User talk:MatthewAnderson707

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:White Star Line Fan)
Jump to: navigation, search

SS ''Oregon'' (1878

For the User's sandbox, see User:White Star Line Fan/sandbox.

1950 Tete de I'Obiou C-54 Crash[edit]

Hi WS, regarding this article, you only cite one source which is ASN. But the material you added includes many more details, of which ASN covers only a small part. Would you mind telling where you got that material? And why that source is not mentioned in the article? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Concorde crash[edit]

Hi Matthew. I hope you don't mind my pointing it out but your edit to the Air France Flight 4590 article doesn't seem entirely appropriate, since it's discussing the topic itself, not the article, which is what we're supposed to do on Talk pages. If you can comment on the way we are writing and structuring the article itself then great, but discussing the actual subject itself is a bit of a no-no since it tends to distract from, and interfere with, the process of improving the encyclopaedia. And I guess (but don't know!) that there are lots of other places on the internet where you can discuss this without people getting snarky with you! There's more on this at WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. Hope this is helpful, happy editing, best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

Template:Infobox aircraft type[edit]

I have reverted you change to the Template:Infobox aircraft type as I could not find any supporting discussion, and apology if you have agreed this somewhere but I could find it. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox aircraft type your comment would be welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the messsage, I appreciate that you made the change in good faith but with any changes made to the template appearing in loads of aircraft articles we have to take care. If you have any ideas then a suggestion on the template talk page or even better on the WP:AVIATION talk page might get support for any change. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Constellation production lists[edit]

I have proposed for deletion the Constellation production lists that you have jsut created, we dont normally create production lists, I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lockheed Constellation production list if you would like to comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion of Lockheed Constellation production list[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Lockheed Constellation production list has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{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.


I have nominated this for delete. Not because it is a bad idea, but because there is absolutely no relevant content even in the links supplied. If you are in the process of building the article/list please do it in your sandbox before sending to main-space.(forgot to sign)Petebutt (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the Lockheed Constellation production list[edit]

Hi again, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. You haven't done any harm, in fact you have taken part in the process that is Wikipedia. The reason the lists have been deleted is not that they were harmful or you did wrong in writing them, just that they were in the wrong place and there is no need for them on Wikipedia. It is important that you understand that your input is welcome, but may be modified, and possibly deleted, by others to make it fit into the various guidelines, with the same applying to every edit made including mine!! So keepyour pecker up and carry on inputting. If you want someone to check out your articles before posting them in main space you could drop them in my sandbox [User:Petebutt/Sandbox] and leave a note on my talk page.Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fleet Listing[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Fleet Listing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation maximum takeoff weight vs. empty weight[edit]

Hello White Star Line Fan! It has been pointed out on the Science Ref Desk that the Max. takeoff weight of 136,000 lbs is less than the empty weight of 150,999 lbs currently given in the Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation that you created back in October 2011. Can you please verify these figures? (Even if they were reversed, a 15,000 lb difference doesn't sound like much capacity. I see that Lockheed Constellation gives an Empty weight of 79,700 lb and a maximum takeoff weight of 137,500 lb.) -- ToE 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 99, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burbank and Glendale (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) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dab page tempplate[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 07:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

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 SS Columbia (1880), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Life preservers and Lifeboat (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) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Columbia (1880), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightship (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) 11:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Columbia (1880), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page U.S. Marine Hospital (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) 11:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS San Juan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trachea and S.O.S. (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, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Parthia (1870), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nome (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) 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of U.S. Highways in Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ehrenberg (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, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

US 491 and arizonaroads.com[edit]

I reverted your changes. US 491 is a Featured Article, and FAs need to use "high-quality reliable sources". The website you used, http://www.arizonaroads.com/, is a self-published source that doesn't qualify as a regular reliable source. Imzadi 1979  06:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

White Start Line Fan, I like and appreciate the attempt to "color up" the articles with vintage shields. However, this does have it's limits.
I have two concerns about this navigational template: Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan. I have no doubt it is true, but it is also based on Self published sources. This template also touches on issues with the Icon & Flags policy, which the WP:USRD project has interpreted to apply highway articles as explained here: WP:USRD/STDS#Shields. Lastly, there is a debate on the appropriateness and value of these navigational templates in general. Arguably, they serve the same purpose as a category, and can run afoul of the policy on category clutter. However, I'll leave that debate for others, as I have mixed feelings on it.
Adding to what Imzadi has said, It's not to say that arizonaroads is a bad resource. Far from it, I've used and enjoyed reading the content on that site for years. For the reasons Imzadi states, any addition to an article like US 491 will have more scrutiny than, say the same addition on the article for US Route 91, which has not yet been peer reviewed and ranked as a quality article.
Cheers, and I hope these comments are taken in the spirit intended, I like of many of your contributions, just expressing concerns about some. Dave (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback very much. I apologize for any inconveniences as my only goal was to improve information on Arizona Highway History to the degree of Washington and California.707 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I like the color shields, and the fact that I have an old AZ highway map that confirms they were used at one time means they have a place here. =-) Nobody's saying "you can't do that", just asking to find better sources and be aware of policies on the subject. Thanks for engaging in conversation, and I'm sure our paths will continue to cross with a common interest in Arizona highways. Dave (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Old AZ markers[edit]

You created a bunch of subtemplates earlier today to put two older styles of AZ markers into use. All of that work was worthless though as those style subtemplates are no longer in use. There is a Lua module for each state that handles the type codes for that state now. For AZ, it is Module:Road data/strings/USA/AZ. If you are unsure though, don't edit the module as mistakes will screw up every article for Arizona. Imzadi 1979  20:01, 3 April 2015 (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 List of State Roads in New Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nogales, Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles on former highways[edit]

I think you're emulating U.S. Route 66, which was judged to be a special case, when you should be emulating things like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan or U.S. Route 33 in Michigan. In short, we normally use the condition of the highway at the time it was decommissioned when creating the route description or junction list for an article. The concept is that if Wikipedia existed at the time the highway was removed from a state, the article would have been kept updated to reflect the configuration of the roadway up until it was removed, and then after it was decommissioned, the article would have been updated in terms of verb tense ("was" instead of "is"), etc. US 66 was judged to be a special case that isn't the template to be used.

Also, when creating special route types for specific vintages, the format of the type is "US 1948-Bus", not "US-Bus 1948". Imzadi 1979  04:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In a sense, yes I was emulating US 66 to a point with the styling of the articles. However, I have also noticed the Texas State Highway 1, U.S. Route 466 and U.S. Route 99 articles have similar features when it comes to junctions and length. The SH 1 article in particular shows the route prior to 1935 and the US 99 article showing its length, junctions and termini prior to 1964. The same goes for US 466. I was also taking into consideration those articles and not just US 66. Thank you and apologies for any inconveniences. MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Many of those other examples should be changed as well as time allows. US 66 is a special case because of the nostalgia factor, and because tour guides treat it at its greatest extent, not its last, greatly diminished, extent. The other highways don't have those factors, so we should keep to the idea that the article should reflect the final state of a highway before it was decommissioned. Imzadi 1979  08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to disagree on US 66 being the only special exception. US 80 is marked as a historic highway and while it has not received nearly as much attention as US 66, there are books, webpages and other media, not to mention whole organizations and towns such as the Corporation for Historic Route 80 in California that recognize the highway not in its diminished days, but at its full length from San Diego to Tybee Island. In much of California, the highway is well marked as Historic US 80. The state of Mississippi has also marked a historic US 80 through downtown Vicksburg. I appreciate and understand your feelings, opinions and concerns when it comes to the composition to the US 80 articles for New Mexico and Arizona, but I still disagree.MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979  04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

If you're looking for good reliable sources for Arizona highways, I would try and get access to archives of newspapers. If you go to the college I think you go to, you should be able to get access through there (which I won't say to protect your privacy). I got a lot of stuff for Interstate 8 from newpaperarchive.com, which has a good selection of Arizona newspapers. --Rschen7754 02:42, 16 June 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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool[edit]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Arizona SR 364[edit]

Do you have any idea why that road was built? It's now part of US 160. There is a draft article covering the New Mexico portion of US 160 (really), and some context on why SR 364 was built could shine some light on the New Mexico part. I can start working on an Arizona US 160 draft if you're interested. –Fredddie 23:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a great project! Unfortunately, I have no idea when SR 364 was built. I could look through the ADOT records provided on a website if that would help. It gave the full dates for SR 93 and US 80.MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, MatthewAnderson707. 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)