User talk:Mjroots

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

GRUMMAN Albtross article[edit]

I am sure you did not intend to revert this article being that you are undoubtedly aware that Wiki policy require one to request citations before reverting edits. Likewise, an editor of your creditals must be aware that the large class of amphibians would include the PBM-5A and the follow on Marlin as well as those of other nations, so the Albtross in comparison was of moderate size and capacity. you mustalso be aware that the USAF adopted the term SAR and use of ASR Iis an anachronistic in this article. I trust you will be so proper as to reverse your mistaken revert of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF: I never reverted any edits you made, although I am aware that other editors have reverted you. What I was seeing was an edit war. Options were to block you, or to semi-protect the article. I chose the latter. I suggest that you now open a discussion at talk:Grumman HU-16 Albatross if you haven't already done so. Propose your edits there, backed up by reliable sources and we'll discuss the issues arising therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
M, Just for information I have blocked the IP, he has had been blocked for legal threats amongst other things but uses a different IP everday refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP. Despite the blocks they keep appearing on American second world war American military aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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.svg This 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)

Admin[edit]

Old discussions are archived here.

PP of Islamabad[edit]

I don't believe Islamabad needs to be protected, per my most recent revert of the page, the anon editor was actually correct, and I almost (or did) accidentally start an edit war. I apologized to the anon on my talk page. @NDKilla^^^ 20:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Epm-84/Hstudent[edit]

Hi Mj - sorry to bring this up again. I hope that you are well

As soon as I mentioned to Hstudent about Epm-84 being absent from the discussion - the next response was a rather poorly mannered response from Epm-84. It's nearly a month since I started the discussion (as JamesSteamPacket) and they insist on carrying on the discussion even after a consensus was reached. I'm planning to implement the removal and relocation of the information that they inserted (as per the 2-1 in favour consensus reached by April 14) in the next few days - but I highly suspect they will probably continue to revert my attempts to remove and relocate the information. Is there anything that can be done if they do go against the consensus?

I have tried to bring the discussion to a close - but in my view it's just turned into them arguing because they can't accept the consensus didn't go in their favour. Their latest solution was the deletion of the entire table - which to me is just an absolutely ridiculous suggestion

They have now twice avoided addressing or denying my suspicions that Epm-84 and Hstudent are the same person - so I think that this has all but confirmed that my suspicions are indeed correct. Do you know if there any updates on the investigation I requested? I think that it may be worth using their denial of my suspicions as further evidence to support the theory that Epm-84 is the same person as Hstudent - Coradia175 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coradia175: - It would be a good idea to add further evidence to the sockpuppet investigation. The better a case you can make, the better the chance of a successful outcome. Any problems with the article being edited agains consensus let me know and I'll take a look. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Despite all of the evidence I've provided - the SPI clerk disagrees with my case. I don't see the point in continuing it further because I've provided as much evidence as I can find - and I simply don't have the time to go through both accounts to find any further evidence at the moment. I'm disappointed to say the least as I thought it was a decent case
I've just edited the Northern Rail page and relocated the seating capacity information as per the consensus. I'll let you know if they go against the consensus and revert my edit - Coradia175 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you added further evidence after the clerk's comments. If you've done all you can and the case is declined it's not the end of the world. Other options are available. Let's see how this pans out. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've made one last attempt to try and make a stronger case - but after that I just think it would be best to explore the other options that are available. Thanks for your help and support on this matter though - it's really appreciated. Coradia175 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Could use the eyes of an admin[edit]

We have had an ANI opened since the 7th, nothing new has been added for 3 or 4 days now. We could use an Admin to take a look at it and determine what is the appropriate course of action. If requesting this oversight is in violation of any wikipedia policy, please ignore it, this is not an attempt at vote stacking or canvassing. But it seems discussion is finished there and we all would like some closure.

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

I had posted this request as well at admin John talk page, but he is busy at the moment. Thanks. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin had settled it, no assistance is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Xcuref1endx: - glad all is sorted. I've not yet worked out how to edit Wikipedia in my sleep :) Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett. Keep at it, you'll find a way one day :). -Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Admin's Opinion[edit]

Recently there has been some low level but persistent disruption/vandalism at Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10. I was hoping to get your opinion on whether a protect request is warranted. Sario528 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sario528: I've semi-protected the article for a week. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Aviation[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Jinnah International Airport[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? I explained my edit and the hidden note given was well explained. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Beijing was added as a destination but I removed it as stated in the note. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines + Kathmandu[edit]

Hello Mjroots. Regarding this [1], have you seen the discussion at the article's talk?--Jetstreamer Talk 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Villa Castelli helicopter crash[edit]

Actually, I translated the tweet for myself :-) I follow Wiltord on Twitter so I'd already read it, and even easier to do! Because I translated the hashtags he used I included them in the quote of the tweet. I felt this was more thorough, and if quoting someone I like to do it in full :-) Sophoife (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropped[edit]

It's actually here at Fr:Dropped. :) This is Paul (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So it is, I didn't spot that. :) The link should really be to Dropped (French TV series) or even just Dropped (TV series) as we don't currently have another related article. This is Paul (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your Delta 1086 advice[edit]

Writing something with thought is very Wikipedian. Just causing trouble and saying "no" is common but not wikipedian. Thanks for your advice. With 24 injuries, this is something. I saw an article with the left wing. It is banged up. If it were a new plane, they might fix it but with a 1987 plane, they might not. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Difficulties with a User[edit]

G'day, I am having difficulties with User:Mkmillenium, whom I see you have had some interaction with recently. There is an edit war brewing at Flyways Airlines; he is of the opinion that this is the way the article should appear and I obviously think that it isn't. His edit summary "This was talked with an administrator an[d] is the style to be kept" is something I find impossible to believe. As far as I can see there is no evidence in his contribution history this discussion took place; at best he has misunderstood something, at worst he is being deliberately misleading. YSSYguy (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

He has now undone my work three times in the last two hours, and earlier today undid an edit by another User to reduce the size of the image. There are definite ownership issues here in my opinion. YSSYguy (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good day I have huge difficulties with user YSSYguy, making me problems. I've created the article in english Flyways Airlines it was agreed to kept the Style with Administrator Happysquirrel , ie it is talked to him to keep as it is. The user YSSYguy keeps fighting to impose his style even with not appropriate information. Please see it. At the talk page of Happysquirrel it has the announce to keep as it is and it was understood from him/her. I hope that sanctions would be given to User YSSYguy for not respecting my initiation page and my contributions. There is a fight from him which is totally not contributive, not helps also Wikipedia. In fact the missleading distortions and destructive editions of YSSYguy it is no need in the article. As creator of the page version i have the copyright and responsibility of the article and to keep watching. All his/her modifications continue to be undone. Regards.

@Mkmillennium: as you were told by Happysquirrel, you do not own any article you create. Expect any article you do create to be scrutinized for compliance with Wikipedia policies, and edited by other users, such as YSSYguy in the normal process of editing.
You don't know everything about a subject, in fact, nobody does. Even experts in certain subjects (such as myself) don't know everything. But, by contributing what we do know individually, together we can create a better article and encyclopedia. Now, the place to discuss issues is talk:Flyways Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mkmillenium: - have you considered putting the image of the aircraft in the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear. I am not an admin, nor have I claimed to be one. I will gladly participate in the discussion on the talk page. I am very glad someone else is taking an interest. Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Mjroots, i made enourmous work yesterday in searching and testing the appearance of the file and this was the best i got. I would like to have my own made file big enough in the article as the company has just 1 aircraft and its is on ground yet waiting for the flights. In fact, the webpage of them exists, but no flight is made yet. It is pretty new and as has just few info about, why i kept the appearance of aircraft in this style bigger to take the attention, because info is almost nothing. In infobox would be too small. But I respect only of you changes. Please see more at SSC. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1843108 Regards. The problem was reported further to other people.

Difficulties to get my contribution to this page accepted[edit]

Hello Mjroots, again it has fight between users and the contribution made by me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LATAM_Airlines_Group seems the best until now. It is the case that the livery of airplane is presented in internal meetings and it was step by step as a merchandising and marketing reasons to be spread in the public opinion to see the reactions, so it is already known as you see here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=986028&page=183 and mainly the photo montage at AEROIN a specialized Aircraft Market Magazine. It the ressonance would be good acceptable, this is implemented following weeks. Regards

  • IMPORTANT: If the article with the submitted drawing made entirely by me is really not accepted, then i please ask this contribution and the file to be entirely removed from Wikipedia and deleted it entirely, when I would not leave the right anymore public. If it is not to be used in page, so it would be kept only at my own and my facebook page about transportation design, no where else and if is really not kept I allow nobody to use it without my permission in responsible by law, the misuse. Sincerely. MKmillenium
@Mkmillenium: - bad news there. Under the terms of the licence you released the image on, such release is irrevocable. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Report of USER 200.28.248.144[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:200.28.248.144

I would like to report 200.28.248.144 for keeping undoing the contributions. It was already explained several times. Please do sanctions in this mobile user. Fighting in undoing the contributions is not a real contribution at all. Thanks.

G'day Mj; firstly I apologise to you for dragging you into this sh1tfight. As there are reliable reports (USA Today and Flight International to name two) that the new LATAM aircraft livery will not be revealed until next year, the A320 image that MKmillenium has created really ought to be treated as original research. The IP was quite justified in removing it, and MKmillenium is edit-warring (13 reverts in the last 67-and-a-half hours) with everyone else that goes near the article - MilborneOne included - to keep 'his' article the way he likes it. He is not interested in working collaboratively. You have bent over backwards to accommodate him, but surely enough is enough. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact you do not know nothing of Brazil like I do and this image was first created intern at TAM and after at AEROIN Flight Magazine, as explained. Your fight is really childish to say at least and do not contribute at all using other IP mobile devices... So stop. I sincerely ask Mjroots to close the LATAM Airlines 12 pages for a while to avoid this again. I hope that User YSSYguy because of misuse of IP addresses pretending to be several people be banned from editing in Wikipedia. At all it is not contributive. It is not adding information, but just destroying. Regards. Well, the IP is in Chile and I am in Australia, so I don't think it was me. Let me check...no, definitely not in Chile right now. YSSYguy (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's strange, I'm not in Chile either! Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though french Administrator Myst is participating in the fight together with Mobile User 200.14.107.2

Would that be the Myst who has made no edits on the English Wikipedia since March 2013? It's almost as if there is some sort of alliance out to get you....I know! It's the Star Alliance, upset because you put their logo on the aircraft in the image!!! YSSYguy (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war in 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article[edit]

Hi, the article of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is being edited five times a day - mostly edits and reverts from users User:GizzyCatBella and User:Deeday-UK. Even though some of the edits are grounded in Wikipedia rules there is no consensus reach. Instead arguments are repeated in edits description. Talk page is filled with discussion going nowhere. I think you should consider locking the article again as you stated in this article's talk page. Hope talking to you is the proper way to handle this situation.Lukaszsw (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of American Airlines Flight 331/METAR[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article American Airlines Flight 331/METAR has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, can be merged to American Airlines Flight 331

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2016 (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

De Kievit, Menaldum[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of De Kievit, Menaldum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.potiori.com/De_Poelen,_Dronrijp.html.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Coren: - Material which is entirely sourced from the Wikipedia article that I created on De Poelen, Dronrijp. Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Windmills in Bedfordshire[edit]

Category:Windmills in Bedfordshire, which you created, has been nominated for dual upmerging into Category:Buildings and structures in Bedfordshire and Category:Windmills in England. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's actually a dozen articles in the nomination but you only created one of them.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Windmills[edit]

A corn mill would clearly be industrial, or better as agricultural which we don't have established as a tree yet. A drainage mill could be agricultural or infrastructure or maybe both. It would likely depend on the use and the quality of the article. I don't think we can automatically include a parent windmill category as agricultural, or industrial of infrastructure. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Balancing pockets on burr stones[edit]

Hi, I've just been adding some stuff to Stembridge Mill, High Ham (in the hope of getting it to GA standard). This source says it "retains two pairs of French burr stones (having Clark and Dunham 1859 patent balancing pockets)". I've put this into the article but I don't really understand what "balancing pockets" are. Any ideas?— Rod talk 14:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rodw: Stembridge Mill at Historic England; Narborough Mill at Norfolk Mills; Little Salkeld Mill at Geography Department, Portsmouth University . --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but although Historic England says " balance weight pockets let into plaster backs", I'm really no wiser what balance weight pockets" are?— Rod talk 16:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
French burr stones. Balancing pockets at 12, 4 and 8 o'clock positions.
@Rodw: French Burr stones need to be balanced , much the same as a car tyre does. These stones have a layer of Plaster of Paris several inches thick. Three or four cast iron balancing boxes are let into the top of the millstone. Balancing is achieved by pouring molten lead into the boxes: If a bit too much is added, the excess can be scraped away to fine tune the balance. The pair shown is from a watermill in Oxfordshire, but it's exactly the same in a windmill, although slightly more crucial due to the fact that a constant milling speed is easily achievable in a watermill, but not so in a windmill. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I now understand. Do you think any of that needs adding to Stembidge Mill, or alternatively is there an article I could link the phrase to, or alternatively should I just leave it & assume everyone else apart from me will understand what it means?— Rod talk 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rodw: I'd stick to the "two pairs of French Burr stones" line. Good luck with the GA. If you need any help let me know. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I've taken out the balancing pockets bit. If you wanted to take a look & see if you think there is anything else needed (particularly as it is "a bit short" and I can't find anything further) that would be great.— Rod talk 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rodw: - I've added a bit more history. Will add millers and a description section later this evening. Take a look at Thelnetham Windmill, which is a GA, might give you some ideas. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits so far although I'm unsure about the dab link to George Parker as none of the possibles seem to match a miller in the late Victorian era. I will have a read of Thelnetham Windmill.— Rod talk 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rodw: - Unlinked GP, not a wikinotable person. Have added the other two sections, feel free to improve. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with this. Is "winded" a specialist term in "It is winded by a wheel and chain" or can I change it to wound?— Rod talk 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
{[reply to|Rodw}} it's "winded", meaning "turned to face the wind", not the past participle of "to wind" (as in clock). Wiktionary is lacking atm, will see what I can do about that! Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Rail talk page[edit]

Hi there. I have a suspicion on that page the same person has used two accounts to make it look like more people support their argument. What raised my suspicion is that both users have a near identical contributions list in terms of what pages they edit - Epm-84 (Contribs) and Hstudent (Contribs). I understand from another user I get on with and has advised me on this situation that in certain aspects having two accounts can be alright - but surely having two accounts and using both of these to try and add more support to your argument isn't allowed? I don't think it would be very fair either

I don't like making accusations but I think given the circumstances and the similarity in contributions on both accounts - it could well be the same person. The same user has also got problems in accepting any revision of the fleetlist except his own - which myself and another user on that talk page disagree with. Both myself and User:D47817 voted for the removal of the information Epm-84 inserted to the fleetlist (seating capacity variations per unit) and for it to be included on the individual unit articles instead. I am willing to bet however as soon as I get around to doing that Epm-84 will again accuse me of vandalism and re-instate it! - Coradia175 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coradia175: Yes, having two accounts is permissible in certain circumstances. I've got Mjroots2 (talk · contribs) which I use when in public libraries etc so that the password to this account doesn't get compromised. However, what you are talking about in this instance appears to be sockpuppetry (or possibly Meatpuppetry), which is not allowed. You could file a report at WP:SPI if you wish the matter to be looked into. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thanks for your help. I've filed a report here - I've supplied as much evidence as I can. It appears it isn't the first time said user has been involved in sockpuppetry accusations - this link (Section You and user:Sheliaval) shows at least two users who suspect Sheliaval and Hstudent of being the same person - and the argument put forward by Sheliaval in my view wasn't very convincing. I've mentioned that in my report as well - Cheers Coradia175 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Stembridge Mill, High Ham GA review[edit]

As you may have spotted Stembridge Mill, High Ham is being reviewed at Talk:Stembridge Mill, High Ham/GA1. The reviewer has suggested removing the whole of the "Machinery" section and made various comments about the list of millers. I believe you wrote/rewrote most of these sections and I wondered if you had any comments?— Rod talk 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Irish Windmills[edit]

Thank you for noticing my edit to the List of windmills in Ireland - I'm very interested in increasing the coverage of these structures in Ireland. Many of them are National Monuments, which is how I came across them at first. I've started with Vinegar Hill Windmill, although I can find no information on the mill when it was operational. I don't have a huge amount of knowledge on the technical side of milling, so if you notice any of my articles appearing, forgive any lack of technical detail! Next on my list might be the Elphin Windmill. Although so far the only resource I have is a book, Irish Flour Milling: A History 600-2000, which might be a bit limited. Thanks again! Smirkybec (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

People[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Hugh Kennard[edit]

Nice expansion. You should add yourself to the DYK nomination and let someone else review it—you deserve credit, not least since it was your idea to write an article on the bloke in the first place. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckle[edit]

Could you take a look at this Commons conversation between myself and a Commons admin and let me know what to do with this image? My choices, I think, at this moment are leave licensed as is, switch (slightly) to {{PD-USGov}} or switch to {{PD-US}}. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 14:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor Man's talkback. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 14:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Another talk back, same page and section. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can help. User:Anythingyouwant has removed this image from the Frank Buckles page and added this image from commons. Same image, just different name....and different licensing. Mine as what we discussed and his has {{PD-USGov}}. Since he has been an insane help on the article, I don't want to cause any trouble, but I don't feel I am explaining this as best as I can that we can't use the image he has uploaded. To make matters worse, User:Canadian Paul seems to disagree that the image I uploaded is fair-use and it should be {{PD-US}} (see here). I don't know what to do. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 07:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots, please don't mess with the image at commons quite yet. It's clearly PD and belongs there. Neutralhomer and I have been discussing this at my talk page, so please check out the discussion there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting on the decision about the image over on Commons, going slow. Canadian Paul is going to wait until after the funeral service today (Tuesday) at 4pm EDT before re-reviewing the article, so it remains on hold for 7 days. I have added a couple blurbs about flags being lowered in a couple more states (sadly only 9 states have done so) and a candlelight vigil near his hometown, but other than that, it remains the same. So, feel free to do some searchin' and add some stuff if it isn't already there. Take Care...NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Searle[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Frank Searle (businessman) 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! Mgrē@sŏn 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hawkins[edit]

Please note this. Followed immediately by this on Twitter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You might like to note recent IP edits to Talk:Jim Hawkins. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Felipe Camiroaga[edit]

As Camiroaga isn't legally dead, his body hasn't been found and at the moment is only "disappeared", I urge you to not mark his article as a recent death, nor to call him "dead". You are violating the biographies of living people policy by doing that, and additionally, you could be sued if Camiroaga turns out to be alive. None of the bodies have been identified yet, take that into account too.  Diego  talk  19:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it is impossible that he survived the accident; however, we can't say he died until it's confirmed, for the sake of ethics! :P  Diego  talk  20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Searle's children[edit]

Hi Mjroots. Why do you say this is standard info for inclusion? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So there is a parameter for it. If the children were in any way notable. I'll remove them again. Eddaido (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind in the least that the infobox shows he had four kids - shows he was (apparently) biologically technically fertile though I'm blessed if I can see why it matters to a reader. I thought the repeat of his parents' names in the infobox was quite surplus to requirements but as its your wish . . .
At some point someone said the article was rather messy and I agree. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

50th birthday[edit]

FYI: Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)#50th Birthday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article about Radha Thomas[edit]

I am currently working on the Wiki page for Ms Radha Thomas. She is an Indian jazz singer and songwriter. In fact, she is known as a diva in the Indian jazz scene. She previously was with the band Human Bondage and has sung and performed globally. The article is still under development. I haven't completed it or submitted it for review yet. You can have a look at it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas. I will be requesting your help and advice (as usual) in making it conform to all Wiki standards. If you do a Google Search for Radha (https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Radha+Thomas&oq=Radha+Thomas&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l2.1190.3159.0.3385.12.12.0.0.0.0.282.1949.0j11j1.12.0...0.0...1c.dYmnNUlMsQM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f6ee012440c72a74&biw=1024&bih=509) you will find dozens of articles and links to her work. As of now, the article is still under development and I will come bug you for help soon! Varunr (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you are feeling better. I think I have completed the article and am contemplating it to move it to the AFC space. Before that, I'd really appreciate if you could have a look and give me some inputs, suggestions and advice and hopefully a green signal :-). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas Varunr (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Skogssamer[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article Skogssamer that I have created. I have nominated it for DYK. But before it will be finally approved some copyediting for Standard English is needed. So if you are interested please take a look. Otherwise thanks anyway :).--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Railways[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Image thought[edit]

Photograph showing a Pullman carriage that was built between 1929 and 1934 to the Hastings Line loading gauge
One of the Pullman carriages built for the line between 1929 and 1934
Photograph showing one of the three electric locomotives built in 1941 to the Hastings Line loading gauge
One of the locomotives ordered in 1937 for the proposed electrification of the Hastings Line
How the "Proposed electrification" images would look in {{multiple image}} format.

I don't really want to wade in and derail [sic] the FAC any more than it already has been by discussing it there, so commenting here. On the Hastings article, would it make sense to use {{multiple image}} to have the images in some parts display at two-per-line, which would go some way to reducing the "cascading" effect and images pushing other images into the wrong sections? See Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway#Funeral (and the "Controversy" section immediately below it) for examples of what I mean, or the treatment of the two paintings at Victorian painting#J. M. W. Turner for how it would look with wide images. (Or see the current first section on my talkpage, immediately below the TOC, for how it looks using {{multiple image}} to combine four images into a single collage.)

There are disadvantages to doing it this way—the markup code is almost incomprehensible to casual editors, and if the images have very different aspect ratios it gives the wider of them undue weight because it forces the images to the same height—but it would certainly be a way to preserve both sides of the ticket image, and the loco and carriages in the "planned electrification" section, without looking excessively cluttered on wider monitors. – iridescent 08:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: - I've been mulling this over and have come to the conclusion that a composite of the two images in a vertical format would be better. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident[edit]

I greatly enjoyed your 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident article, truly! Great job! I have been busy lately also. The last article I created was just in the past few days, Capital City Fire and Rescue, about the Alaska state capitals fire department. CCFR serves the second largest Alaskan city by population. I hope you enjoy it! Thanks again for letting know about your great article! Juneau Mike (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia train accident[edit]

I thought this might be of interest to you. 14 hikers/migrants killed. [2] Juneau Mike (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

First Great Western article name[edit]

FYI, based on additional information received that the First Great Western franchise will be rebranded as Great Western Railway, not the abbreviated GWR as previously suggested, I have amended the discussion at Talk:First Great Western to reflect. This may or may not influence your previously given preference on this matter. D47817 (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tennessee train derailment[edit]

Hi, amigo! Could you look at this page? 2015 Tennessee train derailment. I believe it's notable, but the article needs help. It's way too short. I'm tempted to go back into Wiki-break because of my work schedule, so I cannot give this article the attention it needs. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Chemin de fer Yverdon–Ste Croix change of name[edit]

I have responded to your question on my talk page. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Hastings line reviews[edit]

Just a thought - have you considered posting requests for reviews on WP:KENT and WP:Sussex, as the article is in their projects as well as WP:UKT? If you're just asking for reviews rather than supports, I don't think this would count as WP:CANVASSING.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 11:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, WPs notified, although I'm not sure they are that active. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I do mean to look at Hastings Line, and also get Marshlink Line to GA if I can find the right book sources, but I've always thought FAC to be just a little beyond my skillset, preferring a lot of GAs to a smaller amount of FAs. I have updated a few things on WikiProject Kent largely through getting some town articles through GA in the last year, but that seems to be about it. Kick-starting projects generally is a big problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: - The Marshlink Line article needs some work. For a start it is lacking an "accidents and incidents" section. As for books, a major source of info will be "Hastings to Ashford" by Mitchell & Smith, which also covers the New Romney branch. Do you have Beecroft's book? Other than that, it's a question of trawling through Hansard and old newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any books, but I'll definitely need some to do further work on this. I'm popping into the library over the weekend. As for accidents - perhaps there aren't any notable ones. I had a look around some other railway articles and the "Accidents" section seem to be bland lists, which didn't look particularly inspiring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: There's been at least one moderately severe accident at Appledore that I know of. A trawl through the Railways Archive may produce more, then there's newspaper sources. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've just seen this "@Cassianto: you've not forgotten this, have you?" on the Hastings Line FAC. It has no time stamp, so I'm unsure when or in fact who posted this. In answer to it anyway, assuming you/someone posted after my support, no I haven't forgotten it; I supported as I think you've been diligent and through in your fixes and there was nothing else left for me to quibble about. I think it's a tremendous article! CassiantoTalk 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: I posted that, along with other comments elsewhere at the same time. Would you be so kind as to state explicitly that you support the FAC? Just need to get over Crisco 1492's objection re the station section and we're done. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see that as necessary. I'm sure Ian, Graham and Laser brain will be able to draw their own conclusions from a simple support. This has been the practise at FAC for many years now. If you feel that strongly though, who am I to question such clarity. Now done. CassiantoTalk 14:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Consisting of[edit]

A thing doesn't just "consist", it consists of. Are you confusing "consisting" with "comprising", which does not require "of"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hastings Line[edit]

I reverted your tweak to the diagram solely for the sake of consistency: Ashford shouldn't be straight-on from Hastings but off to the right from Tonbridge. Useddenim (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Better would be Tonbridge on a horizontal line with Redhill-Ashford running across and the line to London going up, which is more representative of the actual position. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Better now? Useddenim (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Marshlink Line RDT[edit]

bing maps seems to show a tunnel under the Maidstone East Line to the north of Ashford International, and a flyover south, over the Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) Line for High Speed 1. Useddenim (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Yes, you are correct. The OS maps also show this. Other RDTs will also need altering if you've not already done them. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the link from Ashford station to HS1 should be before the tunnel, not after. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It already exists[edit]

Harda twin train derailment already exists on that subject. Thanks Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 10:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What should we do about that? I proposed to merge, do you agree with that proposal? Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: I've got no objection. I appreciate you created your article first but the article I created is in better shape. Suggest that any info not in the Harda article is added to the Kudwara article, then the Harda article can be converted into a redirect. This will, I think, be easier than doing it the other way around. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If you compare both articles, my article has more content. Only difference is that Kudawa article has an image and sections, which can easily be added with one edit. "Harda twin train derailment" name is more notable. 80 percent of the sources say Harda not Kudawa. I created my article first and it's not fair to just delete the contents and make it a redirect. I will change my stance if you give some good reasons. Thank you. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Supdiop: I'm fine with you adding in detail from the article I created to the one you created. No big deal as long as content isn't lost either way. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your approval --Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line tickets[edit]

Hi – I've just got back from holiday but will comment at the Deletion Discussion today. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: Thanks. Been a lot happening while you were away. Many UK railway tickets were nominated for deletion. Thread at COM:ANU. Also, there a request at WT:SUSSEX that you may be able to assist with, but don't worry if you can't get the picture. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasting Line - Tonbridge/Tunbridge[edit]

Hi mjroots. Your comments appreciated but it's by no means clear to a casual user that you are using historical spellings. Maybe an idea to add 'later Tonbridge' after the first occurrence? Hostkvall (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

London, Midland and Scottish Railway accidents[edit]

Hi, re these four edits - what are the page numbers for Upney (30 November 1926) and Coppenhall Junction (17 November 1937)? There is a clash with <ref name=Hall> being used twice. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - do you want those refs converted to {{sfn}}? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't mind, but I would like the ambiguity to be eliminated, in order to clear off the big red error message in the refs section. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line DEMUs[edit]

Hi – I've put some info and comments at the project talk page. Let me know if there's anything of use there and I can help with the proposed new article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (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

Sinking of the Oriental Star[edit]

Just began this article in the past hour. It is almost midnight here, and I am beat. I will continue this later, but thought it may interest you. Sinking of the Oriental StarJuneau Mike (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: - there's already an article at MV Dong Fang Zhi Xing! Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Saw that just a bit ago. That article mostly relates to the ship itself. I have renamed the sinking article. Thank you.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

HMS Cricket[edit]

Seems the R.N. doesn't consider Cricket a War Loss. U-boat list the damage on June 30 & the declaration, but she sank while being used as a target (bombing by RAF? artillery by Royal Army? or as an attack formation practice target w/o actual bombing?) in August 1944 or 1946-7 off Cyprus. Sinking off Cyprus is comfirmed. she was stripped of parts & equipment, but not scrapped as some reports say. http://www.proscubadiver.net/dive-sites-cyprus/cricket-wreck. Seems listing in August '44 would be more appropriate.

Scotia[edit]

Congratulations on opening a noce little article on the ship. I still have all the sources for the SNAE, but I'm not sure that this part of your article needs expanding. However, if there is a particular area on which you'd like a little more information, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: - I wasn't sure whether on not to go into the details of the ship's conversion, so I left them off without prejudice to inclusion. Any of her previous and subsequent history would be nice. Was the refit carried out in the Falklands (per my sources) or BA (per SNAE article)? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Almost forgot, UK port of registry. Photo shows it has four letters, but unable to make it out. Mjroots (talk)
I can't see any indication in either Speak's book, or Rudmose Brown's, that the ship was refitted in the Falklands. What particular source says this? Both my books describe in some detail the work done in Buenos Aires; the Falkland visits, it seems, were more for R & R. Like you, I can't read the registration port from the stern; the ship was converted for polar work at Troon, but that's five letters. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: It's ref#2 (online), but if there are better refs stating BA then use them. A telegram from BA was mentioned in The Times, which could indicate that the ship was there for refit. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "could indicate" – the refit in Buenos Aires is a fact, described in the books I mention: Speak, pp. 90–92, Rudmose Brown p. 98. The bibliographical details are as per the SNAE article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Re apparent 4-letter port of registry, Mercantile Navy List indicates only Glasgow (1902-1905) and Dundee (1905-1916). I wonder whether it is the expedition initials SNAE. Davidships (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

USS Sable (IX-81)[edit]

Sorry to see that you're having some health problems Mjroots. When you're up to it I was wondering if you could look at the USS Sable article. I've been expanding the content along with the references but I think another set of eyes on it might be helpful. Thanks. Shinerunner (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shinerunner: Thx for you message. I'n not too bad, good days and bad days. I sometimes have to stop editing for a while, timing is unpredictable. That's the main problem on Wiki.
Article needs more about Greater Buffalo. Plimsoll Ship Data has a fair bit on her. Don't forget her Code Letters will have changed in 1934. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There are currently problems with the website, 1930-34 files are returning as not found. Have notified them of this. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

MV El Faro[edit]

Hi. Could you move the article to SS El Faro? It's a steamship, after all, and is referred as such on the shipping company's website. Thank you. Tupsumato (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tupsumato: - Yes check.svg Done - that'll teach me not to read the bleddy article first! Must have been one of the last steamships in commercial service. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Indian indenture ships to Fiji[edit]

Seems to be a good result with SS Santhia. I am a bit concerned about the referencing for the Fiji voyage table, and was surprised to find it now cited to George Blake's book on BI - I don't have the book (and Google's snippets are not very extensive) but I had assumed that the data was taken from the unreferenced source of the table in Indian indenture ships to Fiji, with the slightly strange addition of the "deaths" column - so far as I can see none of the individual ship pages have a source for their part of the table. This table doesn't cover just BI, so I am puzzled as to why other company's data would be covered by Blake. The full table was added by in IP, and FWIW I have asked on User talk:62.129.121.63. Where can we go from here? Davidships (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidships: Hmmm, I assumed that it came from the book, as it didn't come from any of the other sources. No objection to the book being moved to a further reading section and the table being tagged as needing a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RMS St Helena (1989)[edit]

There was an item on BBC Breakfast today, just before 09:00, about RMS St Helena (1989), which they said is the last ship of RMS status, and will soon lose that honour. But our article says "one of only four ships in the world still carrying the status of Royal Mail Ship" - which were the other three, when did they lose the RMS status? Some updates needed, I think; but I have no sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't know which the other three are off the top of my head. However, just because the BBC said it was the last does not necessarily mean that it is the last. I've asked for help over at the Ships Nostalgia Forum. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (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)

Re: My editing[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Reference errors on 26 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in January 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Hanover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Other users[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Hello[edit]

You sent me a message last week and i just saw it right now. About the edit wars against me, Actully i wrote my claim in the article's talk page and he didn't listen to me. He's continue's to vandalize articles in Wikipedia and he opened another user. He even didn't blocked! i really don't know why.--Friends147 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bucharester[edit]

He seems like an energetic new user, perhaps a bit too concerned with presenting his hometown in an overly positive light, but nothing more alarming so far. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won[edit]

Hi Mj,

I noticed you left a message for Eff Won on his talk page. I know you're assuming good faith, but just in case you're unaware, we believe that Eff Won is actually a sock of Lucy-marie, and is currently the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it's under control now. As we're all pretty sure it's Lucy, we've had enough experience with her to know how to handle her. Right now, we've managed to contain Eff Won to the article talk pages while we await the outcome of the SPI. If proven right, some of us have talked about adding something to WP:LONG for future reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Mj,
How long do SPIs generally take? Eff Won has been the subject of one for nearly a week now, and there hasn't been any real progress on it. One way or the other, I'd like the matter closed, because he's starting to get aggressive again (see here and especially here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, thanks for that. I'm hesitant to do it because I don't know how long it would take for an admin to get around to reviewing it, and the page clearly states that you must notify a user if they have been referred to AN or ANI. I'm not keen on that for the time being because I don't know how Eff Won would react if he were to find out before action was taken (assuming action is taken - but we're all fairly certain it's Lucy). I imagine that he would take it poorly, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Eff Won appears to be on the other side of the world to me. Would it be perceived as low if I were to report him to AN/ANI and left the mandatory note on his page while he was asleep so that admins could intervene before he was aware of it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I've reported him to ANI. He's denied it, of course, insisting that everything I have said has been taken out of context, deliberately misrepresented and shamelessly exaggerated, but he hasn't actually addressed any of the issues I raised, and he seems to think this will all go away if he asks nicely and promises to try better. I find it rather strange that he hasn't addressed - or even acknowledged - his deplorable behaviour like this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Arrogance.[edit]

I have no difficulty in being civil to anyone but I will simply not lie down and take rudeness. Therefore, I request that you remind Parsecboy of the same. In future it would be best if he did not approach people with such an outright display of arrogance on first contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.G.Watson (talkcontribs) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar issue[edit]

Hi mj,

When you get a chance, can you please take a look at 2012 Formula One season, please? A user, cherkash, has taken issue with some of the grammar in the article, citing MOS:POSS as to why. I told him it was fine, citing other parts of the same policy, but he keeps restoring his edits. He has moved it to the article talk page and has attempted to establish a consensus, but the preliminary consensus is going against him. Other users see no reason to change what is in the article. I also advised him that the Formula One WikiProject has a certain way of doing things, namely that we generally prefer that a consensus is reached on contentious edits before actually implementing them. cherkash keeps restoring his edits despite this and despite preliminary consensus against him. I warned him that he was in violation of WP:3RR, and now his latest edit rewords sections of the article (quite poorly in places, I might add - for someone who is taking issue with grammar, he has no idea how to construct a proper sentence) so as to get around the preliminary consenuss telling him that there was no agreement on his proposed changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mj, I'm surprised you took a very partial view of the issue, by threating me with a ban on my talk page, while taking no such action against Prisonermonkeys. If you carefully look at the history and timing of edits on both main article and talk pages, you will see that not only Prisonermonkeys was in violation of the 3RR himself, but he also acted against the spirit of Wikipedia by summarily undoing the edits, only a portion of which was in his opinion controversial, and the rest of which was uncontroversial improvement. This is very much against the Wiki spirit of collaboration, when editors are discouraged to summarily undo other editors' edits unless in cases of vandalism, and are instead encouraged to re-work the edits further towards amicable resolution. In this case, I repeatedly warned him that he dismissed/undid more than edits that contained possessives in question – but he proceeded to revert nonetheless. At the last count, I can see 4 reverts on his part (against my two) – but you nevertheless decided to take your issue up with me not him. It's strange, especially since I tried to constructively resolve the issues in my latest edit, whereas he just repeatedly acted disrespectfully towards me and my attempts at resolving the controversial issue. Since when is the "my way or highway" attitude, as demostrated by Prisonermonkeys, encouraged and endorsed on the Wikipedia? cherkash (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My third reversion of the page came after I told you that you needed a consensus to have your changes approved. At the time, you did not. The preliminary consensus was against your proposals. Nevertheless, you restored the content that you added to the page. I explained to you the reasons for this: the Formula 1 editors prefer to keep the page stable by discussing proposed changes first, and only including them once a consensus had been obtained. Yes, we are conservative, but we do that because the pages get a lot of unsolicited edits, particularly during this time of year when the rumour mill is in full swing. If I reverted your page for the third time, it was because you ignored these instructions. You did not have a consensus, but you saw fit to make changes anyway. You tried to give me some nonsense about how your changes were grammar-related and had nothing to do with changing the actual content of the page, but that is splitting hairs. You did not have consensus to make those changes.
Furthermore, I told you that if you wanted to make any changes to the page outside the grammar, you were welcome to. In particular, I noticed you wanted to change the {{main|(Grand Prix name)}} to {{main article|(Grand Prix name)}}. I have no issue with that, and if you had have changed that and that alone, then I would not have reverted it. Instead, you insisted that I had to be the one to go through and change all the grammar back to its original form if I had an issue with it. If you had have made an edit that changes those templates without touching the grammar, you would have earned yourself considerably more goodwill than you currently have.
Finally, your "attempts at resolving the controversial issue" with your final edit did not amount to much. I changed these for three reasons: 1) they weren't necessary, 2) preliminary consensus decided that the article was fine the way it was, and 3) they actual changes that you made here left the article with some very awkward sentences, such as "Lotus became known as Caterham, reflecting purchase of Caterham Cars by team principal Tony Fernandes". It surprises me that you made so little effort here, given that the majority of your edits have been concerned with grammar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
PS - Mj, I hope you don't mind my posting like this on your talk page. I saw cherkash's response and thought I might offer a rebuttal in the interests of making your job a little easier by saving you from sifting through pages and pages to find a response. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, you are clearly bent on splitting hairs, despite claims to the opposite. Mind-boggling: you wouldn't mind me changing the factual contents without building consensus first, but you were clearly very eager to aggressively go after me for trying to change grammar and re-work it to something that would be acceptable to all parties involved. That contradicts the claims to factual stability you pretend to maintain (around the time "rumour mill is in full swing") – since you are clearly more interested in formatting stability than in factual one.
In a good spirit of collaboration it would be better you further change "awkward" grammar (which wasn't that awkward, retaining the original meaning exactly) rather than keep reverting everything. So you have to admit there was a very clear intent on your side to involve in an edit war – and that's exactly what you continued doing despite my efforts to avoid it.
Also note, that by undoing all the edits I did, including those you said you agreed to – and the ones you said would earn me more goodwill – you still managed to mangle and destroy the repeated efforts to fix citation tags. This is a good example of why making incremental edits, instead of reverts/undo's, is always a preferred way to edit Wikipedia. cherkash (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Track gauge editor: sock?[edit]

Hi, do you thing that HTML2011 (talk · contribs) who started editing very recently, has concentrated on two areas (HTML and rail gauges) and who has already started twelve RMs, is a sock of TrackConversion (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Accesdates[edit]

I draw you attention to the talk page of St. Pancras, and the documentation of Template:Citation - which clearly states Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date.

All the accessdates I have removed are from stable, reliable, dated sources. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange coincidence[edit]

I don't suppose it's possible for the very thorough NYT to be taken in by "an anonymous investigation source" who happens to also be a nuisance at a certain on-line encyclopedia, is it? The coincidence just seems too strange. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) ... hang on, what's that frenzied banging I can hear?

@Martinevans123: Unlikely, the story was also being reported by Agence France Pressé as well. Such behaviour would be most unprofessional. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing of this editor's previous editing. It seems there are now calls to welcome him back. I'm pretty sure I'd react exactly the same way if I saw that kind of material at the Talk Page again. To me it was "outlandish speculation". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: The IP is likely to be him anyway. I'm not taking any notice. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Offer of help[edit]

@Mkmillenium: - I know you'll only blank it if I post a message on your talk page, so I'll post here instead.

Although I found that it was necessary to block you, I bear no malice towards you. My offer of help, which I posted on your talk page, still stands. If you wish to accept, just say so. Wikipedia is a big place, with lots of rules, guidelines, policies etc. It can be daunting to a beginner, let alone a seasoned editor like me (there's still stuff I need help on sometimes. Anyway, the offer remains open. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Use of photographs[edit]

I have opened a discussion of my use of my uploaded Commons photographs to augment architectural detail in churches here. As a contributor to a previous 2009 discussion on the use of photographs I would value your input on the notice board. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Date formats[edit]

Unfortunatelly I did it my way, and it will stay that way according to who ever added the template (in this case me): Template:Use dmy dates. I might be wrong, but oner of the admins here told me that if there is a template, do it that way, if there is non, feel free to edit it your way or add a template. Talk to @Ryan Vesey: and/or @Worm That Turned: for more in depth explanation. Plus, its not suppose to be a big deal and mdy dates are even better, because its much clearer on the tongue (since Wikipedia doesn't use of). O' and WP:TIES have nothing to do with our discussion. It talks about language styles, not dates, which I didn't violated.--Mishae (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: Please see WP:STRONGNAT for date formats. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Whatever. Still there was no template to notify an unsuspected user that this how I want it.--Mishae (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG issue[edit]

Re: this. What do we do with the flags already removed?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: - I restored them where they affected articles that I keep a weather eye on. The restorations were partly reverted insofar as the countries were unlinked. So the solution would appear to be to reinstate the flags using {{flagu}}. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Sweden[edit]

Just notifying you of my response[3] regarding the Swedish flag at Vasa (ship). I believe I acted in accordance with WP:BRD since I've raised the issue at flag of Sweden long before making this change. I've added some images of historical flags from the Swedish Maritime Museums to the flag article to underline my point.

Peter Isotalo 21:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Mjroots,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Draft:Local Dreamers[edit]

I've been trying to help User:Michel Geerligs with Draft:Local Dreamers. They have been doing everything correctly but the draft has been rejected twice now. I don't want you to override the two reviewers but I would appreciate it if you could look at the references. I have no idea if they are reliable or non-associated with the organisation. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cajon Pass wildfire[edit]

Hello! Been a while since we "chatted". I was hoping you could take a peak at "my" semi-new article, 2015 Cajon Pass wildfire. While a significant fire in its own right, I believe what truly makes it notable are the local, state and federal efforts to limit unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) activity in the vicinity of wildfires that came about as a result of UAV activity after this fire, as you will see documented within. Anyway, I have no notability concerns here, just thought you may wish to contribute to the article. I always appreciate your collaboration! Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

Hello Mjroots. I'm interested in the admin actions you've taken at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. There was a content dispute between an ip editor on one side and yourself and MilborneOne on the other. It appears as though you may have used your admin powers inappropriately here to exclude ip editors, thereby enabling your preferred version to prevail. Furthermore, as an active editor on the article you should not use admin powers, but rather, request actions from an uninvolved admin. Can you enlarge on what's happened here? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@MidnightBlueMan: It was not just the one IP that was causing trouble. I'd already mentioned to MilborneOne on his talk page that I thought the article might need semi-protection before the IP edit warred for the fourth time. Following the addition of poorly sourced/unsourced info to what is a Good Article a request was filed at RFPP, which I acceded to by a temporary, short-term semi-protection. It was not about my preferred version, but changing long-standing text without/against consensus that one IP was edit-warring about. Per BRD, once reverted, the issue should have been discussed, not warred over. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I see the article was un-protected, but then SP'd again after a short time. It's about time Wikipedia admitted it really doesn't want ip editors at all. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got nothing against IP editors who edit constructively. In this case, it was several IPs that weren't, hence it was easier to semi-protect the article. I had hoped that things would die down a bit, hence the relatively short period of protection. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your response. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New messages[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nathan A RF[edit]

I've given Nathan A RF (talk · contribs) a second uw-disruptive warning about cramming level †ing info into railway articles and WP:RDTs, but I suspect he'll just simply blank his talk page, same as last time, and merrily go on his way. Any suggestions about what to do about him? Useddenim (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I've reminded him that blanking his talk page means the message has been read and is understood. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice two related threads. I also replied at User talk:Redrose64#User:Nathan A RF. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection removal[edit]

Hi Mjroots - it should be ok to remove the full protection from Chartres now as the dissenting editors have been blocked as confirmed socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we edit conflicted in the protection removal. I had reduced it to semi-protection and you removed the protection altogether. I supposed we can just see how it goes, but I would expect an influx of new socks based on the IP ranges available to the sockmaster. Then again, maybe Aubmn will abide by their block, I'd love to be surprised by the actions of a sockmaster for once!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: The article was previously unprotected, which is why I restored it back to all editors allowed. I've proposed a topic ban for Aubmn over at ANI in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The August 2015 battle of Chartres[edit]

Mjroots, RE the notice you left yesterday on my talk page:

Per the above notice, it seems that there was a sockfarm involved. Consider yourself very lucky not to have been blocked per WP:EW. If this situation arises again, your first course of action should be to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Do not continue reverting, chances are that other editors will also agree and they are free to revert. Should there be no discussion at talk, or the war continues, WP:ANI is there to be used, so use it. Mjroots

Consider yourself very lucky not to have been blocked per WP:EW hit me as rather ironic considering what several editors and myself have endured for months - since June 2015 for me & as early as 2014 for others. The recent rampage at Chartres (and Welborn Griffith) could be understood only by one familiar with the disaster at the Marie Antoinette article. May I also point out that what you propose I do in case of edit warring: "raise the issue on the article's talk page" is exactly what was done at the Marie Antoinette talk page [4], action which, for months - beginning here[5], wasted a lot of editors' time & came to naught, until Flyer22 took matters into her own hands. Had the issue been brought to Chartres talk page, the battle would still be going on with single contributor (myself) fighting an army of socks for the next hundred years.

In view of the above, I personally do not consider myself very lucky not to have been blocked, but do consider that my doggedness at not abandoning the subject, at the risk of being kicked out of Wikipedia, forced the matter to finally be addressed again - under a different title, that of Chartres[6] - after it had been "archived".[7]

Finally, like Jezebel's Ponyo, I am not at all convinced that this is the end as long as anyone can open an anonymous account on en.wiki & immediately bring havoc to articles. This is not possible to do at de.wiki, where edits by new contributors must be reviewed by a veteran wiki contributor before being accepted - and the new editor has to have accomplished over 200 edits before being allowed to go non-supervised. Moreover, one fact is certain: what happened at Chartres is an obvious example of the fact that I am being stalked, as done here: [8] by [9]. What has been removed had been brought to article by me[10]. Additionally, you will notice who had contributed to article, only to be reversed. My belief is that there is a huge problem at Wikipedia and, if serious contributors are not protected, they will go away and, in the end, it might be the end of Wikipedia.

If my reason(s) for persevering at the Chartres & Welborn Griffith articles, as others and myself had done at Marie Antoinette, had condemned me, so be it: as I stated earlier somewhere, my actions were "for the good of the cause".

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: For the record, if I had blocked you for edit warring, I would have been justified in doing so. One reason for blocking is the prevention of further disruption. With the sockfarm now closed down, there is less liklihood of this occurring. As you will see from my user page, I've been an admin for quite some time now. One develops a sixth sense as to who is editing with good intentions and who is not, even if such editing could be seen as problematic in some circumstances. With my report at ANI, you can be sure that more editors will be watching the article, and any further disruption will be stamped upon quickly and hard.
You are lucky in that it was me that raised the issue and then decided not to block you once the full picture was known. Other admins may well have blocked you. I don't like blocking editors where it is avoidable, but I will block anyone should it prove necessary.
If further disruption occurs - you mention the Welborn Griffith article - then don't fight the war alone. Ask for help, that way you cover yourself. Wikiprojects are good places to ask if you wish to avoid the catfight that ANI can become on occasions. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots, I am glad that you came upon the scene: when I received your notice, I knew exactly what you were doing. From the beginning (Marie Antoinette/June 2015) I may not have handled the affair in a conventional manner according to wiki rules, but the whole Aubmn saga is now over or, should I say, Aubmn has been openly identified as a trouble maker, although I do not believe that it really is the end of him. And since I am the one he is after, obvious when one sees that he comes to every article I work on & either reverts or brings illiterate changes, then in my opinion, it was worth taking the risk.
In my note to you above, I intended to ask that you do not take it as criticism of you: I just wanted you to understand the "why" of my conduct. Since he first logged in at Wikipedia, Aubmn has not only been disruptive, but destructive as well, doing a lot of damage to articles. It is a shame that individuals such as him use the freedom of Wikipedia to curtail the freedom of serious contributors to Wikipedia.
Now, since it is also recognized that Aubmn has gone on the war path against me, tracking my every move at Wikipedia, maybe steps will be taken to avoid another battle of Chartres, or the cheap obsessed above & below the belt inappropriate details regarding Marie Antoinette.
Flyer22 has been a great support in this case, as it is thanks to her action that it could be handled beyond a simple case of edit warring at the Chartres article,
Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 August[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your advice being followed[edit]

Mjroots, Would you mind checking this [11], who quickly turned into this[12].

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)

Reference errors on 17 August[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 August[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Re SS Meriwether Lewis[edit]

Sources cited at SS Meriwether Lewis 67.101.6.98 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at talk:SS Meriwether Lewis, as you will be aware by now. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Arras attack[edit]

looks like we were both doing the same thing. I'll pull out of the article for now. Additional sources The Guardian and NBC News. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mjroots. Yes, I just removed the duplicate Infobox. The one you added have more info so it was better. Don't hesitate to edit, I'm not planning to add more info for the moment. --Deansfa (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wendhausen Windmill[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@SuperCarnivore591: If there's anyone edit warring, it is you. Removal of content that fails core policies such as WP:V and WP:RS is not, by any stretch, edit warring. Nor is the removal of names from the article when there was already a consensus, backed by policy that they were not to be included. If you want to take this further, the WP:ANI is thataway, but you'll need to be aware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Pinging SuperCarnivore591 as I messed up the first ping. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No consensus yet, discussion is ongoing. You're being trigger-happy. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

List of windmills in Kent[edit]

There is a convert problem in List of windmills in Kent. Searching for "convert:" (with the colon) finds a problem due to {{convert|1|fulong|m}} (typo for "furlong"). I was going to fix that, but I noticed a bigger problem due to convert being rather dumb. The following two converts illustrate the issue. The first is what is currently present (there are several like this); it is broken. The second shows a workaround I just created (uppercase "M" in "Mi"):

  • {{convert|1|mi|5|furlong|km}} → 1 mile 5 furlongs (2.6 km)
  • {{convert|1|Mi|5|furlong|km}} → 1 Mi[convert: unknown unit]

The first convert fails because mi is not defined as having furlong as a subdivision. That makes it interpret the 5 as the number of decimal places of rounding, and the furlong and km are then ignored because the convert is finished. The default output for mi is km, so it shows km anyway. Convert is very complex and it's not easy to fix the broken behavior. I can't fix the mi unit at the moment, so I added Mi. It will probably be a long time (a couple of months) before I manage to issue another convert release. That will fix mi to work with furlong. At that time I will notice where Mi is used and will edit the article to replace it with mi.

What all that means is as follows. Please fix the "fulong" typo, and change "mi" to "Mi" in each of the following:

{{convert|2|mi|3|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|4|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|4|furlong}}
{{convert|1|mi|5|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|6|furlong}}
{{convert|1|mi|4|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|5|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|2|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|2|furlong|km}}
{{convert|1|mi|2|furlong|km}}

You can also use "Mi" in the other converts if wanted. I thought it would be better to explain all this and get you to do it when ready. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: OK, thanks for that, will fix. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: as horse races in the UK are expressed in miles and furlongs, it might be worth dropping a note at the talk page of the Wikiproject explaining the situation. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but maybe later. If they have been using miles/furlongs for a while, someone would have noticed that it wasn't working, but no one has brought it up at Template talk:Convert. By the way, I notice that {{convert|1|mi|furlong|km}} above is missing the number of furlongs. Convert handles ranges and composite units (like miles/chains/yards/feet), and more, and that makes detecting an obvious mistake difficult—convert stops looking at the parameters once it has what it thinks is enough. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That was an error, it has been corrected to 1 mile 2 furlongs. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bexhill branch[edit]

Thank you for your message. I've put a pdf version of the article at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-kbQyEEQ606MndaNDlLaTQyRlk/view?usp=sharing. I don't think the article needs much more adding to it, but do so if you wish. I could probably improve the photos, but presumably they're still copyright, so I'm only sharing this link with you.Johnragla (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in the 1720s[edit]

Hi. Could you please review the June 9 entry under 1727? It appears that something is missing at "wrecked off the...". Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD SPEEDY KEEP[edit]

Hi. Can you close out this AfD. I am the nominator and am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. Quis separabit? 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to keep that SNOWBALL rolling. Quis separabit? 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in July 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vought Corsair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons links[edit]

Hi, re this edit: instead of [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&since=&until=&img_user_text=Mjroots&order=-img_timestamp&max=25&order=-img_timestamp&format=html Photos I've uploaded to Commons] you could try [[c:Special:ListFiles/Mjroots|Photos I've uploaded to Commons]]Photos I've uploaded to Commons or [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Mjroots Photos I've uploaded to Commons]Photos I've uploaded to Commonsdepending on which one you prefer the appearance of. Also, instead of [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mjroots Commons page] you can use [[c:User:Mjroots|Commons page]]Commons page --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?[edit]

Discussion going nowhere. I'm not going to accede to the demand for reasons stated. WP:ANI is available if you really must continue. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (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.

Is there a reason why you think it is acceptable to not only move an article, but then protect it? That's called being WP:INVOLVED. Please revert your changes at once, and attain consensus for such a change in an RM. Otherwise, I will be forced to take action against you. RGloucester 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

An admin, that's who. Issue is being discussed at WT:UKT#FGW to GWR. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You are no administrator. If you've edited an article as a regular editor, you cannot use your administrative tools. Revert your changes, or see yourself sanctioned. RGloucester 16:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I am. I haven't. I won't and I won't. WP:ANI is thattaway!. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Unrepentant? Again, I ask, who do you think you are? Your action here is outrageous, and will be dealt with as appropriate. RGloucester 16:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The action that is needed is to discuss the issue at the venue where it had been raised. There was already consensus for the move to be made when it was appropriate to do so. Just because no RM was filed doesn't make the move invalid. Many more moves are done without RMs being filed than with them. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Your venue is incorrect. WikiProjects have no domain over page moves. Your cabal-like attempts to circumvent policy and process, to use administrative tools whilst involved, these will be dealt with. An RM must be held, and policy must be followed. This move was controversial, and should not've been made without an RM. You should not've protected an article you were involved with. RGloucester 17:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for a RM. The issue has been fully discussed and consensus previously established for the move to be made when it was appropriate to do so (i.e. today). You really ought to do your research before coming here with demands that page moves are made against consensus; and that protection put in place to prevent such moves against such consensus is removed. It's not going to happen. For the record, moving an article and then move protecting it (the sum total of my edits on the article in question) does not make me in any way WP:INVOLVED in editing the article as a "regular editor". The move was decided, other issues related to the company's change of name are being discussed. This discussion here is now CLOSED. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (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.

Request at WP:RMTR mentioning one of your actions[edit]

Please see this request. You can reply there if you wish. I don't know the background of any of this, just want you to be aware. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in October 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Category merger[edit]

I got a little lost on the WP:CfD page; I just merged the B-class destroyer into a renamed A- and B-class destroyer article (formerly A-class destroyer (1929)) and now need to merge their two categories. Can you walk me through the process, since I'm unsure if they qualify for speedy merging or not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Not 100% sure, but looking at the A- and B-class destroyer article, there is a redlinked category which needs to be created and populated, then the relevant A and B class destroyer categories need to be redirected to the new category. BTW, the hatnote needs expanding to cover the earlier (1913) B-class destroyers.
It might pay to double check this. Not doing much on Wiki atm due to a family illness - a question of priorities mostly. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

railway templatre diagram (for israel)[edit]

Hi Mjroots,

over at WP:RFD a couple of needless redirects were up for discussion by author and speedily deleted per WP:G7, these are for the Template:Railway line Israel Hod HaSharon Be'er Sheva. That author has done sterling work in making this, but I think we should have a couple of right arrows at the junctions. You're the one who taught me how to do them, for the branch of the Ipswich to Ely Line, and I will have a go but always will cock it up, so can you please put your expert eyes over it after I I cock it up?

Thanks

Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: - I've already done it. Quite easy really, but needed extra width in the diagram to accommodate the arrows. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in December 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalupiri Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in February 1945, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yulin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Thank you for the Hastings Line, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in May 1945, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oshima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SS Berne[edit]

Did you mean the SS Beme?
Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wiki-psyc: - yes, but it is SS Beme (1945), not SS Beme (1904). I've now fixed this. Mjroots (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash[edit]

Thank you for an intervention. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, I have noticed that Deeday continues with a deemed of creating a conspiracy theory section. Could you please extend a lock on this page for a longer time as per MilbornOne's recommendation? Its due to expire tomorrow. Im agreeing on some things with you guys (creation a separate page for the Smolensk Conference) but on others I strongly disagree (independents scholars findings "conspiracy theories") The page should stay as it is for a while until all gets cooled down to prevent another edit war. Thank you so much. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in August 1945 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Shimoda and Nishiyama
List of shipwrecks in February 1943 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Westkapelle
List of shipwrecks in June 1942 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Operation Harpoon
List of shipwrecks in March 1945 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Großendorf
List of shipwrecks in the 1750s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falmouth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 October[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1755 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Galicia
List of shipwrecks in 1757 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Faro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in the 1750s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand Turk
List of shipwrecks in the 1760s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kentish Knock

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 November[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1764 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Montrose, Figueira and Onega
List of shipwrecks in 1761 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Douglas Bay

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

French train derailment[edit]

This just happened. 5 dead, 7 injured. Notable enough for an article? [13] I hope you are well. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has created the article. I haven't been involved yet. Eckwersheim train crash. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cary train crash[edit]

Hello! Just getting started on a new train crash article, 2015 Cary train crash. I have a lot of work to do. I have read reference after reference, and have so far not found the trains operator. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Reference errors on 17 November[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Airlines[edit]

Dear moderator, this article: Azerbaijan Airlines was edited according to official information. I'm an employee of this company. You can check information on official website. Please revert to my edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarki-Wiki (talkcontribs) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish Air Crash[edit]

Mjroots, please lock Polish Air Crash Page. D-dayUK inserted "Conspiracy theories" section and removed huge amount of information. That wasn't decided in latest discussion. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, find reliable, mainstream, independent sources that present the assassination theory as a credible idea and I'll be the first one to add it to the article. Otherwise, the Conspiracy theories section is there to stay, and stay no bigger than that (and no: anonymous, politically biased and ad-hoc created websites like the various smolenskcrash.whatever do not count as reliable, mainstream, independent sources). --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We have been there already DeedayUK, (see talk page). Stop pushing your POV and stop removing sourced information.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we discussed it before, and nobody said that you were right, in case you didn't notice. Plenty of reliable sources describe the ideas you keep pushing as conspiracy theories (to repeat myself: BBC, The Economist, TIME, The Times, New York Times, Al Jazeera etc), so the article will reflect it. Get over it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You AGAIN removed all sourced information and inserted your own POV against the advice to keep the page without "conspiracy theories" section. Move this discussion to talk page. Mjroots please lock this page mean time. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Deeday, here is an opinion that further editing supposed to be based on (in case you forgot): " Been asked to look at this discussion and the related edit war and I have to recommend that we change the text back to the stable version at 14:37 19 September 2015. I cant see any of the recent additions adding anymore to what the Law and Justice investigation section in that version says without clearly breaking WP:UNDUE. Adding info on the so called Smolensk Conferences does nothing for the article other than act as a promotional material. We dont need a conspiracy section as most of the major points are covered in the Law and Justice investigation section per 14:37 19 September 2014. If the users think that the Smolensk Conferences is notable and encyclopedic value then they should consider a seperate article on that conference and defend it at an AfD if required but is has no place here. And also to support Mjroots keeping the article locked as it is clear some users will not drop the stick. Thanks, MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" I have followed that recommendation, you DID NOT by introducing " conspiracy theories" section. Please do not push your way DeeDay. Regards, ThanksGizzyCatBella (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in the 1760s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topsham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a minute[edit]

Hi Mjroots. I've been working on the article Miss Belvedere, which needed some help, and I was wondering if you could look it over when you have some time. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1768 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochefort
List of shipwrecks in 1771 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Saint Vincent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1772 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Blakeney and Blackwall
List of shipwrecks in 1773 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Isle of Pines and Dysart
List of shipwrecks in 1774 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guyon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 December[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1774 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Grande Terre and Muscat
List of shipwrecks in 1775 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mounts Bay
List of shipwrecks in 1778 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Egg Harbor, New Jersey
List of shipwrecks in 1779 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Egg Harbor, New Jersey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Eckwersheim derailment[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1782 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Burbo Bank and Lapland
List of shipwrecks in 1780 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cork
List of shipwrecks in 1781 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deadman's Bay
List of shipwrecks in 1783 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ballycastle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


Seasons greetings[edit]

Thanks for your work on things that float, crash and sink for 2015
Have a safe and enjoyable christmas season
Best wishes JarrahTree 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: Thanks; you too! Mjroots (talk)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1783 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bencoolen and Tortuga
List of shipwrecks in 1786 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Arran and Marennes
List of shipwrecks in 1785 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochefort

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Mjroots![edit]

Arpenteur[edit]

Thanks for you kind words, infobox is added now. This is my first effort at an article on a ship and I have no expertise in the area. If you notice anything that is incorrect, or have any advice on how to improve, could you please let me know? I want to write a couple more articles on wrecks in my local area. Best Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2016 (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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1787 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Speedwell and Lancaster
List of shipwrecks in 1786 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Isle of France

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year![edit]

"MJ fest" 2016

Hi Rootsy, have some misty. Only sorry I never sent you a Christmas card! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thanks, although I'm not heavily into Christmas (can't stand all the over the top stuff). Reggae not really my type of music, but each to their own. HNY to you too. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Lucky with my third choice, then. Very best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Not all Reggae is bad, although I wish I knew if the lead singer of this song is the same person. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Blimey! That brings it all back! Wow, I have never heard that X-Certificate single, How wonderful before. Not even any mention of that here. All I can send you, in return, is this, which was one of the first "reggae" records I ever heard, and which I still think is wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Ah, I'm more familiar with a version by a bunch of Scousers! Now, what about this? Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1790 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Sunderland and Onega
List of shipwrecks in 1791 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgetown
List of shipwrecks in 1792 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dysart

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

New article that may interest you[edit]

I just started a new article tonight: 2016 US Marine helicopter collision. The jist is, two giant military cargo helicopters destroyed, and 12 US Marines lost. Sad day for Hawaii, and indeed all of the US. You and I have collaborated on similar articles before, so I thought this might interest you. I want to expand it further, but I'm exhausted and I'm done for the night. I'll check back in tomorrow. Maybe someone will beat me to it. Juneau Mike (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Juneau Mike: Not much that I can add. Tail numbers would be nice to have. I'm sure these will become know in the coming days. Beware of deletionists! Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Michaelh2001: - it's late, the booze has kicked in. This ping should work! Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated!! It has been a rough several months for the Marines. Seven Marines and four Army died last March in this incident, 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash, and eight died during another crash in the Himalayas after the Nepalese quake last May.
I don't mean to be morbid, but I don't see how the twelve missing Marines from last Fridays incident could still be alive. It will be going on the fifth day of searching in a few hours, and all four of the life rafts (which probably auto-deployed when the helicopters were destroyed) were empty and showed no signs of ever being occupied. I did find a nice, aerial photo of the Marine base the two helicopters departed from, and added that to the article. Again, thanks for your input, as always!Juneau Mike (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, at this point there won't have been any survivors. That and the loss of two of the largest helicopters in US service adds weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The search was ended yesterday, after the helicopters were found on the ocean floor. As the expression goes, I don't believe in coincidences. Thought you might want an update. Thanks for your interest in the article.Juneau Mike (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The article just needs a bit of structure and it should be fine. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1793 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Falmouth, Malabar and River Frome
List of shipwrecks in 1795 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Falmouth and Ballycastle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1797, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dartmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1799 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Topsham, Dysart, Mounts Bay and Lucea
List of shipwrecks in 1798 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Saint Pierre
List of shipwrecks in 1800 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rattray

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help test[edit]

Can you paste the following:

@media only screen and (max-width:768px) {
	div.thumb {
		float: none;
		clear: none;
		margin: .5em auto;
	}
	div.thumbinner {
		margin: 0 auto;
		max-width: 100%;
	}
	div.thumbinner img {
		max-width: 100%;
		height: auto;
	}
}

in your personal style page and save ? Then reduce the 768 value in there to the point where this does not take affect for you anymore. Just edit and save a couple of times. Afterwards, you can simply remove the whole piece again from that page. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry![edit]

Didn't see the editing template. It's not normally used on articles such as this that are linked from ITN suggestions. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I just wanted 10 mins to bash a bit of shape into the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Might have been best to hold off the nomination for ITN-C, as you'll automatically get every awake ITN editor tramping all over it! I'll leave it alone for now, anyway. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought the same too, should have bashed it into shape first then nominated. Oh well, live and learn. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bayerische Oberlandbahn RDT[edit]

How do you figure that this change adds ”better conversion of height”? Useddenim (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: because height above sea level is measured in feet, not yards. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. And the length of the Großhesselohe Bridge? Useddenim (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Hmmm, tricky. Not clear that it's a length. Possibly could be expressed either way. No objection to a revert there if you feel that yards is better. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1801 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Calmar
List of shipwrecks in 1802 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bute

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in February 1945[edit]

hello Mjroots, i've noticed, that in the List of shipwrecks in February 1945 there are 3 landing crafts (Siebelgefäß) listed to be sunk on 6 February 1945. But opposed to this info, another source says they were all lost on 6 February 1943, see here http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=62 for IO 16, http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=70 for IO 30 and http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=71 for IO 31. cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Agentjoerg: I've taken a look, and they are referenced to Navypedia. Not a site I am familiar with. By all means remove them and add them to the February 1943 list with the references above which do meet WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Agentjoerg: Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I mess up the reply to template, sou you won't have been notified.

ok, I'll do that. thanks for the quick response. --Agentjoerg (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 February[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 February[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Getting help deleting content on other Wikipedias[edit]

If you need content deleted on other Wikipedias (such as the list of "victims" for the accident), the best way to get it handled is:

  1. Follow the following link, replacing the "en" with the language of the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop
  2. For each user on the list, check if the user speaks English:
    • Look at the user's userpage (if it isn't a red link); there may be Babel boxes there. An en-4 is probably good enough for yopu to ask for help.
    • See if the user has an account on English Wikipedia; if so, assess the user's English level from his/her edit.
  3. Once you've found one such user, ask him/her for help.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: - many thanks, had already done that, and appealed via equivalent of WP:AN. I was alerted to he he-Wiki problem by e-mail after the others had been dealt with. I knew you are a native Hebrew speaker with good English, which is why I asked you for help. All sorted now. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots …and as the person who handled most of WP:AN#How to handle a BLP violation?, would you be able to have a read over User talk:Phoenix7777#WP:BLPEL and review the revert discussed there (intentionally not directly linked to try to avoid more potential meta clean-up + revdels later if it goes in the that direction). (The link has been back on the article's Talk page for about half a day now). —Sladen (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: - you mean the edit on the article talk page early this morning which added nearly 1kb of text? Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots, yes, the insertion of +922 bytes, careful removal of -130 bytes, and its re-insertion of +332 bytes; resulting in opening of the discussion above. —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sladen - Yes check.svg Done Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots, sadly not quite! The middle of those revisions (-130) should be fine to leave visible, aswell as the last redaction I've just made again (-79); but it's the revisions in the middle that contain the link. Plus, ideally encouragement to the user to avoid further reintroductions. —Sladen (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots, and the remaining revisions? (08:13, 19:39, 19:47). Though please only do this if you completely understand the issue, and agree with it—as I was mainly after a second independent opinion before taking the action which you've already gone ahead and partly done. —Sladen (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, now I think I need a second opinion! @Redrose64: are we going to need to revdel those revisions of talk:Bad Aibling rail accident or not. The issue is links to external site that is in breach of BLP. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I revdel'd the three mentioned by Sladen. But I think that this one didn't need to be revdel'd, as the link concerned is not in it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Unhidden. Hopefully we are now where we need to be. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I will bring this issue to WP:AN later. If we cannot write a link to a news which includes BLP to the talk page, we cannot discuss even whether the inclusion of the BLP to the article is a BLP violation or not. WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLP1E says about the inclusion to article not Talk page. Also the reason WP:RD2 is hardly applicable.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: You are quite at liberty to do that, but be aware that people who raise issues at ANI can get hit by boomerangs.
It is late here and I probably won't be responding there before tomorrow morning. WP:RD2 is the only one available for BLP violations, therefore it is entirely appropriate. I accept that your editing was in good faith, which is why I was content to leave administrative action at deleting revisions. I haven't even posted any warnings on your talk page for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI. These sources include the names of victims which apparently against WP:BLPNAME if the names were included in the body of the article. If you wish to revdel, feel free to do so.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Phoenix7777: I'm not getting involved in a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Consensus established with the article in question was that a) the names orginally posted constituted a serious BLP violation; b) that the names originally posted were, in at least some cases, false; c) none of the victims was a Wikinotable person; and d) there was no need to name the victims.
You went against that consensus by posting the links which have been revision deleted. I don't care whether they are the same as the original names claimed, or the actual victims. Now, if you really want to take this further WP:ANI is the correct venue to raise the issue. Your call. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override policies or guidelines per WP:CONLIMITED. I don't think the content is a serious BLP violation. However even so, WP:BLPTALK permit to include it as a link to such content as I did. Also the name of a driver written in the German newspaper to which I gave a link in the talk page is composed of his given name and an initial of his family name, J*r*en F.. Do you think it is still "a serious BLP violation"?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that your link contained the names of the actual victims, then it was not a serious BLP violation. If it was a link to the same names posted earlier, then it was a serious violation. I'm taking it on good faith that your edit was the former. When using the tools to perform a REVDEL, there is a drop-down menu to chose the reason for the deletion. It only gives the option of "serious BLP violation". Given the problems caused across multiple Wikis, I took the cautious approach and REVDEL'd your edits per a request received here. I take it you've never had the occasion to edit he-Wiki? That was certainly an experience. Now, if you wish to discuss the names of the victims and whether or not they should be included, and whether or not BLP is breached given that the accident was a week ago, talk:Bad Aibling rail accident is the correct venue. You may find that things have changed given the timeframe. When the original edits were made, it was possible that next-of-kin had not been informed (assuming at the time that the names were correct), hence the serious violation. You wouldn't want to find out from Wikipedia that you had lost someone close to you, would you? Bad as it is, at least you'd hope that proper protocols were followed and that the appropriate person was the informant. This is why TV and Radio news programmes take extreme care not to name victims until they know that next-of-kin have been informed. They can get into serious trouble otherwise. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix7777; I'd echo this. Things will change in time: ie. an official list will eventually be published, and memorial stone created with names. An officially published list is going to treat all equally and there will plenty of material for newspapers to write about, and so for Wikipedia to reflect. At the moment tabloids are stalking names from Facebook. ≈150 people were involved; the counts of the injuried, and even fatalities, have changed in the last days. —Sladen (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) By contrast, the two air incidents you highlighted had believed-complete lists. Both incidents involved in 100% fatalities without risk of mis-identification or change in status. The lists were released by official entities.

British Ensigns[edit]

Hi mjroots, The use of white and red ensigns on pre-1864 vessels to distinguish between naval and civilian vessels is a useful anachronism. Per British Ensign, post-1864 the Blue Ensign undefaced today is worn by masters of vessels in possession of a warrant issued by the Director of Naval Reserves, and by the members of certain yacht clubs. Pre-1864 the white, red, and blue ensigns designated different British naval fleets. However, as naval vessels would transfer between fleets, trying to keep track of which ensign HMS Pinafore flew when would be pedantic and uselessly laborious. I am not aware that any of Hadlow's masters was a naval officer. There were cases where the Admiralty would appoint a naval officer to be captain of a civilian ship. The hired armed vessels represent one case. I recall that on certain occasions local naval commanders would put a naval officer in command of a civilian transport hired to support a military expedition. In these cases I suspect that the vessels might have flown the Union Jack while under military command. Otherwise, like all merchant vessels, they would have flown the red ensign. Or at least that is my understanding. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dalfsen train crash for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalfsen train 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/Dalfsen train 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. The Banner talk 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

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

British Rail Classes 201, 202 and 203 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Generator and St Leonards
List of shipwrecks in 2014 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cabinda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

SS Indigirka[edit]

You have a new talk page message.

I noticed you had reverted this editor and thought I should let you know that they have made numerous edits like this to various ship and milhist article infoboxes. I've had to revert literally dozens and dozens, where they did test edits with markup, added unsourced info, or tried to tailor or add non-existent infobox parameters. I've tried communicating with this user repeatedly; I've left messages, a welcome template, multiple notifications and warnings, but they refuse to engage on any talk page and just continually blank their user page. I wouldn't call it vandalism as I believe they're trying to help, but they create just as much work for others as they contribute. If you could help out here that would appreciated. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, this editor is still at it, making multiple edits to ship infoboxes, many of which have to be corrected. (for example; his edit, and your correction) If you could help keep an eye on his contribs, it would be appreciated. They are almost exclusively to ship article infoboxes. Perhaps if you could post a word of advice on his talk page, it might help? I've tried ad nauseum, but any comments, notices or warnings that anyone adds to his talk page, are blanked without a response, so it's been impossible to engage this editor in any constructive dialogue (this might have something to do with it, but I'm not sure). There is potential here for this editor though, after many requests, he has finally taken to adding edit summaries, so there is some responsiveness there. Anyways, if you think you can help, that would be great. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1804, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wemyss and Kentish Knock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1804, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caernarvon and Anglo-Spanish War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
mills and ships
...you were recipient
no. 1152 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 March[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rail accidents[edit]

Hey roots. I spent a few hours trying to reference the rail accident in Philadelphia. On the second attempt I uploaded scanned original documentation from the railroad. I read the section for beginners, and could not see why my references don't count. How can you beat raw, original material. Rather than just taking my post down, why not work with what I have an fix it. Redcoat (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this edit from June 2014? That was added at a time when I was culling unreferenced entries from the various lists, per the policy on verification. The entry is currently in the article, but I would ask that it be removed. Thousands of trackworkers worldwide are killed. Tragic though this is, it is almost always a non-notable event. Of course, there are the very rare exceptions, such as the Tebay rail accident. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1806 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to São Miguel
List of shipwrecks in 2016 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shimen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miramar[edit]

Thought you would have signed up for this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks, but I don't really need it. Not creating many ship articles atm as working on lists of shipwrecks. Know who to ask if I need to. Let someone more active in that area have the access. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1807, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Onega and Saltburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

London, Chatham and Dover Railway[edit]

Please explain why WP:JOBTITLES should not apply to justice of the peace in this article. Chris the speller yack 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: It's correct grammar. Where a job title is normally rendered by letters, then the phrase is a Proper Noun and is capitalized. You wouldn't write "queen Elizabeth II", "John Doe, member of parliament" or "Joe Bloggs, member of the european parliament", would you? Same goes for JPs, Sherrifs, High Sherrifs and similar ranks. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)`
I have moved this discussion to WT:MOSCAPS#Yipes. Now justice of the peace needs to be capitalized if it's in the UK?. Chris the speller yack 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Hidden[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK, MJR. Good work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Atdrag[edit]

Hi Mj, can't remember if I invited you into this this or not, but somewhere I think you said you're busy in RL. You're very welcome to contribute, even if not to the contest and dislikes prizes. Perhaps something in the transport section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles interests you. I was considering actually working on the Bristol Channel article. Getting that to GA would be quite something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1808, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abaco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

German submarine U-1102[edit]

This article was categorized under Maritime incidents in 1945. The sub was scuttled, to me that doesn't seem an incident. The category U-boats scuttled in 1945 would seem appropriate but the category page says it is for U-boats only scuttled in May 1945. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. Can you please give me some input? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - a scuttling qualifies as a maritime incident. The correct category is Category:Maritime incidents in December 1945, which I have added to the article. As for the Category:U-boats scuttled in 1945, it may need either renaming or its scope changing. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A mutual talk page ban was not what was proposed or supported[edit]

If your interpretation of the ANI discussion was that there was not enough support for a mutual IBAN between myself and John Carter, you should have specified as much in your close. I requested an interaction ban with John Carter for a number of reasons, not just to do with my talk page;John Carter accepted the proposal, and it was supported by virtually everyone else to boot. I know my request was poorly formatted and I was very long-winded in some of my responses, and if your interpretation was that this merited rejecting my request I will accept that, but this probably should have been written into your close. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

SS Hopestar[edit]

Hello, You recently helped with the article SS Hopestar and I would like to ask your help again. I would like to put the crew list on the page. I got the info independantly from The Newcastle Chronicle but also from FIND MY PAST. i Have 2 jpegs from FMP and asked them if I could use them. Here is their reply;

Dear Edward

Thank you for your email.

As this would be classed as 'educational/personal' purposes, there shouldn't be any issues with reposting the information, given that you provide a correct citation to the page at FMP.

We do have to approve uses of records in for-retail products, but given the nature of Wikipedia's work, you can amend the article accordingly.

I hope this resolves your query.

With kind regards,


Brett Murray Findmypast Support Team

Did you know? The 1939 Register is now included within both the 12 month Britain and World subscriptions, allowing unlimited access to 30.5 million people’s records.

If you would prefer to speak with our Customer Support team, please call us on +44 (0) 20 3326 6300 between 9am and 5.30pm (GMT) Monday to Friday


My problem is I dont know how to prove to the censors that I have permission to repost. Can you help nplease. Thanx Sherlockh22 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I-ban[edit]

FWIW, I think the post made by the IP was made by someone at the seminary where I am typing this who I have been discussing various possibilities regarding a parallel Bible project on the WF and gathering together material for a still theoretical interdenominational i-phone "saint of the day" app to be maybe based at least in part of WF material. I did make the mistake of giving out my alias to one of the staff here, and mentioned one of the most problematic cases I could think of in recent times regarding the editors here. But, no problems. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think the comments made by Hijiri88 here, here, and I think most importantly here qualify as violations of his topic bans as per the Arbitration case to be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 or not? Speaking strictly for myself, I have never been even remotely convinced he has ever made much if any effort to understand policies and guidelines, and certainly has rarely if ever given much indication that he understands how they might apply to him. Certainly, Hijiri88 requesting Sturmgewehr88 to file an AE request because Hijiri wasn'ty sure he could himself, as per here,. does not inspire one with confidence. Also, as per the Arb page somewhere, Sturmgewehr88 states rather directly that he had no idea where I got the idea individual editors here are responsible for their own actions, which certainly does nothing to indicate to me that Sturmgewehr88's grasp of policy and guidelines is any better than Hijiri88's. Between Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey and Hijiri88, as more than one editor indicated in the AtbCom case request section, there seems to exist an extremely close relationship, which often seems to be to me, at least in relation to policies and guidelines, the blind leading the blind, as only Curly Turkey of the three has ever even remotely shown to me any particular grasp of policies or conduct guidelines. I am not myself necessarily sure that AE would necessarily be the best way to go with this matter, although I might be wrong of course, but I do think that it would very much be in Hijiri8's own best interests if someone were to make it plain to him exactly how far his topic ban extends, and what he is and is not permitted to do under it. My own impression right now is that any hope he might have of having the topic ban lifted after one year is already pretty much gone, but it might be reasonable to specifically indicate to him that the lifting of the ban is contingent on his engaging in acceptable behavior regarding that matter, something I am not sure I have seen from him yet. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I have no reservations about forgetting about him whatsoever. I would be more than happy to do so. However, as someone who has, by my own clear declaration, been receiving e-mails regarding the conduct of that editor for over a year now, e-mails as they come in serve as a form of reminder, whether I want them to or not. If the individual(s) sending the e-mails were to stop sending them, I personally wouldn't have any reservations about forgetting the name for all time. But I am less than convinced that some of those e-mails from others will stop, or whether they necessarily should be stopped, although, I hope to God, e-mails from Hijiri88 such as the one I mentioned at ANI stop. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
such as the one I mentioned at ANI The implication here -- that the email JC mentioned was different from the one I disclosed in full -- is completely untrue. I have only ever sent JC one email, and it was that one. "e-mails from Hijiri88" "stopped" six months ago. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@John Carter: I'll add my ¢2 since you had a tangent about me without pinging me. Where you talk about editors' responsibility for their own actions, you completely misrepresented that argument. I was explaining WP:NPOV to you, and your response quite clearly shows that either you completely reject that policy or are totally ignorant of it. "Editors aren't responsible for how readers interpret articles", complete bollocks! And actually, the bond between Hijiri, CurlyTurkey, myself, and a few others mind you, is our opposition to a small group of editors consisting of you, AlbinoFerret, Catflap, CurtisNaito, and TH1980. There is no less collusion between you than there is between us. At least we can say that we've improved articles more than adding megabytes to the noticeboards. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

None of those edits are about "Japanese culture", and two out of three of them don't mention anything even remotely related to Japan -- the third was a response to a request from another user to translate something for him off-wiki. John Carter is here continuing his year-long pattern of following me around and trying to wikilawyer me into a block. Also, anyone who wants to block me based on John Carter's dubious reports of me violating a TBAN he clearly either doesn't understand or is deliberately misrepresenting should read this first.

It's also worth pointing out that John Carter just admitted to (inadvertently) engaging in meatpuppetry in order to continue his harassment of me.

I really would like to just forget about this whole incident, but ... I don't know ... if this disruption continues I guess I'll just have to draft another ANI thread.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Sorry, I just noticed this. Thank you for carefully analyzing my edits before blocking me for TBAN violations. I am not sure what the "YHM notification" refers to -- if you want clarification that I could provide I'm sure I would be happy to, as I have not done anything that would qualify as an IBAN or TBAN violation in a very long time. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Hijiri, please keep a distance from the Japanese thing. John, bringing up an editor with whom you have a problem in the way you described which then leads to someone posting, that's unwise, in my opinion. Mjroots, remember the good old days when we were innocent editors writing up wind mills and lighthouses? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Ah yes, those were the days. I suggest that all parties disengage. The way things are going, we are either going to end up a ANI discussing a CBAN, or there'll be an Arbcom case. Neither of which are likely to end happily. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1810, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Start Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hillsborough disaster[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 27 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hillsborough disaster, 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1809, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manilla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft[edit]

Does 2016 Turøy helicopter crash meet the list inclusion criteria. Fixuture (talk · contribs) added an entry for it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: The transfer of personnel from shore to rig and vice versa is a commercial operation, so on that basis, the answer is yes. If by "commercial" you mean "airline" (scheduled and charter flights), then no. If you want to restrict the list to airline operations, then best to start a discussion on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I meant whether the helicopter net the inclusion guidelines[14]. Is it big enough an aircraft?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: "Max takeoff weight: 11,200 kg (24,692 lb)" - yes, it's big enough. Over 20,000lb MTOW. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Shipwreck templates[edit]

I got your note about the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwreck templates I eventually will get to. (I have done 1962-1968 and plan to work backward toward 1945 from 1962 over the next few days, and I also still have to go back to 1989-2016 to add shipwrecks to those templates per your earlier request, but I eventually will get to 1945 and earlier years.) I had already thought about 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 needing to go month-to-month, but I had not thought about how to handle "unknown date" shipwreck and incidents. Would you suggest one kind of annual template for them and separate monthly templates for the rest? Or would a single template that lets a user go to each month and to the unknown-date ships somehow be better? (If the latter, I am pondering how to design it and would welcome any suggestions you might have.) Meanwhile, I′ll keep thinking about it. Mdnavman (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

I got your suggested navbox for 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwrecks. I think it is excellent. For maximum ease of navigation, I'd like to allow users to be able to jump from year to year as well as from month to month whether they are in an article that falls under the monthly or annual navboxes. (One-stop shopping, if you will.) I think your suggested format would serve that purpose for articles requiring access either to the monthly or annual boxes, maybe with just a modification or two depending on which type the article in question falls under. I'll mull that over to see if I am missing anything. Meanwhile, of course your further comments are welcome. Mdnavman (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)mdnavman
@Mdnavman: - Not sure that will be necessary. Full navigation is already achieved by the shipwreck lists for WWI and WWII. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp[edit]

Godd morning Dear Sir,

I have to inform you that the sources of this article are:

  • The story Christened, that is realy can be used as reliable source and very interesting the conditions in the engine room of the ship and customs of the seman on this shep described in the story.
  • Internet talking between Russian seamen and they added one another to collect as possible information about this ship. I sure that seamen's information also reliable du to they have not sence to fib as the Soviet Union and RIssian official sources able to fib to describe the situation as the Goverment needs.

As example I have to inform you that the Soviet Union ship Bratstvo collided the Soviet Union submarine in 1980s and in all official sources were mentioned that that was fire in engine room as the sea water flooded the engine room. This information was a secret for long time and due to seamen Internet discussion the situation was described really. It is means that the seamen of that ship, including the captain, described that situation more really that the Soviet and Russian military sources and press. I intend to write the article about it also. The ship Bratstvo is the Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships (it is my article) and I already wrote some articles about some ships of this class. My English is not exelent and I will glad if you will read and correct my mistakes in this articles also.

Can be we will able to make good team if you will make article about any ship that was used by the Soviet Union also and I wil try to search information about the ship to translate it from Russian language. As you sea the article SS Heinrich Arp became more interesting. Also my article SS Karaganda includce Russian and US sources and very interesting for US readers - you may correct mistakes in this article also

Can be You have interest to any ship now and I can assit you to collect and translate information from the Soviet Union and Russian sources. Let me know.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp[edit]

Remain to describe last years of this ship. And the sources, internet talking between seamen, are in doubt regarding the las Shipping Company of the ship Лиза Чайкина. And, any way I will try to describe it like the situation is not clear and seems like this. You will sea and I needs the time only to investigate it myself also. Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp[edit]

Good evening, Like I completed to add the article. Can be I will add ship's patticulars also.

This ship was mentioned in two books of Soviet writers. I described it. From the 1953 the job of the ship is not clear - in 1953 she started to carry out prisoners and can be demobilazed militaries. Later she was not mentioned in the Far East Shipping Company and still we have not information in which company she was from 1953. Can be the ship was used for the prisoners and other military aims from 1953 to 1963 due to was small (already was bigger ships) and in bad condition for the planing of the voyages.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1811, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Picton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You are a disgusting human being[edit]

You should be ashamed of yourself. Fully locking the Iran article is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia and its foundation pillars. Who do you think you are as well? Taking to the talk page and waving around a ban hammer like you are some sort of Hero. Let me put it this way, you have not been to University and clearly lack an education so why are you attempting to wield around power like the mad hungry rat you are. Unlock the article and let Wikipedia be a reflection of the stupidity that you have no right to put yourself above. You, sir are an idiot like the rest of the geek scum on here who think they can tell a Doctor what to do on an article about Medicine. So an all mighty f you to you. Thank you! 86.134.219.53 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@86.134.219.53: Thank you for that message. Every decent Admin gets a message like that. It shows that they are doing the job properly. Now, if you have something constructive to add to the Iran article, the instructions are clearly posted on the talk page as to what to do. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@86.134.219.53:. If you want to find out more about Wikipedia, the first stage is to register so we can offer you friendly advice on your talk page. The first piece would be: while new, steer away from the top level articles until you have built up some experience on more local articles. Go for stubs or start class articles like Black rat. The second is to post your opinion to the articles talk page- and establish Wikipedia:Consensus, and let a more experienced editor do the final post for you. Its simple really cooperate rather than irritate the hell out of everyone. When you have registered drop a line here to say so- and we will help you find articles where your contribution will be welcome .--ClemRutter (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2016 (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)

Soviet merchant ship histories[edit]

Good morning and Many thank Deas Sir!

As You see all seamen talking wia Interned confirmed by the mentiond by other more really sourses which I searched also. And is better if the readers will understand that Sovier press, books often distort reality to bring all information to the Sovit norms. I still translating the article SS Bratstvo (1963) and this article will looking more really due to ship's captain and crew information via Internet (forusm, captains letter) as during Soviet Union period was only military version do not show that the Soviet military guilty. Also I will ajust some previous my article to show difference in Soviet press and books information and thir discrepancy. It will be article SS Leninsky Komsomol when I will write new article SS Metallurg Baykov due to the construction of the ship Metallurg Baykov had to be completed and handed over before New Year celebration to compleat Shipyard yearly plan in 100%. But due to previous ship Lenisky Komsomol had plenty defficioncies the ship Metallurg Baykov construction was completed after New Year. And in the same book (book about Kherson shipyard) mentioned that the ship Lenisky Komsomol had not defficiencies. Often the Soviet Shipping Companies had to take any ship from Soviet shipyard to show good yearly shipyard plan and the shipyard had to assit the shipping company if futire with this ship: after firts year in operations or earlier the ship visited shipyard again to close defficiencies if it was possible.

I try to write correct information only. If any information in doubt I write it with remarks: like it is position of any person, or it is in doubt, or legend, e.t.c. But any legend is really information partly or fully.

The same time I am traning my English also. It is another side why I have interest to write articles in English Wikipedia.

If you see my mistakes (wrong translated phrazes, missed or wrong characters in the words, e.t.c.) correct please.

And the article SS Liza Chaikina is looking better now. I tried to describe all searched by me information and what was in doubt I described also correctly - like no any good information and only some sources say opposit information. Can be anybody in future will found out the truth.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Грищук ЮН: - please would you comment at WT:SHIPS. I will copy this over there. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 May[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin[edit]

Good afternoon Dear Sir, Can be can give advise to me what to do in this situation. One time (about one month ago) I wrote the text in the article SS Nezhin where was mentioned that the ship had other name before 1974 due (two attached photo in this article confirm this). The text about othe ship's name on English was deleted. Now I found out confirmations and proved this but somebody (one file directly Russian man and I and Ukranian) wants to delete both files.

I already sent messeges to Russian deleter, to see below:

 The photo maden by me due to my search via Internet. It is Internet search to confirm that ship's name and city name НЕЖИН was written in another manner as Nezshin and not as Nezhin today. I tried to prove it before and only by this search it possible and I afraid that later will not possible to confirm that same. It why this photo placed in article SS Nezhin as if later this search will not possible to do can be will not possible to prove that the ships with Russian name НЕЖИН (built in XIX century) was named on NEZSHIN on English. And Soviet ship НЕЖИН (built in 1954) had nema NEGIN or NEZSHIN before 1974. It delete this confirmation - somebody will delete again the part of text in article SS Nezhin due to absent confirmation. One time I already wrote the same text about and the text was deleted due to confirmation absent. Now the confirmation present, but declared to be deleted. What to do??? How to confirm???

I already described more information in File description part. Can the photo of my Internet search is not good vissible but in case it will be deleted again will not possible to prove that the ship had other English name before 1974. She had name NEGIN before 1974.

Can be You abvise will assist me and my article SS Nezhin.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin[edit]

Here is aiusted by me description o the other FILE:Protocol....

Due to You have interest to the article about the ships here is good information and can be will assit You to search the samen Soviet ship which has some names due to Protocol dated 1974. It is not secret. Now everybody know this extraction of Protocol as everybody in Russia whe receive foreign passport has in this pasport English na,e also and everybody know which rules used for this translation. It is not secret.

Extractions from the Protocol of Third Soviet-American Session regarding maritime shipping dated first part of 1974, the crew members names in English crew lists and ship's names had to be ajusted on English before 1st of June 1974 as per agreement. The copy of this extraction was given on each Soviet ship to ajust properly ship's name and crew full names in Crew List on English. It is not full text of Protocol.

It is confirm that some Soviet ships had other English name before 1974 what I want to say in the article SS Nezhin. It can assist to search information for other articles about the Soviet ships. As example can be SS Leninsky Komsomol due to this ship possible to search by three names.

Also before 1974 Russian family names and names was written not like today due to was not this Protocol yet.

For example:

  • Russian name Evgeny and after 1974 Yevgeniy.
  • Name Alexandr and after 1974 Aleksandr.
  • Ship's name Leninsky Komsomol and after 1974 sometimes Leninskiy Komsomol. And new ship with the same name was built in 1980s has exactly name Leninskiy Komsomol.
  • Ship's name Negin and after 1974 Nezhin.
  • The ship Toyvo Antikaynen received name in honor of fin kommunist Toivo Antikainen and now You understand why the ship/s name and person's name have differences.

On my opinion it will assist in information search for articles.

If you will found out this extraction on English can better.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Sorry, forgot to mention that I emailed you yesterday. Bromley86 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1812, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antrim, Abaco and Mounts Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Over at RfD[edit]

Thank you for when I call you answer. it is not often we get a railway one. You nursed me through the railway templates and I do them from time to time they are a fiddle. Not often we get a railway one that Neelix made and that was a bang-on call and I can't see how anyone could possibly disagree with you. I wouldn't have been able to find it because they kinda "block" search and you end up going in a baloon loop.

Where I live in Budapest the Kéleti Pályaüdvar (built by British people thankg goodness that is why it is still standing) faces due east (Keleti is Hungarian for East or rather Eastern, the í at the end makes it kinda a dative). At the vernal equinox I took a lovely pic with the sun rising and going through the train shed. It just shines straight through. Nyugati pályaudvar western station was put up by that French pillock Georges Eiffel so of course that is all collapsing. On the front of Keleti there is on the left a statue to James Watt and on the right to Robert Stevenson. Built in 1894 I think. There is a railway museum near here but just full of old junk frankly old Russian steam trains but we had a nice day out. I send you a photo some time if you want. Where I live is called Máv telep on some maps which is roughly speaking railway town so there are lots of nice bits and pieces going on but I am no trainspotter just nice to see em still going. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: No problem. Took me about a minute searching on Yahoo to find the correct target. Re the photo, better added to Commons methinks. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
.I think I actually did. I put it on the article at Budapest Eastern Railway Station and tagged it and such but someone removed it I think. 21:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep it is on that article I took that at exactly 7am on the vernal equinox I wasn't waiting for it I just thought it looked beautiful. Looks pretty crappy most of the rest of the year! Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1813, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arran and Fogo Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 20 May 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)

Reference errors on 21 May[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Klio (1924)[edit]

Good afternoon, I wrote more information about this ship. This is information from Rusian sources.

Also some photos adreses mentioned. Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 May[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

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

Alexander Kaye Butterworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rackets
List of shipwrecks in 1813 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Landes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Fixed both --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1814, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caernarvon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Alaska cruise ship accident[edit]

I know these issues interest you. While I don't believe the incident is notable enough for its own article, the video of the accident is pretty dramatic as you will see. I have added the incident to the Current Events portal, and made a small entry on the Celebrity Infinity page. See the news article and video here: [15] Juneau Mike (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Country data Kingdom of Hanover[edit]

Is there a reason for full protection instead of template protection, which is used on similar templates? Peter James (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Peter James: yes. The reason was that I made a mistake. Now corrected. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rail accidents (2010–present), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chilieni and Bayirkoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1815, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abaco and Calmar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1815, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Havanah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1997, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

USS Jeannette[edit]

Not according to the article. I have not gone back to sources on this, but the article is not the only place I have seen the RN service. It's been a while. If I have it wrong the article needs serious revision.Dankarl (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding anything really authoritative online but DANFS (Hazegrey) confirms built as a RN gunboat.Dankarl (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Only if by merchant ship you mean "non-governmentally owned". We do not generally classify either yachts or research vessels as merchant ships.Dankarl (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rail accidents (2010–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1817, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1818, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ardmore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wootton Bassett - support crew on footplate[edit]

Hi again. The page is looking great. Good luck with the review. I undid my edit after checking the rulebook page. Whilst pretty much everyone in the industry reckons they shouldn't have been there, I don't want to libel or start a war. The Good Book says...."Module G1: Section 1.4 You must only travel in the driving cab of a train if it is in connection with your duties and you have authority to do so." Whether true or not, it could be stated post-event that a manager had authorised them to be there to move coal forwards on the tender or something similar. Although if that WERE the case, whilst on Network Rail infrastructure, unless they were Driver or Fireman qualified they needed to have been issued with a Red Cab Pass AND be accompanied by a Driver Standards Manager/Traction Inspector. I wonder if RAIB checked this. So unless we are certain of the facts, it's probably far safer not to include this. I'm glad you took it out again. Best wishes, Dr Sludge (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Vivean Gray[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 29 July 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vivean Gray, 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. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:00, 30 July 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)

ITN recognition for Emirates Flight 521[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 4 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Emirates Flight 521, 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Emirates Flight 521[edit]

Re your message: No worries! It didn't bother me. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1819[edit]

March 3rd is messed up. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: - Thanks, it was caused by a malformed wikilink. Would have fixed it quicker but was butlering the cats. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorizatiion issue[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:SHIPWRECK

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.

Hello.

Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category".

If what you say is true, then I guess several shipwreck articles need an update, and a few redirects need to be created.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - I don't understand, Category:Maritime incidents in 1628 is not a redirect. Nearly all other vessels involved in shipwrecks / maritime incidents are suitably categorized by year (or month + year for WWI and WWII). That's why I undid your edit. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it is not the category that is a redirect. You may have read the guideline a little too quickly. It's about how we avoid placing articles in incompatible categories by creating appropriate redirects. See for instance the sinking of the RMS Titanic article, which is in the "maritime incidents in 1912" category. The article about the ship itself is in "ship-compatible" categories. The article about the sinking is not in ship categories, and the ship article is not in incident categories, just as it should be (I just removed the incident category from the ship article; it was both a miscategorization and a duplication).
Per Wikipedia:Categorization, categories are either set categories or topic categories. Set categories are always in plural. In order to belong in a set category, articles must fit into the category; it must be an instance of what the category describes. A ship is not an incident, thus it does not belong in set categories about incidents. In this case, both the ship and its sinking are notable, and both have articles, and that's all good and well. In the case of Vasa, there is only an article on the ship. While the sinking of Vasa may also be notable, there is still no article. We can't just arbitrarily place the ship in an incident category, just because there is no article on its sinking.
Similarly, editors sometimes mistakenly place articles on people in categories on scandals (following news reports). (I would call that "categorization by association".) People are not scandals, and thus this is wrong. If the scandal isn't notable enough to have an own article, place a suitably named redirect (to the involved person) in the appropriate categories – categories in which readers can be expected to search for the scandal.
For another example, please read the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category", especially on the 24 Heures French-language version of the 24 Hours newspaper. The former can't obviously be placed in English-language newspapers categories, and the latter can't obviously not be placed in French-language newspaper categories.
Hope this wasn't TLDR.
Cheers.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: I think I've got it now. Because there is a redirect (Sinking of the Vasa), you're saying that the ship shouldn't be categorized in the Maritime incidents category?
Unlike the Titanic example you gave, there is little likelihood of an article on the sinking of the Vasa being created. IMHO, the redirect should be deleted, leaving the ship in the correct category, per many other ship articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You almost got it. It's not because there is a redirect; it's because a ship is not an incident. The sinking of a ship is an incident. The redirect was recently created by me, as a place-holder if you will, since Vasa is not an incident, and since it's needed in the "Maritime incidents in 1628" category. 1628 is in Sweden kind of like what 1066 is in England, I guess, and since both the ship and its sinking are notable, the 1628 category is needed.
I agree, there's little likelihood that an article on the sinking of Vasa will be created (but you never know). That's not the question at hand however. There's also little likelihood that the 24 Heures article will be created, and it's still a valid redirect, even referred to in the guidelines. The question is that the Vasa is miscategorized as an incident, while it was a ship.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unlike me, you don't seem to have a guideline that supports your views. Or do you? If, as you say, this type of categorization is widespread, then I think we need to start a discussion somewhere. Do you have a suggestion?
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: I think this does need wider discussion than just us two. I will copy the above over to WT:SHIPWRECK and post a notice at WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST as the shipwrecks project isn't as active as it should be. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2016 (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.

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1819, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page File (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 19 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 1819, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlingford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeju (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 August[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1820 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairlight, Caernarvon, Harrington and Blackwall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1821 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Jura and Slop
List of shipwrecks in 1819 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Batavia
List of shipwrecks in 1820 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ballycastle
List of shipwrecks in the 16th century (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nao

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1820 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Muscat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Mjroots. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in 1821 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ballina, Havanna, Maldonado, Thorney Island, Spalding and Keil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)