "taking back block 18". The only problem I can see with the right hand diagrams is that the continuation arrow on the top diagram is the wrong colour. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of windmills in Ille-et-Vilaine[edit]

Hi,

I did a correction on this list and I'm curious: why is there names in bold or in italic on List of windmills in Ille-et-Vilaine?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Bold text denotes mill is standing, italics denotes remains only. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer. I added a note on the table to be more explicit (and if I find time, I'll probably translate this list on the French Wikipédia). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Thanks. There are other French windmill lists, all linked from the List of windmills in France. I gave each département a separate list once it reached 20 windmills. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Veldkamps Meuln[edit]

Would you be interested in helping to expand the Veldkamps Meuln article? – Editør (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Editør: - done. Article needs adding to the List of Rijksmonuments in Groningen (province), but I'm not sure where it fits in. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help so far. That list contains only seven places and is far from complete. Wouldn't it be easier to use (sub)categories for this? – Editør (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you maybe have a source for the storeys (total of seven storeys with a stage at the third)? Because I couldn't find anything about it in the windmill database. – Editør (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Editør: - Look at the photos in the article, at Commons and on the Molendatabase website. As for the list of Rijksmonuments, take a look at the List of Rijksmonuments in Friesland. That is a better laid out list. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I just don't think a list with all 2,557 rijksmonumenten in the province of Groningen will be very useful. – Editør (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
When looking at the photos I see windows at different heights, but I cannot tell whether every window indicates a separate floor in the interior. I'm pretty sure it isn't the case for the farm on this photo and that has Veldkamps Meuln in the background. – Editør (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Redbournbury Mill[edit]

Hi Mjroots. I have made some sizable additions to the Redbournbury Mill page as it was fairly sparse. I figured as you're an active member of WikiProject Mills it'd be polite to let you know. I would hope that I've done enough to raise it from Start class, however I don't have much in the way of knowledge of the ways Wikipedia works 'behind the scenes' - is there a way in which I can submit it for reassessment? Many thanks Mark49s (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mark49s: - good work there! I have fond memories of the mill, having worked on it before the fire when I had ambitions of becoming a millwright. I'll reassess it for you. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Awesome, thank you! If you ever get a chance to visit again it's well worth it. A lot of work has been carried out - and the produce they sell is top notch! Mark49s (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

People[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nicholas Winton[edit]

Thanks for trying. Great to see such important real world news taking centre stage yet again. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I was wondering if you'd had any response at wp:cz about the class of the Order of the White Lion awarded to Winton? Although I have more or less given up on the ITN nomination, I'm still intrigued. The report at PrageuPost suggests that both awards were made at the same class, but does not explicitly. I'v also scoured all of the top Google hits in Czech (with the help of Google translate!) but have drawn a blank. As User talk:Fuebaey has pointed out, we don't to seem to have any reliable sources yet for the class. One imagines that there would be a Czech Government website somewhere that would put this matter beyond doubt. Many thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, at least we found out it was a Class 1, the same as Churchill's. So some satisfaction. Now the ITN nomination has timed out and dropped off the queue, of course, so any difference in consensus makes no difference, I guess. Hope you are well. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Cazalet[edit]

Nice article there. Might be worth trying to find a DYK? from it - maybe the fact about him teaching Elizabeth Taylor to ride possibly? Can you check something from his military career? Article says he was potentially recommended for a Military Medal, but I would imagine by that point Cazalet was already an office and would have been line for a Military Cross - could you have a look at your source to check it? --Bcp67 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Source is online and states Military Medal. As for DYK, that one would work, as would Albert Roux being his personal chef. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I can see what's happened with the source there, having read the online article from The Guards Magazine now - the recommendation of the MM refers to a different soldier, a Guardsman - eligible for the Military Medal. Cazalet was the soldier's CO - "Two days later at a laager on a German farm, Gdsm Cumbley’s squadron commander, Peter Cazalet, called him in and told him he would be recommended for an award, but despite a letter of recommendation to Lt Col Windsor Lewis, he was to be disappointed; there was no Military Medal". I'm going to remove the mention from the article. Agree about Albert Roux too, I might nominate this for DYK with a couple of Alt hooks. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bcp67: - no problem, thanks. If you nominate for DYK you won't need to do a QPQ. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think they've changed the rules lately and anyone nominating has to do a QPQ, it's no problem as I've done a few DYK reviews here and there. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I've done about as much as I think his cricket career warrants. I'm not sure I believe the story about him turning down the captaincy of Kent for his horse-racing interests: Percy Chapman, as an ex-England captain, was pretty well-ensconced in the job for as long as he wanted it, and Bryan Valentine, a far better cricketer than Cazalet, played fairly regularly and acted as Chapman's deputy for the times whenever the great man's conviviality got in the way of his ability to do the job, which happened more and more across the 1930s. Does the local reference give a date when this captaincy offer took place? Johnlp (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's probably wise. It may well be that he was encouraged to make the couple of appearances for Kent in the 1932 season, as they probably remembered his 150 for them in 1928; but it didn't really work out. I'm surprised that he didn't play for Oxford at all after he was dropped in 1928, not even in the trial match for 1929: could it be that he left the university after two years and didn't finish his degree? Over to you to delve some more if you wish. Johnlp (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Copyrighted images[edit]

Note to self

When uploading copyrighted images, remember to use {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Fair use rationale}}.

File:N269RV.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:N269RV.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Russavia Let's dialogue 04:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted both images. Wikipedia will be poorer without them, but it's not worth a slow edit war to keep them up. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Loose Valle Mills.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Loose Valle Mills.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images 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. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rakaia-painting.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rakaia-painting.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

NFC[edit]

Would this image meet NFC? - [2]? I want to use it in an article we have been working on. Cheers, FriyMan talk 18:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: There is a very good chance that an image can be used under WP:NFCC rules, if it can be shown to meet all criteria. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will upload the image under WP:NFC. I will update the infobox. Cheers, FriyMan talk 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@FriyMan: - done my best to argue for the retention of the file. Fingers crossed. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Places[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nomination of October 2013 United Kingdom storm for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article October 2013 United Kingdom storm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2013 United Kingdom storm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oddbodz (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

St Jude storm[edit]

Suggest you take a look at St Jude storm.Martin451 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Typhoon Haiyan[edit]

If/when they get enough information, we'll consider splitting them then. But for now, it's rather silly to have such stubby sections. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Otham Abbey[edit]

I'd be inclined to link it only to List of monastic houses in England (which has already been done); however, if I ever get round to writing an article about St Laurence's Chapel, Otteham Court, I will link that to List of former places of worship in Wealden and Grade II* listed buildings in East Sussex and provide a backlink to Otham Abbey in both cases. (I did come across some useful material on the chapel a while ago, possibly in one of the Sussex Archaeological Collections; it's probably in one of my folders somewhere.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanmer Church[edit]

Hi Mj. I would not object to it being mentioned briefly (not necessarily under a separate header – just within the Histroy section, as it is now, would suffice), but only if a good reliable source can be found. Until such a source can be found, I would be inclined to move the sentence in question to the Talk page with a note to that effect. (I remember watching that episode again recently and thinking "Ah, that looks familiar" – the last time I saw it was before I'd been to Stanmer Park!) Must dash now – end of lunch break! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Iran article[edit]

Hello, Just as a proposal: If you would agree, can I replace current references with new ones (in particular #1,#2,#3 in conclusion section of talk page that have been confirmed by you) ? Since these new references confirms that Iran and Persia are synonymous and seems to be more clear and more prestigious than current references. I'll do this, Iff you are agreed, otherwise I do nothing. Regards Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Yes, go ahead and edit, but bear in mind my remarks at the talk page re unlocking the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dover Strait coastal guns, 1940–1944[edit]

Did some cleaning up on the article and changed the title, thought you'd like to know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I already did! Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't fill in the missing cites, sadly. Face-sad.svg Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack[edit]

Yes irrelevant, and that it's "standard practice" is a. not true and b. the worst possible argument. What is standard practice? Rutte's comment? Comments in general? Standard expressions of sympathy? You should know better than to insert comment that has no other justification than "being verified". I feel sorry too--perhaps you should add me to the list, or John. My Twitter account can verify. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: - this is best discussed at talk:2017 Westminster attack so that other interested parties, such as Coffee can give their opinions. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Mjroots, I've seen a thousand such discussions, where typically the anti-NOTNEWS editors, who seem to have little better to do, outshout everyone else. Best to nip this unencyclopedic drivel in the bud. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*tumbles into the page* - Ah, yes. Well Drmies, there's two reasons I see for keeping it there right now: 1. Some new good faith editors added those, and since they're decently referenced for now I don't see any real harm in keeping it there. 2. Other articles already do this, i.e. 2016 Nice attack#International. Now of course I say these points with the caveat that what's currently on the page can and should be shortened down to a sentence, like the first sentence here, once enough reactions are made. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Coffee, I added the Dutch reaction. Been a long time since I was called "new" on Wikipedia Face-wink.svg. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, I meant the other one and edits I believe that occured to it and to the bit you added (or perhaps just the flag icon was added to yours I can't remember). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

BoJo Grenfell[edit]

Hi Mjroots.

I noticed you added info] re BoJo, to Grenfell Tower fire. The info. you added has since been removed due to concerns re relevance.

However, maybe it's relevant to be included in London_Fire_Brigade#Staffing?

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Trafford09: Thanks for the notice. If you feel that it is appropriate in the article, feel free to add it there. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower and the use of the word martyr[edit]

Hi, thanks for inviting me to discuss my edit. My understanding of the word martyr is someone who chooses to die for a cause, but nobody chose to die in that fire. What are your definitions? (Huddsblue (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC))

@Huddsblue: - in the context given, I was thinking of the definition 3 at wikt:martyr - One who suffers greatly and/or constantly, even involuntarily. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi and thanks. That's not quite applicable to the victims of the fire though. They just died in a very tragic accident, they didn't 'martyr on', as the prepositional third version of the word suggests they did, (which is another way of saying 'soldiering on'). I strongly believe that martyr is the wrong word to use in these circumstances, as they didn't voluntarily die for a cause. Thoughts? Huddsblue (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Huddsblue: It is not a word that has been used by a Wikipedia editor, but by a journalist who is being directly quoted. I would say that the definition quoted above fits, due to the and/or clause. The victims "suffered greatly, and involuntarily". If you are still unhappy with the word being used, then I would suggest that the issue is raised at the article talk page, and this thread is copied over. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's just leave it. Huddsblue (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Railways[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Class 47[edit]

Hi. You've changed much of this article to put a space in between the class designation and the fleet number (i.e. "47 001") but they were never classed as such by BR - if you look at TOPS readouts they were simply five figure numbers (47001). I realise that the works did usually leave something of a space there on the sides of the locos originally, but not always ([3],[4]) and by the later days they didn't bother (i.e. [5], [6]). Regardless, you haven't changed all of them, so we need some consistency, I would say? Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: BR practice was that locomotive classes had a space after the class number. 47 001 was a locomotive, whereas 47001 could be a carriage number. The preserved Hastings Unit had a carriage number changed to prevent confusion with a Class 60 locomotive. Point taken re consistency, but the omission to the dreamt number is deliberate. This could be in quote marks for clarity. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep - when rolling stock was introduced into the TOPS system in the early 80s, it wasn't allowed that a carriage and locomotive number could be identical, which is why a number of DMU/EMU vehicles and carriages were renumbered (for example the 56xxx DMU vehicles were switched to 53xxx). But yeah, we need consistency throughout the various articles. My tendency would be to drop the space, but I don't really mind as long as each article is internally consistent. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: - I've changed them all to use a non-breaking space. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, 56xxx DMU cars became 54xxx; it was the 50xxx which became 53xxx. For some reason, leading zeros were significant: TOPS was apparently able to distinguish the loco 03 063 from coach 3063 without either needing to be renumbered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, yes you're right. And yes, the leading zeros were significant because TOPS treated the numbers as character strings rather than integers. I remember trying to run a class 86 locomotive (can't remember what, but let's say 86999) through an E31 request one night and typing it in as 06999... and the system throwing it out despite 6999 existing as a valid coaching stock number. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg Metro bombing articles[edit]

I noticed that the other article was created later but it also has the most info so far. If you want to keep it some info should be moved.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Great Western main line[edit]

Hi. The article has no lede except that appears after the contents box and there is a section of references before the moved lede. I think it may because of your transclusion but I cannot be sure as I am on my mobile. Could you check it out? Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: I've jiggled things around a bit. Think it should be OK now. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:94.143.95.215[edit]

Hi there. Recently this IP address has made repeated edits to TOC pages (Northern, TPE, Merseyrail and Arriva Trains Wales off the top of my head) where they consistently re-add in their edits when it is changed back to as it was before

I just don't see the point in having "Class" in every row in a column which is titled "Class" hence why I removed it in the first place (and nobody else has really seemed that bothered about adding it back in from what I've noticed) - yet each time I do that the user returns it to "their" version which also includes numerous links (which in my view aren't necessary) to the unit family articles. It's getting a bit frustrating to be honest so I was wondering what could be done?

Thanks and best wishes - Coradia175 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coradia175: You could issue an edit war warning and invite the editor to discuss their edits. As multiple articles seem to be affected, WT:UKT would be a suitable venue. Semi-protection is something else that can be looked at, but let's see if there is a response first. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Thanks for your quick reply. I've left them a message on their talk page so hopefully we will be able to come to a resolution as soon as possible. All the best wishes for the new year - Coradia175 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rivers[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

River Len[edit]

Mike I feel quite pleased with myself! I had found the relatively new Geobox|rivers at River Trent and investigated. You will now see the result at this article (I took an easy one first!). There may well be other information - I couldn't work out the coordinates, and in any case a river covers more than one; couldn't find the exact length; and dunno if there is anywhere to be able to get flow rates etc. You may well be able to add more tributaries - I took the ones you had alraedy mentioned under the mills. None of the blanks come out until you give some information. I had also discovered the exact location of the source - a historical document on the Medway; I'm sure you also know more about its course, although perhaps that isn't too important. Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mill symbols[edit]

As you see I have put two new symbols into your sandbox article. Just a quick fix. Using mills in this way is quite an extension. Come September we need to define what symbols we need- mills with weirs for example, millponds goits. I have been visiting the Dark Peak and realise how much more important water engineering was in the 1780s and the growth of the Cotton Industry. Still I am taking a break now. ClemRutter (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been talking with guys at WP:RIVERS and trying to work out what icon system to recommend. In a nutshell, the cyan worms are out, rivers are dark blue unless you need to differentiate- then non-navigable are light blue and navigable are darkblue. but I am still working on it. You have source at the top. River Len, Kent seems to be correct. See also Manchester Ship Canal for an upside down example. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Route diagrams gives the discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cadeau[edit]

fr:Fichier:LeteaMill.jpg is heel mooi! --ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Medway diagram[edit]

This takes a little thought. I like diagrams- very useful for showing mill locations- but there is a convention on canals that navigable should be darkblue and non navigable light blue. The tails as steams meet the river seem clunky. I have been concerned about the representation of reservoirs for some time- is a reservoir navigable or not- how do you show the dam bypass channel. In the simple case: a truncated salami would do- but they often are constructed at the confluence of several rivers. A lot of icons need some thought- and that will take a little time- I will put it on the list. (Some mills are on the wrong bank but that is minor). --ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put in far too many hours playing with the diagram on my talk page. Please look over- and see if there is anything to add- you will need to proof read the position of the mills relative to the new locks, and the addition of the Beult and the two mouths of the Teise. I have added some new icons to Template:Waterways legend particularly putting curved dams on reservoirs. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To be positive: it is getting there. A few of your changes I don"t like. A river is a hydrographical item, as well as cultural one. The first uncollapsed diagram needs to stand in its own right, and give the reader basic infomation about its course. The collapsed bits need to show the twidddly bits, that the Teise at Yalding has bifurcated, and where mills were situated. When the course is a navigation we need info on the locks. Background colour needs to show whether the river is tidal, a navigation, or non-navigable. The section names are taken from the NRA, and are used by the waterways community- I don't think Lower Mid Upper is really informative. The whole diagram (uncollapsed) needs to be complete and informative in itself. I think that we should do another round of rollbacks and improvement then wrap it in a template and ask the WP:RIVERS for comment on any points where policy decisions need to be made. I would like to use it as a model to be attached to their policy page. I then want to code up the River Etherow, Irk, Irwell, Medlock, Goyt can't you just smell the cotton. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, width is critical when using collapsable box- expand all the section to see it isn't broken by the change. Titles a lot better- I took one look and thought- I knew I was about to to do that-- but I can't remember having done it. These wretched dock icons look awful- I am going to redo them- I cant see why a narrow dock should be five times wider than the river. I am more concerned about the length if the diagram, then allowing the diagram to be included in Kent pages that make a mention to the Medway. Then into Infoboxes.I am uploading images along the commons:Portland Basin- Ashton Canal at the moment.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know this one? Template:Medway Navigation--ClemRutter (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Well it is certainly ready to be wrapped in a template- so I have. We can do further editing there {{River Medway map}}. I did do one change as the Tidal estuary is downstream from Rochester.

True. There is a limit to the sort of ship you can drive under Rochester Bridge. I think the commissioner of HM Dockyard would agree with me. The London Stone is at Upnor, which is/was the upstream limit of the Port of London- but Rochester is miles from the Swale or Thames. This wrretched river never does things simply!--ClemRutter (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivers[edit]

I have been putting a bit of input into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers‎; that may interest you. Later tonight I will be posting some of the changes. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:River Waveney map[edit]

Hi. I notice you have updated the River Waveney map, but was a little surprised to see that it now runs from south to north. One of the problems of the transposition is that several of the adjoining rivers are now shown on the wrong side. Oulton Broad should be on the other side, as should the River Yare, and the Haddiscoe cut is no longer clearly labelled. I was going to try to sort it out but am a bit short of time at the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am back from holiday now, and have moved Oulton Broad, Haddiscoe Cut and the River Bure back to where they should be, corrected the direction of the locks, and produced a windmill symbol for the windmills. However, I have no sources for which side of the river the windmills should be on, and as the river and Haddiscoe Cut have now been transposed, wondered if you could just check them. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Givors canal[edit]

Hi, given your interest in France and transport and the fact that it's been sitting weeks, I wondered if you'd care to review this one for GA? If you;re not feeling very well I understand though, sorry to hear about that. Your talk page could do with archiving though its 159 kb! Hope you had a good Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ships[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Category:Standard WWI ships[edit]

Category:Standard WWI ships, which you created, has been nominated for speedy merging to Category:Standard World War I ships. See WP:CFDS if you wish to comment. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion[edit]

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Maritime incidents in 18xx[edit]

Hi Mjroots, I support what you are doing in getting around the template problem in the "List of shipwrecks in..." problem. Do you have any suggestions for how I might simplify the search for a vessel when I don't know if she wrecked in a particular year, let alone a particular month? Often when I am researching a ship I will discover that she was last listed in year 18xx. I then check for a few years before that to see if there are any candidate ships lost in that/any of those years. Unfortunately, I usually have no other info than the vessel's name. A general search using "shipname" and "ship" should yield a series of possibilities, but that could be more laborious than simply going to the year and searching within that, then going on to another year, etc. Not a big problem, but I would appreciate any bright ideas, especially if they are a forehead-slapper, i.e., an obvious solution I should have thought of. Could you be kind enough to ping me when you have time to respond? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: It might help to add in the captain's name to search terms if the captain is known. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but generally the Capn's name isn't in the list of wrecks, and the two registers often have stale or incorrect data. Usually I use the name as a clue when looking in the index of Lloyd's List, but that only goes to 1826, and frequently that doesn't have it either. Just tuck the issue into the back of your mind. Perhaps you or I will wake up some morning with a bright idea. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: - I take it that you are making use of the free online newspaper sources listed at WP:SHIPS/R? Also, do you have access to The Times online archive, Gale News Vault or British Library Newspapers? I get online access to these via my library card. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for this; I was going to ask you where you got the info you added to Irlam (1813). I do have access to The Times (which unfortunately is pretty spotty), but the others, especially the WP, are new to me. Unfortunately, my library card(s) are US, and so probably do not have agreements with the database providers. I will see what I can find out. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
By-the-way, I found that searching WP using "shipwrecks" and the vessel name works very well with rare names (such as Irlam); but unfortunately I suspect not so well with Eliza or Elizabeth, or the like. Still thinking about that. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I found that an unusual name was an advantage when writing the article on Hadlow (1814 ship). I don't include a url to the newspaper articles as each would be several hundred characters and only of any use to the very small number of editors and readers who have a Kent County Council library card. Those readers in Kent who fall under Medway Unitary Authority would find such a link to be as useless as the rest of the world's readers would. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sport[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Re: 2010 F1 season/Hamilton[edit]

Don't fret man, I'm sure we've all made errors like that at some point during our Wiki lives. We learn and learn every day. :) Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I was just trying to trim some of the page size by removing the refnames of references that did not have another reference point in the article, as in the only mentioning of the reference. Bad idea in hindsight, but just trying to trim every little unnecessary byte off the page. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Already responded there! Cs-wolves(talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I also believe the ref name tags give unnecessary weight to the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton[edit]

It'll probably help that the 115.134.x.x range is out of the way; though I'm sure that's not the only IP range in Malaysia! Black Kite (t) (c) 09:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags for F1 race[edit]

You undid my edit on the 2010 European Grand Prix because I changed the flag to European one from Spanish one. I think it is better to put the European one, because it is officially named the European Grand Prix. Of course, there is a Spanish Grand Prix, but all other races have their respective flags, bar this one. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seen it. Also, thank you for putting my edit as a good faith edit, and not vandalism - because I just edited it thinking that the European flag was the correct one. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite correct about everyone learning about Wiki (but I guess everyone will be learning about it until they reitre, and the site does need admins :P). And, I am also trying to fight vandalism, so it would have been quite ironic if I were accused of it! M-R-Schumacher (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Water Sports[edit]

Hi Mjroots

I thought you might be interested in joining this new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force, as you have contributed to articles concerning Lifeboats and shipping  stavros1  ♣ 

2011 Australian Grand Prix[edit]

Please do not include blank pre-set sections. A wikipedia article should be ready to be read with whatever information is current at any point in its life. If you are going to 'set up' articles for future expansion, use hides to remove the blank headings from view of those who step into the article for a look prior to its expansion. Just a touch of professional presentation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season[edit]

Hi, Mj,

I've come to you before with a couple of requests, and I'm hoping you can help me out with another one. A few recent developments have lead regular contributors over at WP:F1 to belive that it is time to create a page for the 2013 Formula One season. However, the page has been pre-emptively created half a dozen times in the past, and admins have prevented the page from being created until it is unlocked; we are 18 months away from the start of the 2013 season, and by comparison, the 2012 page was created almost three years in advance. I am hoping you will be able to open up the ability to create the 2013 page, or at least direct me to someone who can if you do not have that happy power, please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've changed the salting on the page from create=sysop to create=autoconfirmed, that should let you get to work on it, I think. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, Bushranger. Not too soon to create the article now, considering there are drivers with contracts to race in 2013. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Folkestone Racecourse[edit]

Thanks for the message. I'd say its "closing" rather than "closed". The racecourse's own website shows that they still have fixtures left in 2012 and the news story on the Racing Post says it will close at the end of 2012, so I'd say for the moment it should still be marked as an active racecourse until it finally shuts it doors. What do you think?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stoffel Vandoorne[edit]

Sorry about edit warring on the Stoffel Vandoorne article. I just wanted there to be a photo from 2016, because Stoffel looks way younger than he does now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgiargiargiFFF (talkcontribs) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton (Opening paragraph)[edit]

(Relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user here). I'm having issues with Lobo151, which has descended into edit warring. I was wondering if you could provide some expertise on the manner, thanks. Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: am aware of the issue, said editor has been given a 3RR warning so is liable to be blocked should he persist. There's a discussion at talk:Lewis Hamilton re the issue in question. Feel free to contribute there. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thank you, will do. Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: My editing[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in 1842 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand Turk
List of shipwrecks in 1843 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Swan River
List of shipwrecks in 2015 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to English Bay

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baoshan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Other users[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Your advice being followed[edit]

Mjroots, Would you mind checking this [7], who quickly turned into this[8].

According to what he stated above, Jezebel's Ponyo will not be surprised. The farm is turning into a colony.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlueIndigo: Are you saying that PirateGreen is another sock of Aubmn? Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I knew it was coming & was not surprised when I saw first revert by *saviourblue*, who then turned into a *green pirate*.
--Blue Indigo (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
@BlueIndigo: OK, file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI with Aubmn as the puppetmaster. Add in all names that you suspect are socks. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Aidepikiwnirotide and IP aspersions[edit]

I'm fairly sure you'll just have ignored Aidepikiwnirotide's recent thinly-veiled accusations that either myself of Vormeph have been using IPs to influence yourself or Moxy. Just in case, it seems likely that both IPs (as well as HeroChaos) are Olowe2011, who had a ragequit moment and was renamed 1xdd0ufhgnlsoprfgd. Not that explains why he would be raging against you, given how he probably feels about me, but I suppose he's not overly happy with WP authorities at the moment.

Normally I'd keep quiet about a New Start, but HeroChaos is not going to be long for WP if his talkpage is anything to go by. Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86 Just please don't change/remove my opinions on talk page. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots, users Bromley86 and Vormeph several times changed/removed my comments on talk page and voted from my side. I would appreciate if you would prevent such behaviours. Thanks. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I too would welcome some input. My initial edit may have been incorrect, as I did blank his discussion in a proposal section; I should have instead handled it as you did when he ignored a request not to discuss in the earlier proposal. However, Vormeph has done noting wrong re. Aidepikiwnirotide's comments, as he's just moved them to a Comments section below the proposal vote.
Both of us included Aidepikiwnirotide as an Oppose vote. That seems to accurately state his position on the subject. No problem if he wants to abstain though.
I'll have one more attempt at tidying it up, following Vormeph's inclusion of a Comments section. Hopefully Aidepikiwnirotide will not continue to disrupt. Bromley86 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

not too much damage[edit]

just have to make allowances for extra bits that seem somewhat enthusiastic or naive, and for what I consider some beyond the scope of the relevant projects, in most cases no real harm, just misleading JarrahTree 11:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was more a case of, FYI - and the explanation - than any specific example, more of a heads up of what to see and expect JarrahTree

Thanks for notifying me[edit]

Thank you infact for telling me that I should link my signature to user page. (Cass)

@Cassini127: thank you for fixing it. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin Arbcom case[edit]

Thanks for your statements. Here [9] and on GorrillaWarefare's takk you said autopattrolled right. It should be New Page Patrol (NPP) right. Easy to confuse, but if you adjust it will be accurate. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, I'll remember that when it comes to presenting evidence. BTW, if you don't wish to be considered an involved party I won't push the issue. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to be an involved party so long as my evidence can be put forward. AR had plenty of time and opportunity to provide diffs justifying his attacks on me. It's way too late for him to debate the merits of what he said and did or analyze my actions again. I was already drug through the mud and unfairly banned from making moves because of false statements by him and others. Ditto for TRM. There is very little need to look at his actions. He is the victim here and the crime is failure to back up attacks with supporting diffs (ADMINACCT). Even IF TRM lied (and that's a big IF) it no longer matters now, the chance to seek sanctions is long gone. We have weeks of an admin failing to account for his personal attacks, and a pattern of similar abuse against me as well. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
An Arbitrator has commented that the case is to be weighted towards examining ARs conduct. For the record, I'm not looking to get TRM sanctioned, or AR permanently excluded from the project. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hahahahaha. Funniest thing I've read here this year. TRM gets more sanctions, Rubin gets "admonished" (i.e. nothing happens). Want to take my bet? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, put a beer on it! Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll take your bet too. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing an important and credible reference from Iran page again![edit]

I wonder after several days discussion, this credible reference has been removed again! Discussion has been archived properly!

[1]

Thank you very much for your attention

Regards

Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A. Fishman, Joshua (2010). Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume 1). Oxford University Press. p. 266. ISBN 978-0195374926. "“Iran” and “Persia” are synonymous" The former has always been used by the Iranian speaking peoples themselves, while the latter has served as the international name of the country in various languages

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A possible sockpuppet of Freightcar2[edit]

Hello there Mjroots. This [10] edit makes me suspect APCX (talk · contribs) and Freightcar2 (talk · contribs) are the same person. What do you think?--Jetstreamer Talk 19:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: - There's certainly a distinct aroma of cheesy sock about. Freightcar2 isn't the sockmaster though. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: It would appear that Serjinh81 is the sockmaster. Note comments against fr:wiki linking with Freightcar2. Will see what I can discover there. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, I was wrong, turns out it is User:Modern Fire, whom you appear to be acquainted with. The fr:wiki SPI also links in Freightcar2, Serjinh81 and 73.222.239.27 as confirmed socks. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: and Thomas.W - SPI opened. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
G'day, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ace505. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@YSSYguy: - The IP needs adding. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Catalan flags[edit]

Hi, MJroots. I wonder could you perhaps have a look at the dispute between me and impru20 at the end of the Flag section of Catalan Republic 2017 Talk here, and then perhaps offer some words of wisdom to me and/or him? (My edit, twice reverted by impru20 is here, and is almost entirely based on info supplied by you in that Talk section). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Warnings rash?[edit]

Good morning. What on earth is going on with this bizarre rash of Level 1 warnings from IPs to established editors? My watchlist, because I watch you and a few like you, is full of them this morning ... it looks like some sort of campaign. It would have the potential to get quite disruptive - does Wikipedia have the wherewithal to protect itself against this sort of nonsense? I hope so. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I wasn't aware it was a rash, as I'm not a TPS. If there are any offenders posting warnings to multiple editors then slap them with a level4/4im cease and desist warning. Next step after that is the banhammer. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quick block of IP 93.188.36.237 needed - it's a "rapid-fire revert and then spurious warning" troll spree. Presumably they'll get bored and go back to Call of Duty or something. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see DBaK is all over this like a cheap suit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, it's certainly a bit rashy-looking: if you have a look at recent edits in some of these: [11], [12], [13] and including your own, it's something like seven edits from seven different IPs across four user pages in a relatively short time. Looking at the contributions from some of those IPs shows that they bothered others too. They are all blocked as far as I can see so maybe it doesn't matter. I was just a little disconcerted that I don't think I remember seeing something quite like this before ... but it's probably no big deal in the overall scheme of things! I should probably go and do some work instead. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha Martin! I should probably get out more! :) DBaK (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
We all know you are duty bound. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this is dealt with then. OK chaps, back to work! Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:LawrenceGroves[edit]

MJR, it looks like User:LawrenceGroves is the same person as the IPs editing on General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, who logged in to bypass your semi-protection in order to continue edit warring. I've asked them to revert as a measure of good faith here, but so far he's refused. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN/C MV Sanchi[edit]

Hi Mjroots,

I'm genuinely sorry if my comments at ITN/C upset you, that wasn't my intention. As I've said, I think you did a good job with the available resources, and the article is well done. Thanks for all you do for the project.

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@CosmicAdventure: - I'm also sorry if I overreacted at WT:ITN. I was not picking on you specifically, but chose your post as an example to illustrate the problem. Thanks for your kind words. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Happy New Year, Mjroots![edit]

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

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 17:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, thanks but I can't eat it. Allergic to chocolate you see. Maybe swap it for a nice cream cake? Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, you can notify 7&6=thirteen but you need to be careful to explicitly number the parameter, like this - {{reply to|1=7&6=thirteen}}@7&6=thirteen: --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think he's probably one of my TPS's anyway. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks! I would have added but like I said, did we need any or all. Pennsy22 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Message for TPSs[edit]

OK, don't panic if you don't see me about for a day or two. Last night's thunderstorm has knocked out the internet side of my router, so I have no internet at home until a replacement is supplied. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New router has arrived, normal service about to resume. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SHUK[edit]

I am involved with the setting up of this project group- WP:SHUK but feel I lack many of the essential skills, I did most of the leg work C&Ping from WP:MILLS. When internet is restored, could you look over at it, and give any wisdom and advice.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

OTD[edit]

Not an error, Megawatt is MW, not Mw. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Mw isn't the abbreviation for megawatt. However, it is an abbreviation not used in everyday English, which would have caused many readers to stumble over it. I was also pointing out that the ITN item above it used "a magnitude 8.1 earthquake," a construction much more familiar to the general reader – and that inconsistent terminology was being used on the same page.
I suggest that your dismissive "not an error" ignored the issues. Sca (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sca: It seemed to me that you had mistaken MW for Mw, which is why I said that it was not an error. Besides which, didn't they use the Richter scale back then? Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps they did; my experience dates from the '60s. But the main point was that (in my experience) Mw isn't common English usage. I've never encountered it in news coverage of earthquakes. Formerly news stories referred to "measuring X.X on the Richter scale," but now they mostly use the simpler "a magnitude X.X earthquake." (Perhaps Mw is more common in British English, but as noted it seems like scientific jargon to me.) Sca (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mjroots. 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)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New messages[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Saratov Airlines Flight 703[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svgOn 11 February 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Saratov Airlines Flight 703, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 1843, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newbiggin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of HMS Shamrock for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HMS Shamrock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Shamrock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 1843, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape San Antonio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Need your help urgently...[edit]

@Mjroots: if you are so inclined. A small ship article I wrote has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship) by someone who at least once in the past has done the same thing, but gave up. If you agree that even minor, but well-documented ship articles have value you will comment to that effect on the page. This particular vessel's article's main notability was that it shows up on two of the "List of shipwrecks in..." pages. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk page. Yeah. I have been warned off by an admin and have apologised. This being the first time I have canvassed, and possibly one of only two or three articles I have worked on that have been Afded, I didn't know the rules, which I will follow in the future. In any case, many thanks for the additions to the Irlam (1813) article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea where you get the "100 tons is noted at WP:SHIPS, it doesn't seem to be noted there anywhere, and would have no importance anyway as Wikiprojects can put whatever they like on their project pagse, it has no validity in AfD's anyway. You raised the Streisand effect in the ANI discussion, as if it was something I should be afraid of. I am quite well aware that posting an issue at ANI brings in more attention to the issue, which was the exact and stated purpose of my note there. "Streisand effect" is the exact opposite. That the editors who join the discussion may vote "keep" because apparently being mentioned in the shipping news now counts as an indepth source is evidence of the sad state many AfD discussions are in nowadays, but not something I somehow fear. Not your smartest post. Fram (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: The 100'/100t threshold for an article falling under the remit of WP:SHIPS has been well discussed over the years. If you think that a ship being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't count as in depth coverage, then you'd better go and nominate the several hundred shipwreck lists that exist on Wikipedia. If you care to look, and as I stated at AfD, in this case, it is possible to write an article on Irlam giving her whole career, including where she was and when, what cargoes she brought back from the West Indies, including quantities of each commodity etc, etc. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Something that has been well-discussed within a project but isn't even stated is even worse than the usual project-based notability guidelines. Please refrain frpom bringing up such arbitrary, undocumented local "rules" in the future as they have no value whatsoever (and, even ignoring the size historically, does the project really believe that every 100-ton ship existing "now" is notable? Sheesh...). And there is quite some difference between an article on one shipwrecked ship, and a list of all shipwrecks. Bundling barely notable information into one comprehensive list is acceptable; basing individual articles on it (like some else said at the AfD, a "notable incident", really?) is much worse. What you have is what is normally called "routine coverage", nothing more. But there seem to be enough ship-spotters to swamp the AfD, so the project can continue its creations of such articles. Wikipedia is really getting worse and worse, and AfD is becoming a totally useless vehicle where partisan editors outnumber uninvolved ones in too many cases. Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: - The 100/100 thing was discussed as long ago as January 2011, and has been many times since. A vessel that fails 100/100 is outside the scope of WP:SHIPS, but may still be capable of sustaining an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It is an established principle that each WikiProject has the freedom to set its own boundaries, and determine what may or may not fall within its scope. Hence, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope we find that "The scope of articles for this project is wide ranging. Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome. ... Some exceptions are: Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100.". This is not the same as a local notability guideline - it simply means that WP:SHIPS would prefer that the {{WikiProject Ships}} banner should not be placed on the talk page of a small craft, no matter how notable that craft may be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, and nobody at WP:SHIPS would argue for retention of a ship article where GNG cannot be shown to be met. In the case of Irlam, GNG has been shown to be met by references from several independent reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Ships project deciding that +100 is in scope, -100 is out of scope for them. What I do object to, is that is being presented as or understood to be a notability guideline. From the AfD: "First, WP:Ships takes the position that All ships are notable." (which is an even stronger claim), " I understand it the ships project deem any ship over 100 tons (by any measure) to be notable and worthy of a page. " and "WP:SHIPS does indeed hold that ships over 100'/100 tons (undefined) are generally notable enough to sustain an article. " (your claim there). To claim now that this is not the same as a local notability guideline contradicts what was said by Mjroots and two others "keeps" at the AfD, and which is very frustrating to argue with, as it gives the impression of a project putting itself outside or above the generally accepted rules. Fram (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, I did state that ships over 100'/100t are held to be generally notable enough to sustain an article. This is not the same as saying that every ship over 100'/100t will be capable of sustaining an article. The more common a name is (Elizabeth, Mary etc), the harder it will be to write an article. I also said that it must be demonstrated that GNG is met for an article to survive. Our record at WP:SHIPS/AFD shows that we do delete articles where it cannot be shown that GNG is met. In this case, GNG is met. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I have closed the AfD. Thank you in any case for adding sources about the ship. As far as I can tell, these aren't available online? Which, don't get me wrong, is absolutely not a requirement, but may show why I only found the Lloyds sources, which aren't really sufficient to base an article on IMO. Anyway, like I said at my AfD close, I'm off now to write an article about a (truly!) notable ship with some good, lengthy sources. Fram (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: they are available online, but are subscription required. I explained the situation at AR's talk page, but the gist of it is that if I provided an url, it would be useless to 99.999% of people who wanted to check it. Where a newspaper source is available online freely, I do provide urls. Thank you for the close. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
As promised: Rainbow (1837 ship). Whatever one may think about the Irlam and the AfD, I guess you'll agree that this ship is considerably more notable! Any help in expanding and improving the article (and checking the basics, I'm not really used to writing about ships, as you may have guessed by now) is more than welcome. Fram (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: - per WP:NC-S, you might want to move the article to PS Rainbow (1837). Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
That seems to be hardly in use[14]. The naming convention says "However, if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name." but in this case, the ship is usually known as "Rainbow" (or the iron steamer Rainbow), very rarely only as PS Rainbow. I won't stop anyone from making such a move, but personally I wouldn't do it. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Lourdesdagger
removed AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
dagger Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

.. and good wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Katie Boyle[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svgOn 21 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Katie Boyle, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1843, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bangor and Arran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Protection of Template:New England Patriots roster[edit]

Hi Mjroots,

I think you might have missed my comment at the ANI thread about this. Would you consider undoing the protection you placed on Template:New England Patriots roster? I don't think the page was receiving persistent disruptive editing, so I don't think the protection was warranted. There are a lot of IP edits to the page, and they generally seem to be constructive or at least made in good faith. If User:38.27.128.203 is making edits that are non-constructive despite being told to stop, then that IP might need to be blocked for a while, but I don't think protecting the page is the right solution. Calathan (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calathan: For what it's worth, I was the one who suggested the protection originally, in another case, as part of a general pattern of disruptive edits on all NFL roster templates. At this time of year, we see persistent disruptive editing from anonymous editors, widespread across the globe. I don't understand it, but I assume there is some game where they benefit by assigning imaginary numbers to players. This will continue until training camp, when the numbers are actually assigned. As for the Template:New England Patriots roster page, we just had a case where one such disruptive editor (with a non-confirmed account) was forced to use a talk page for the first time to discuss the issue. His viewpoint was essentially "there's an instagram with him wearing 33 (at a previous team), we must change the NE Patriots roster to conform". This may be the first time that editor has been informed that the player doesn't own the choice. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: I don't see any reason why this would be some sort of game, and don't think it is intentional disruption. I think these are people innocently assuming players will keep the numbers they have had before when they change teams, because they are unaware of how NFL numbers are assigned. These are editors that are making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia, and even if they are making mistakes sometimes, we need to encourage them to continue contributing rather than preventing them from editing the pages. At least on Template:New England Patriots roster, most of the edits I see from IP users are constructive. I don't believe page protection is appropriate to stop good faith edits just because a portion of them are incorrect. Page protection should only be used when there is persistent, intentional disruption, which I certainly don't see in this case. If an individual editor is persistent in making edits even after it has been explained to them that they are wrong, then the solution to that should be to block that specific editor, not to prevent all IPs from editing the pages. Calathan (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calathan:. There may be some who are doing this in good faith (e.g., that editor who was finally forced to use the talk page), but a good number of them are not - they are perfectly aware the numbers are not assigned. Often the numbers are not simply the previous team numbers, but are completely made up numbers (because the previous numbers conflicted with someone else on the team). Sometimes they change other player numbers to make room for the new players. My experience is that the IPs doing this are motivated for some reason to force their changes in, often resulting in edit wars (and resulting bans). It seems to be an annual ritual. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calathan: and Tarl_N. - Suggest that this is raised at WT:NFL. It seems to be an annual event, so best discussed at WP level to get a consensus re the need to protect templates. I've done what I can here and at ANI. American Football is not in my area of expertise so I'd rather not get dragged into a dispute amongst editors who should be capable of working things through. I do understand your frustration re IPs adding unsourced info to templates and articles on an annual basis. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in December 1843, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Restigouche and Ottendorf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added 331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
removed Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello. Help expand the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.248.63.149 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@171.248.63.149: - Sorry, but I don't know anything about her, and the subject matter is outside my area of interest. Looks to be a decent enough article that complies with WP:BLP and demonstrates the notability of the subject. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in 2018 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Pearl River and Sinan
List of shipwrecks in October 1844 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Portsea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

busing vs. bussing[edit]

Yes, that's correct American English. The single-s spelling is used (I think) to distinguish the "transport by bus" usage from "bussing", which would be taken to mean kissing (I don't know how prevalent using "buss" to mean a kiss is in the UK, but in the American South it's still in quite regular usage, not in the sense of a really passionate deep kiss but more like a big sloppy kiss, the kind of kiss your parents would tell you to give your grandmother on the cheek when you were a child. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash[edit]

Regarding this edit, why did you think there were 30 casualties on the ground? Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Brian Everlasting: because the article stated "Additionally, thirty Saharawi civilians from the refugee camps in Tindouf were said to be among the dead.", per the Spanish language ref from RTVE. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I was going to[edit]

add a qualifying item have to jump off - will add later - cheers JarrahTree 09:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I may come over at the project talk page blah we have heard all this before - it is the big problem for over a decade of editing there have been some really absurd re-inventing the wheel for the sake of it stuff - when its all been through before.

I have little faith in trying to protect readers from distress - just watching the news is more stressful than most of the most problematic wikipedia articles or items. So real life is really a lot more traumatic than most items inside the pedia. I strongly suggest if persons are upset by an image of something on a project item on a talk page, then they clearly need toughening up. The real world is a lot worse.

Having said all that - if there is something other than predictable trolls turning up at such discussions - or the mentioned editors who were pinged - with genuine cases of deep trauma from a very small image - and clear indication they are not set up to it in any way - then I would take notice, and suggest some negotation for ways of protecting them. But when it is the usual mob, I see no need to do anything. JarrahTree 12:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: blocking threat[edit]

The ed17 and I have agreed to disagree. Points raised will be taken on board. No need for any further action or escalation. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yo Mj, been awhile! A few points on your message to Gamaliel. 1) WP:DTTR, you know that just pisses people off/don't be a jerk. 2) You'd taken part in the discussion, so any block would have violated WP:INVOLVED. 3) Gamaliel only made two reverts, so I'm curious to know what led to the "banhammer" threat. 4) I'm curious why you chose to only warn him and not Daniel Case or Johnuniq, while leaving this message on the former's talk page.

TL;DR: Please make sure you're upholding our administrator standards and not inadvertently spreading a chilling effect. Not cool. Thanks and cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@The ed17: - Gamaliel was the one edit warring to remove a valid wikiproject banner from an article talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this is akin to vandalism and thus the restoration of the template cannot be edit warring. Things seem to have calmed down a bit now and it seems that the banhammer is not going to be needed. Thanks for the heads up though, I'm not perfect so if I've erred then I apologise. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Administrators have a mandate to enforce site-wide policy, like consensus and BLP, and not the preferences of a particular WikiProject they favor. The template is bad enough, an admin should know not to template the regulars, but an ban threat is clearly over the line. You should probably stay out of administrative matters regarding this WikiProject from now on as you've demonstrated clear favoritism through selective enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: - There was no BLP violation to enforce. As for WP:DEATH, their members decide the project's scope, which includes "transportation disasters in which at least one person is killed". The removal of a valid WP from an article's talk page was not valid, whether or not you agree with the image on the Wikiproject's template. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There were multiple people in that edit war ... I'm not sure why you only warned one. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If you mean Daniel Case and Jim Michael, as I've explained above, reversion of disruptive edits akin to vandalism is not edit warring. Daniel Case did indicate that he thought he might be straying into EW territory when discussing the issue on the talk page. Even if he had done so, that is a mitigating factor. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOT3RR, bullet point 4. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mj... look. Here's a policy refresher. Wikipedia:Edit warring: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism.
You might also be interested in the definition of vandalism, as I'd be hard-pressed to say Gamaliel was guilty of a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." (Emphasis in original.)
See also WP:VANDNOT, especially the first section: Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus.
TL;DR: Gamaliel's edits don't really come anywhere near what we define as vandalism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41 and 05:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@The ed17: We'll have to agree to disagree. The repeated removal of a valid Wikiproject banner because an editor objects to an image contained within that banner in my eyes was akin to vandalism and disruptive. A WP gets to decide what falls within its scope and if an article clearly fits within a WPs scope then it is only right and proper that the talk page is adorned with that WPs banner. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We will have to disagree on interpretation of that policy. Regardless, declaring one person's edit as "disruptive" and another's as "valid" when there is nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as "simple vandalism" involved means you are taking sides in an editing dispute and it would be a policy violation for you to use your tools, or to threaten to do so, in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't vandalism, it was certainly disruptive. In any case, we can put this to bed. The behaviour ceased, there is a discussion and vote going on at WT:DEATH. If you want the skull removed, there is an opportunity to get it removed. If consensus is that it stays, that will also be the end of the argument. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Westuit Nr. 7[edit]

Can you give me a hand? What needs doing, you can do in half the time it takes me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talkcontribs) 17:57, 23 April 2018

@Drmies:, Have bashed it into something resembling a shape. You'll need to go through it and correct any translation errors. For future reference, User:Mjroots/sandbox2 is my windmills sandbox, currently set up for Dutch mills. Copy and replace as appropriate. Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh man--I was just hoping you'd fill out the infobox. This is awesome. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: you need to use {{Infobox windmill}}. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I did, but realized very quickly that the terms are very specific and I wasn't quite sure about the translation--that's what I meant by saying it would take me much more time: I was thinking of the infobox parameters, which you know better than anyone since you wrote it, haha! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in August 1844, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liebau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1844, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Death project[edit]

do you have the capacity to remove the skull and crossbone image from the death project talk page tag? Or know someone with the rights/skill/capacity to do so? it makes the project look so so tacky JarrahTree 07:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I probably do have the capacity to do so. Whether or not I should is a different question (much the same as I can block Jimbo Wales, but whether or not I should...). As I understand it, there is a RFC on the abolition of portals. If the portals get abolished, the problem will disappear. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(LOL) to your response. Shows what a bunch of idiots in a decreasing cohort - to the rfc to remove portals. (AWKS) to what the rump is doing to the world. I still think the skull and crossbones needs to go regardless. But hey - thanks for your response, thank heavens someone here still has a sense of irony and or humour (sic) JarrahTree 08:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: - Being an admin carries a certain amount of power. That power has to be balanced with an equal amount of responsibility. That an admin can do something does not mean that they should do it. If you really want rid of the skull and crossbones from the portal template, then open up a discussion at WT:DEATH and gain consensus for said removal. I can see that jumping in and removing it on one editor's request is likely to be highly controversial and it's not something I want to risk my administrative privileges for. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I had put request first, then only after did I notice the blue block of things above - very very sincerest apology - must have seemed like a very stupid troll, dare I say it about myself - sorry JarrahTree 08:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to apologise for. Didn't see you as a troll either. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Kind of you to say so - everything about the death project tag suggests a complete blank tag with no image JarrahTree 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @JarrahTree: The "death project talk page tag" is Template:WikiProject Death, and there has been discussion on the matter of its image at its talk page. See also its documentation regarding |image=no. Since it is a WikiProject banner, this means that it is not a portals issue - whatever the outcome of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, that banner will retain the image. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I'm pretty sure JT is talking about the removal of the |PORTAL from that template. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If you use |image=no the portal is suppressed, as are both images. Since that wasn't clear, I've amended the doc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1840[edit]

Hi Mjroots: I am working on Golconda (1815 ship). We/WP have her lost on an unknown date on her way from India to Canton. However, the ref states that the Chinese captured her and 300 men of the 38th Madras Native Infantry. Everything I am finding is that she foundered in a typhoon between 22 and 24 Sept 1840 with no trace. She had the HQ and 350 men of the 37th Native Infantry on board. The Bengal Government declared the date of loss as 24 Sept for pay and record keeping purposes. When you have the time could you please check the newspaper account. I am concerned that we have a transcription error, or possibly a conflation of two separate incidents. If it is just an erroneous newspaper account then no problem. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably an erronueous account given the other sources you've found. Have move the entry to 24 Sep and corrected it per article. Also tweaked the article a little as the Philippines did not exist at the time she was lost. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ta. Also, good catch re Philippines; tunnel vision on my part. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in September 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Carlingford

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in June 1840[edit]

Hi Mjroots, You have a Hector being wrecked in Davis Strait on 23 June. Actually, I believe that the vessel that was crushed against the ice was HMS Hecla, the famed exploration ship that became a Greenland fisheries whaler after her sale in 1831. Do you have any other sources that might clarify the issue? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see anything naming "Hecla" amongst the various newspaper sources. Have made an amendment which should cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That does cover the situation. Annoying that the loss of a vessel as famous as Hecla in her early incarnation didn't make it into The Times. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in December 1844 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Collier
List of shipwrecks in February 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Camber
List of shipwrecks in January 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Duchy of Tuscany

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

GKD Sports Cars[edit]

Thank you for the page move. I had tried to move the page properly before but was told I couldn't because the redirect page was already at the target URL. How did you get around that?Bjones (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bjones: - Because I have administrative privileges I am able to delete the target in order to move the page. Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Next time I see something like that I'll have to contact an administrator. They pop up once in a while.Bjones (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bjones: - If you come across this situation again, post a request at WP:RM, where the move can be assessed and either actioned or discussed. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just copied that to a Word document. Will do.Bjones (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of royal weddings for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of royal weddings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of royal weddings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in March 1845, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Shipwreck info?[edit]

Hi Mjroots: I have just finished Dublin (1784 EIC ship). My source states that she was lost c.1800 on her first voyage as a West Indiaman, after years of service as an East Indiaman. I have not been able to confirm the loss. I found nothing in Lloyd's List, or by googling generally. Do you have anything? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't find anything when going through the sources for that period. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in April 1845, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montrose and Tobermory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello.[edit]

Hello. I have already spoken to the admins at Commons but they still don't want to unblock me. I have said that I'm not going to upload Google images anymore, but they still don't want. Could you please talk to them and convince them? It's the users Эlcobbola and Taivo (at Commons, not Wikipedia). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in September 1845, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Inactive sandbox[edit]

Hi, I updated a category link on your sandbox copy of SS Hazelbank. If you no longer require it, please tag it with {{db-user}} if you would like it to be deleted. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in December 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hamshire
List of shipwrecks in January 1846 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stege
List of shipwrecks in October 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Flores Island

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in October 1846, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Mermaid[edit]

Hi Mjroots: I am working on the East Indiaman Travers, wrecked 7 Nov 1808. That led me to create an article about Diamond Island (Burma), which led me to discover that Mermaid wrecked there in 1801. Do you know anything else about Mermaid? I can't find anything in my usual sources re British vessels operating in the area. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - unfortunately the library of local newspapers I have access to only covers the years 1800-1900. Most references to a ship named Mermaid in 1800 and 1801 refer to the HMS Mermaid of the time. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, have started working on Skelton Castle. You have her being lost at the mouth of the Bengal River in 1809. However, that appears to be incorrect, or a different ship. Skelton Castle was lost in Dec 1806 off the Cape of Good Hope. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Most likely a different ship. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added PbsouthwoodTheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed AndrevanDougEVulaKaisaLTony FoxWilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed AndrevanEVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in February 1846, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ardmore and Moelfre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in April 1846 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stroma
List of shipwrecks in December 1845 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Corvo
List of shipwrecks in January 1846 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Adra
List of shipwrecks in March 1846 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rodriguez

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI re shipwrecks in 1825[edit]

Hi Mjroots, two things I tripped over. First, there appears to a case of duplicate entries. There was a Mary lost at Holyhead on 19 October, and one lost at the same place on 20 October. I don't know which entry is correct and so cannot consolidate/remove. Second, Lloyd's List 6061 was published on 4 November 1825, not 5 November. The link is OK, just the ref is wrong. I was looking for the Mary, Reed, master, lost on Jarvis Island, and found the above two issues. Am working on the article now so have red-linked her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Found the correct date of loss and moved info to it (20 Jan 1825) from unknown date in 1825. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Faulty coordinates[edit]

In editing List of shipwrecks in October 1846, you introduced a set of impossible coordinates. In the entry for the Razalama, under "Unknown date", you entered 47°70′N 37°40′W (minutes of latitude greater than 59); I assume that's a typo, but I don't have access to the cited sources. Could you check the sources and correct the error? Deor (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you've already fixed it. Deor (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Deor: coord given originally was in source quoted, realised it must have been wrong and corrected it to the most likely, given the similarity between 1 and 7 when written. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in October 1846, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crosby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1817[edit]

Hi Mjroots: there appears to be a duplicate entry for Catherine wrecked on 22 Jan 1817. Both entries appear identical, modulo some voyage details.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - Two different vessels. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Son-of-a-gun. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1823[edit]

Hi Mjroots: Could be another duplicate, or not. You have an Aurora being wrecked at La Beye, Grenada, on 4 February. Then on 4 March there is again an Aurora being wrecked at La Beye, Grenada. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in August 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Falmouth and Sanday
List of shipwrecks in September 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Falmouth and Rundle Stone
List of shipwrecks in April 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Queensferry
List of shipwrecks in January 1846 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sealing
List of shipwrecks in October 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falmouth

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Barossa (1811 ship)[edit]

Hi Mjroots, I am working on an article about Barrosa. I have a reference that she was lost in 1847, and her entry in the 1846 Lloyd's Register has the notation "LOST" by her name, but I have been unable to find anything else. Do you have anything in your sources by any chance? She also appears in sources as Barosa, Barrossa, and Barrosa. Thanks for any help you can give. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I'm currently ploughing through the 1847 newspapers. Will keep an eye out. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It'll be a miracle if you find anything, but it would enable me to tie a bow on her tail. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
By chance I found a report in The Spectator for 13 Feb 1847, p.155 that Barossa had wrecked at Port Morant while carrying coolies from Madras to Jamaica. Unfortunately the item does not specify the date of the loss. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
10 January 1847. I have added the info to the list of shipwrecks for that day. My entry is rough and the refs need formatting, but the basic info is there. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: I've copyedited the entry but left the refs for now. Do either of the articles have a title. If so, that needs adding in, then I can format the references. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies. I was blinded by delight. In The Spectator the item is in a column titled "EAST INDIA SHIPPING". In the Illustrated London News the column is titled "EPITOME OF NEWS – FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaLYmblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2018 Ju-Air Junkers Ju 52 crash[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svgOn 7 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018 Ju-Air Junkers Ju 52 crash, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

DHC-2 Beaver crash[edit]

On the same day: K2 Aviation de Havilland Beaver (DHC-2) crash. I've started a stub, perhaps you could do some c/e? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I'm not convinced that this one is notable enough to sustain an article. It is an aircraft under 12,500lb MTOW and there don't seem to be any Wikinotable people involved (see the essay WP:AIRCRASH). Should you want to try to expand it, give it some structure and an infobox similar to the Ju 52 crash article. Plenty of sources linked from the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase item on the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1823 - possible dup[edit]

Hi Mjroots, we have a Blucher wrecking on 13 Feb and apparently again on 18 Feb. Same national origin, same description. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in March 1847, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochefort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of ship launches in 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairfield, Devonport and Devonport Dockyard
List of shipwrecks in July 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Falmouth and Crosby
List of shipwrecks in March 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Queen Charlotte Sound

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

HCS Auckland[edit]

Quick and dirty: "AUCKLAND. Steam frigate. 1840. 946 bm. 9.1.1840: Launched by Bombay Dockyard. 6 guns." That's all Hackman has. I will fiddle around a little further and will revert with anything else I find. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So far, all I can find re Auckland is that she was a paddle steamer and that she was put on harbour service in 1863 and sold in 1874. There is nothing in Low's history of the Indian Navy about her at all. There was an Auckland that was a Harwitch packet in 1817 and that continued to serve as a packet out of Dover in 1820. I can also find two mercantile Aucklands - both launched at Sunderland, one in 1836 and one in 1838. Can you give me any more info? Cheers Acad Ronin (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: I've only got what is at the List of shipwrecks in 1847#Unknown date at the moment. Hopefully when I go through the Australian newspapers I'll be able to find more info. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Definitely not the Indian Navy vessel, and not a Royal Navy vessel. No such vessel in Colledge, and no British warship named Auckland lost between 1650 and 1859 (Hepper). At this point, my best guess would be a Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Auckland. Mail steamers were sometimes/often referred to as His Majesty's Steamer. There was a contemporary mail steamer Auckland, but I have no further info than that she existed. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingston[edit]

Hi Mjroots, in the 1818 shipwrecks list we have Kingston wrecking on 4 March and again on 5 March, depending on the source paper. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in September 1847, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnegat Light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - Thank you, have commented. Am happy for this to be discussed and decided one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in January 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Warkworth and Fort William
List of shipwrecks in October 1847 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Buffalo River

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in February 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Trinity Bay
List of shipwrecks in January 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ferrol
List of shipwrecks in May 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Coringa
List of shipwrecks in October 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christiana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Requesting Reblocking of user[edit]

Bro dude51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bro_Dude51 continues to make disruptive edits to wikipedia. In the Qatar Airways article, Bro dude51 deleted the fleet chart in revision 859617657: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qatar_Airways&oldid=859617657 100.14.62.7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in February 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Irvine

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

What you do is so rude. Idiot. Protection p? You ruin my great work with Jetstreamer and MilborneOne! I will email Wikipedia so do not even try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.248.14 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@178.153.248.14: I'm pretty sure that MilborneOne and Jetstreamer will back me up. E-mail Wikipedia all you want, it won't get you anywhere. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mjroots. 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.

- BilCat (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: - It's already been dealt with by Favonian. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I just noticed that myself. I'm glad someone was able to take care of it quickly. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Severn[edit]

Hi Mjroots, where can we add this: Severn (ex-HMS Camel (1813)) had sailed from Calcutta on 13 December 1840 bound for China. As of 28 August 1841 she had not been heard from.[1] Her entry in Lloyd's Register for 1842 is marked "Lost", but the actual year of loss is ambiguous. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - put the entry in on 13 December 1840, as that is the last definite date. Something like ...departed form Calcutta, India for China. No further trace, presumed lost with all hands. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Found her there with that info. I linked her to Camel and left it at that. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in June 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Langstone
List of shipwrecks in September 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Viborg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship[edit]

Hi. Is it possible to put an indefinite requirement for editors to have autoconfirmed or confirmed access to 2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship article? If you look to the history of edits here is the same persistent vandalism from people who can't understand a racing license concept like in case with Kamui Kobayashi and [15]. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: - I've looked at the article and Marino Sato's article and I can't find a source that says he is racing under a San Marino licence. If you can add a source for that and the disruption continues, I'll be happy to semi-protect. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_3_European_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=861115039 Corvus tristis (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Despite note and reference the situation remains the same... [16] This season contains many drivers with racing license differs from their actual nationality, so it will always confuse casual reader, can you put semi-protection now? Thanks. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Corvus tristis: - 3 months' should be enough. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1822[edit]

Hi Mjroots, I believe that the Robert lost on 7 March is the same vessel as the Robert lost on 27 March. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1848, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN/C[edit]

THe article was almost completely written by User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need. See their talkpage for the gory details. I'm not saying they were perfect editor, but ... Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Allison[edit]

Hi Mjroots, I have just put up Allison (1795 ship). Lloyd's Register for 1846 has the annotation "Lost" by her name, but I have not been able to find anything, including in The Times. When you get the chance, could you check the UK papers to see if they have anything? I would like to add her to the list of shipwrecks. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

wow[edit]

so the marauding ships eds and the travails of the damned leaky ship of wikipedia hasnt put you off in all this time - you must be the most persistent editor in the nautical realm that wikipedia has! wow. In case that was misread - well done for your persistence on the shipwrecks project material after all these years!!! JarrahTree 07:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in August 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kirtley
List of shipwrecks in December 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arran

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Soyuz MS-10 - If you want a job done properly...[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svgOn 12 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Soyuz MS-10, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in December 1848, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viborg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in March 1849, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falkenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in February 1849, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Po (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in October 1849 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Calmar and Boston Bay
List of shipwrecks in September 1849 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Birg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Don Juan wrecked 1837[edit]

As the page doesnt appear to have any watchers I noted that the steamship "Don Juan" that was wrecked on 15 September 1837 is listed as Spanish. It was built by Fletcher, Son and Fearnall at Poplar, London and was owned and operated by P&O so would British be more likely? MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got that page watchlisted by my own system. Have checked the Ships List and verified your info. List has been corrected. Thanks for bringing this up. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ship News." Times [London, England 10 Nov. 1841: 6. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 19 Sept. 2018.]