User talk:Zatoichi26

Happy New Year

	<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted! Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Polaris expedition

I'm glad you're active again. I've looked briefly at the Polaris article and will try and do a closer reading later. It's a most interesting expedition; a useful account is contained in Ninety Degrees North by Fergus Fleming (Granta Books, 2001), and a very comprehensive one in The Arctic Grail by Pierre Berton (Viking 1988). I don't know the availability of these books in Canada, though I have an American edition of the Berton. A couple of general thoughts: a map would be very useful to indicate key geographical locations (Smith Sound, Etah etc); also, the lengthy personnel table is a bit disruptive to the text, and you might consider relocating it, shortening it or even doing away with it (I'm not sure it is necessary to have a complete list of the names of minor crew members). Worth a thought or two. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A cautionary note about your -- very welcome! -- efforts on the Polaris Expedition entry. The Parry book, dramatic though it be, is in places very shoddily researched, and makes some claims that other researchers find doubtful. It can certainly be cited as a source, but that it is cited 2/3 of the time may be an issue. With points of controversy -- such as the issue of Budington's drunkenness or the degree of mutual trust between him and Hall -- the more strident claims of Parry should be corroborated or checked against other sources. Chauncey's Loomis's book, Weird and Tragic Shores, is very well researched,and is the first place I'd suggest one look; Berton is also very reliable, and Farley Mowat is also worth consulting. I have all these texts at hand and would be willing to assist as needed. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I am realizing while reading it, that Parry's book is not really a serious historical record, it's written a little sensationally, and I plan on citing other books. My plan is to work through the Parry book, then replace as many citations as I can with other sources, like Berton and Fleming. Thanks for the tip on the Loomis book. Which Mowat book are you referring to? As you see, I consulted The Polar Passion and have cited it. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your offer to help, it would be appreciated. How about letting me finish this re-write (I'll get through the Parry book) then if you could replace some of the citations (or back up more controversial ones) with the books in your library, or any other re-writes you like, that would be great. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear back from you. I'd be glad to go over the article and corroborate/balance where it seems needed. The Mowat book I'd meant is Ordeal by Ice, his account of the NW Passage searchers. My impression of Parry is that he wants to vilify Buddington and argue against those who vilify Bessels. Loomis, in contrast, even though his investigation found arsenic in sample of Hall's tissues, is hesitant to say that the case against Bessels is more than circumstantial. This, and the reasoning/timing of the abandonment of the other part of the crew by the Polaris, are the two matters on which balance is most important, as they are just the points that historians disagree most about. I'll start looking through the entry soon. It's good to see it getting better! Clevelander96 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your image

Some points on your image commons:File:Accipiter_on_fence.jpg .

• If this date of 15 March 2008 is correct, can this really be a juvenile?
• Do yellow eyes occur in juvenile Coopers? Adult Coopers' eyes are orange/red. Sharp shin hawks' eyes remain yellow.

Can we clear up the ambiguity?LeadSongDog come howl 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. this indicates a multi-year moult later in the year. My bad.LeadSongDog come howl 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that clear it up then? I'm not sure to be honest, I just took the photo, and tried to identify the bird with a guidebook - unsuccessfully at first, I was corrected that it is an accipiter not a hawk. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

oops - I see someone has re-labelled it from a Goshawk to a sharp-shinned hawk or Cooper's hawk... see, I demonstrate my ignorance again. I am just going to stay out of the debate and leave it to people who know birds better. :) Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Clements Markham

Hi. I'm working on Markham, he's at peer review at the moment. If you have time, perhaps you'd look at it and comment (it's not all polar stuff, by the way). I'm glad to see that Polaris expedition made GA, but where's the GAN review? Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

...on your new family addition, which caps FA every time! I hope all is well, and look forward to your Wikipedia return later in the year. I'm not doing polar stuff at the moment, but I expect I'll be back to it come the autumn. My eyes are on Nansen. Brianboulton (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

m:Global sysops/Vote

Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:

• merge your accounts
• or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.

This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Done - thanks for the notice. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom Crean (explorer)

The above article has been submitted to TFAR (link). Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

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

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zatoichi26. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zatoichi26. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tom Crean2.jpg

The file File:Tom Crean2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tom Crean (Explorer) article

Hi Zatoichi26,

I noticed that you worked upon the Tom Crean article and I am reaching out to you for some guidance if you'd be so kind to assist?

I am the author of a self-published book about Crean's life and career and in 2020 I presented all of my research to the Royal Irish Academy, who, in light of the evidence, made substantial revisions to the article entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. The revisions were applied and my book now appears in the references of the entry for Crean in the DIB. If you visit the Talk section of the Tom Crean Wiki article, you will see that in 2018 I consulted with editors in an attempt to implement changes before my sources were examined and validated by the RIA.

After recent discussion in the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1113#Tom_Crean_(explorer)_article). I'm informed that the barriers that prevented my book being referenced and included in the notes section can now be removed yet I would feel uncomfortable as the author of the book, applying the changes. In a word document I've created, I have revised the article, re-ordered the notes to include each page of relevance in my book and I've included my book in the references. Is this something you could assist me with as I am pretty green on procedures if I were to edit the article myself.

On another note, I also feel I can add some interesting, minor but relevant edits to other Wikipedia articles that relate to Tom Crean's story. One such example being the Voyage of the James Caird.

I'd be most grateful for your assistance in determining how best to proceed with the proposed changes Timfoley50 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim, sure I’ll help with that. To be honest I don’t much edit Wikipedia anymore, other life priorities seem to have gotten in the way, but since I put in a lot of work on the Tom Crean article I’ll pick up the pen again :) Is your book published, what is the title? Maybe you can send me the word document with changes highlighted and I can implement them, with your assistance? Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)