Revision as of 06:14, 18 October 2020

Mjroots is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Mjroots en This user is a native speaker of the English language. nl-2 Deze gebruiker heeft een middelmatige kennis van het Nederlands. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français. Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers. In the interest of the security of Misplaced Pages, should this account be inactive for 3 months, I request that administrative privileges be removed without prejudice to their restoration at my request. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

Barnstars

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all the shipwreck info! Dibbydib (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		message I wanted to reach out and thank you for your hard work on keeping the Stonehaven derailment article up-to-date and factual. This is the first major article that I have made, and it has been good to see editors such as yourself work hard to help record the facts of such a tragic incident. Thank you. AimeeSunflower (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK & ITN

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

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For achieving your 25th Did You Know? I hereby award you this big fat medal. Well done. Hersfold 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

		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)

		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)

		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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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?

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?

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

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

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

Incomplete DYK nomination

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

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

Eckwersheim derailment has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Mjroots. Eckwersheim derailment, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Godmersham Park

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

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

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

Admin

Old discussions are archived here.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad [REDACTED] Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno [REDACTED] Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Misplaced Pages. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Misplaced Pages. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Misplaced Pages:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Misplaced Pages has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad [REDACTED] Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner [REDACTED] Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

User talk page rules?

(I also miss the big orange bar. Getting rid of it was real dumb; new editors don't notice the little red notification things.) Is there a new policy regarding user talk pages? WP:BLANKING is pretty explicit; users can blank pretty much anything on their talk pages besides declined unblock notices for active blocks. --jpgordon 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: - AFAIK, editors can remove almost all content from their talk pages, with the sole exception of block notices relating to active blocks. Removal of warnings is taken to mean the warning has been read and understood. Is there any particular problem relating to this that you need assistance with? Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No particular problem, except that I routinely monitor CAT:RFU, so I notice things like you put on User talk:Nathan A RF, and wondered if the blanking policy had changed with the introduction of per-page blocking. There's no injunction against removing block notices related to active blocks, just against removing declined unblock notices. --jpgordon 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right. I may be mistaken in my "AFAIK" of course. Have watchlisted his talk page so we'll see what happens. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please do something about an editor?

It is LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk · contribs) It mostly involves his editors and edit summaries at Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303. He keeps trying to add a non notable person to the victims section of the article. Per here here and here at least. His edit summaries include 'Go get whoever you want to European dog!', 'Censorship', an 'Revert censorship. Who are you foreigners to tell us what to do?'. He has also posted a personal attack to my talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for dealing with that editor. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: No problem. I know we don't always agree, but when we do disagree it is with respect and decorum. Didn't see any of that there. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Aviation

Earlier discussions are archived here

Good news

New image of lion air 610 will be added soon! Got a reply back from the photographer, I got lion air 610 in the sky thankfully not on the ground so it’ll look ace, it was taken September 8th 2018. Any issues send me a message. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Using a video snapshot

I'd like to take a screenshot from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFSY6_CZWI , but I am struggling regarding to copyright. It's for this page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Aerosucre_Flight_4544

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Calabasas helicopter crash

Can you merge the histories of Calabasas helicopter crash and 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash? Valoem 22:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not something I know how to do. @MilborneOne: can you help? Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash might want to restore that article its been improperly redirected and full protewcted again, if anything Death of Kobe Bryant should be merged into that article not the other way around. Valoem 22:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valoem: I fully agree, but I can't take any action per WP:WHEELWAR. All we can do is discuss the issue with the admin in question and at article talk pages. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect it, this is time sensitive I've noticed current and treading articles are mostly likely to be expanded. The full protection is unnecessary as there have been no edit wars which violated policy. Given the message I left on Zzyxz's talk page its unlikely he will contest this as this crash is notable even if Kobe was not involved, I'll take full responsibility if Z claims wheel warring, I doubt he would go down that path as we are all being civil. Valoem 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valoem: it doesn't work like that. They are my tools and it will be my arse at WP:ARBCOM if I were to unprotect the article. As I said last night, all we can do is discuss the issue. Sometimes we need to accept we are not going to win an argument and move on. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just ignore that it was left hours ago before actual edit warring started, that no longer applies as discussion is opened now and he has contested. Valoem 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803

A tag has been placed on Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Page that held the contents of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 but has an incorrect name, and is currently a redirect.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Geotags, Grid refs etc,

Geo Links and Geograph

There are problems with your suggestion- which is the reason I haven't done it. There is a discussion forum Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

• 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

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

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

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

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

Earlier discussions are archived here

Medway watermills

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

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

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

@Pldx1: - I understand that there is a size issue, but I'm not sure what you mean by "what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill". I see not problem with the diagram at all. It is displaying correctly. I created the diagram line by line using the BS-map system, if that helps you. It is complete and is unlikely to need to be altered, which is a good thing. There has been talk at the Trains WikiProject recently where an alternative system was proposed which gets around the size issue at a cost of needing a degree in computing to be able to edit the diagram. Is the size issue that bad that the diagrams need to be tampered with? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. Please open User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test and search for Yalding Mill. On the left, i.e. on the 'all' map, the next object after Yalding Mill is Wateringbury Stream. On the right, i.e. on the middle+lower map, we have Yalding Mill, a to mouth link, a to source link and then Wateringbury Stream. This behavior is what was expected. Let us now compare with the junction between upper and middle. Searching for Salman's Farm, we see that some objects, namely Ensfield Mill, Limit of navigation, Ramhurst Mill, Powder Mills, Town Lock and Town Mill, are on the left, but not on the right. This shouldn't occur, but I have no idea of how to proceed, since I know nothing about the Medway river. Concerning the other points, I will try to find the discussion your are mentioning, at Trains WikiProject. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: It would appear that you are using the new system. Looks like a few lines of code have got missed out somewhere to cause that error which you describe. I see it now I know exactly what to look for.

Can't help with the fix though. Don't understand that system at all. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. Oh no, I am not using the new system ! To tell it crudely, there are programmers, you, me, other people. They are using programming languages. Here, {{BS-map}} and the sequel. There are computers. They are using assembly language. Here {{routemap}}. Obviously some geeks are writing directly in assembly language, but most of the programmers are using a compiler, to translate from programming language into assembly language. Here, the translation is not too difficult: what should be done on the human side is described at Template:Routemap/doc#Transition_from_legacy_BS_row_template_to_Routemap_markup i.e. some substitutions that are easy to automatize. And all the rest is computer made when the subst are proceeded.

Again, Medway watermills

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

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

@Pldx1: If I understand it correctly, the full diagram is now on the left. Looking good although there is some random bolding of names that needs addressing. I'm sure this minor problem can be overcome. As I said earlier, this diagram is very unlikely to need to be amended, apart from the names of a few mills not identified by name which may possibly become identified in the future. I see no benefit in adding roads, railways etc. It would all become far too complicated and cluttered. This is a river and mills diagram, best to keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The diagram on the left comes from the actual template i.e. Template:Medway watermills diagram. The only changes were compilation (and bolding four locations near the jointures of the partial maps). On the contrary, the three maps on the right (each one below the other) are the new ones, obtained from assembling the parts and changing the visibility of block14 (at the junction of upper and middle part). This is to be compared with the previous User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway_watermills_diagram/test. What is your opinion about taking back block 18 (Eldridge Lock etc) in the middle part ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "taking back block 18". The only problem I can see with the right hand diagrams is that the continuation arrow on the top diagram is the wrong colour. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of windmills in Ille-et-Vilaine

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 * 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 * 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Thanks. There are other French windmill lists, all linked from the List of windmills in France. I gave each département a separate list once it reached 20 windmills. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Veldkamps Meuln

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

@Editør: - done. Article needs adding to the List of Rijksmonuments in Groningen (province), but I'm not sure where it fits in. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far. That list contains only seven places and is far from complete. Wouldn't it be easier to use (sub)categories for this? – Editør (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you maybe have a source for the storeys (total of seven storeys with a stage at the third)? Because I couldn't find anything about it in the windmill database. – Editør (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Editør: - Look at the photos in the article, at Commons and on the Molendatabase website. As for the list of Rijksmonuments, take a look at the List of Rijksmonuments in Friesland. That is a better laid out list. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think a list with all 2,557 rijksmonumenten in the province of Groningen will be very useful. – Editør (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

When looking at the photos I see windows at different heights, but I cannot tell whether every window indicates a separate floor in the interior. I'm pretty sure it isn't the case for the farm on this photo and that has Veldkamps Meuln in the background. – Editør (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Redbournbury Mill

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

@Mark49s: - good work there! I have fond memories of the mill, having worked on it before the fire when I had ambitions of becoming a millwright. I'll reassess it for you. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Awesome, thank you! If you ever get a chance to visit again it's well worth it. A lot of work has been carried out - and the produce they sell is top notch! Mark49s (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Westuit Nr. 7

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

@Drmies:, Have bashed it into something resembling a shape. You'll need to go through it and correct any translation errors. For future reference, User:Mjroots/sandbox2 is my windmills sandbox, currently set up for Dutch mills. Copy and replace as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man--I was just hoping you'd fill out the infobox. This is awesome. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: you need to use {{Infobox windmill}}. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, but realized very quickly that the terms are very specific and I wasn't quite sure about the translation--that's what I meant by saying it would take me much more time: I was thinking of the infobox parameters, which you know better than anyone since you wrote it, haha! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thelnetham Windmill on OTD

I'm sorry, but the date of 25 December isn't mentioned in the Thelnetham Windmill article, so it can't be included in Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/December 25. In addition, I don't see a good hook for it. Currently, it's essentially "business began operation on this date" ... the issue is, what is notable about this business? Is it the UK's oldest surviving windmill? Or the most famous one? I just need something that is going to pique the readers' interest. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Howcheng: - "The post mill was replaced by a tower mill, which was built by millwright George Bloomfield for William Button in 1819. The mill was set to work on Christmas Day 1819." - unless Christmas Day fell other than on 25 December that year then it is covered. Nothing especially notable about the mill other than the manner of its restoration (shared with Wicken Windmill). I thought it would be a nice touch to mark the bicentenary. Not looking for the article to be a regular appearance, just this once. Maybe pencil in another appearance in 2069, but I won't be around for that one. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

People

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nicholas Winton

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

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

Source is online and states Military Medal. As for DYK, that one would work, as would Albert Roux being his personal chef. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I can see what's happened with the source there, having read the online article from The Guards Magazine now - the recommendation of the MM refers to a different soldier, a Guardsman - eligible for the Military Medal. Cazalet was the soldier's CO - "Two days later at a laager on a German farm, Gdsm Cumbley’s squadron commander, Peter Cazalet, called him in and told him he would be recommended for an award, but despite a letter of recommendation to Lt Col Windsor Lewis, he was to be disappointed; there was no Military Medal". I'm going to remove the mention from the article. Agree about Albert Roux too, I might nominate this for DYK with a couple of Alt hooks. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bcp67: - no problem, thanks. If you nominate for DYK you won't need to do a QPQ. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think they've changed the rules lately and anyone nominating has to do a QPQ, it's no problem as I've done a few DYK reviews here and there. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

Nomination of List of royal weddings for deletion

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

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

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

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Hi Can you look at Murder of Rachael Runyan and do a grammar/proofread? Your help would be appreciated. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Tom Newton Dunn

Hi, while this has been the subject of a lot of back and forth edits, the controversy section of the page is not contentious. The subject or people on their behalf are trying to conceal something that is true and supported by citations. I do not think the content violates the[REDACTED] policy on biographies of living persons. It would be good to reinstate the content and keep the lock! Jpkeates (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please could you check the Talk page now @Mjroots? We have achieved consensus and noted that the original deletion appears very likely to have been effectuated by the subject himself. This is clearly disallowed by Misplaced Pages rules.Innovative Username (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

Earlier discussions are archived here

Copyrighted images

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

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:N269RV.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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 04:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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. Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

• File:Bourne Mill Hadlow.JPG
• File:Brattle Mill.jpg

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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Rakaia-painting.jpg

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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

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

NFC

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

@FriyMan: There is a very good chance that an image can be used under WP:NFCC rules, if it can be shown to meet all criteria. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will upload the image under WP:NFC. I will update the infobox. Cheers, FriyMan 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: - done my best to argue for the retention of the file. Fingers crossed. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Places

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nomination of October 2013 United Kingdom storm for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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

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

Re: Typhoon Haiyan

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

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

Stanmer Church

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

Iran article

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

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

OK, thanks. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dover Strait coastal guns, 1940–1944

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

@Keith-264: I already did! Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't fill in the missing cites, sadly. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack

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

@Drmies: - this is best discussed at talk:2017 Westminster attack so that other interested parties, such as Coffee can give their opinions. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, I've seen a thousand such discussions, where typically the anti-NOTNEWS editors, who seem to have little better to do, outshout everyone else. Best to nip this unencyclopedic drivel in the bud. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*tumbles into the page* - Ah, yes. Well Drmies, there's two reasons I see for keeping it there right now: 1. Some new good faith editors added those, and since they're decently referenced for now I don't see any real harm in keeping it there. 2. Other articles already do this, i.e. 2016 Nice attack#International. Now of course I say these points with the caveat that what's currently on the page can and should be shortened down to a sentence, like the first sentence here, once enough reactions are made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Coffee, I added the Dutch reaction. Been a long time since I was called "new" on Misplaced Pages . Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant the other one and edits I believe that occured to it and to the bit you added (or perhaps just the flag icon was added to yours I can't remember). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

BoJo Grenfell

Hi Mjroots.

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

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

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

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

Grenfell Tower and the use of the word martyr

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

@Huddsblue: - in the context given, I was thinking of the definition 3 at wikt:martyr - One who suffers greatly and/or constantly, even involuntarily. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. That's not quite applicable to the victims of the fire though. They just died in a very tragic accident, they didn't 'martyr on', as the prepositional third version of the word suggests they did, (which is another way of saying 'soldiering on'). I strongly believe that martyr is the wrong word to use in these circumstances, as they didn't voluntarily die for a cause. Thoughts? Huddsblue (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huddsblue: It is not a word that has been used by a Misplaced Pages editor, but by a journalist who is being directly quoted. I would say that the definition quoted above fits, due to the and/or clause. The victims "suffered greatly, and involuntarily". If you are still unhappy with the word being used, then I would suggest that the issue is raised at the article talk page, and this thread is copied over. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's just leave it. Huddsblue (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Queenstown

Thanks - if you could just remind me which article I did that on I can change it?— Rod 18:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I now see you changed the dab on List of shipwrecks in April 1851. Thanks.— Rod 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I probably did it that way because Queenstown, County Cork doesn't appear at Queenstown.— Rod 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Railways

Earlier discussions are archived here

Class 47

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

@Black Kite: BR practice was that locomotive classes had a space after the class number. 47 001 was a locomotive, whereas 47001 could be a carriage number. The preserved Hastings Unit had a carriage number changed to prevent confusion with a Class 60 locomotive. Point taken re consistency, but the omission to the dreamt number is deliberate. This could be in quote marks for clarity. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep - when rolling stock was introduced into the TOPS system in the early 80s, it wasn't allowed that a carriage and locomotive number could be identical, which is why a number of DMU/EMU vehicles and carriages were renumbered (for example the 56xxx DMU vehicles were switched to 53xxx). But yeah, we need consistency throughout the various articles. My tendency would be to drop the space, but I don't really mind as long as each article is internally consistent. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - I've changed them all to use a non-breaking space. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, 56xxx DMU cars became 54xxx; it was the 50xxx which became 53xxx. For some reason, leading zeros were significant: TOPS was apparently able to distinguish the loco 03 063 from coach 3063 without either needing to be renumbered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, yes you're right. And yes, the leading zeros were significant because TOPS treated the numbers as character strings rather than integers. I remember trying to run a class 86 locomotive (can't remember what, but let's say 86999) through an E31 request one night and typing it in as 06999... and the system throwing it out despite 6999 existing as a valid coaching stock number. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg Metro bombing articles

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

Great Western main line

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

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

Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:94.143.95.215

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

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

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

@Coradia175: You could issue an edit war warning and invite the editor to discuss their edits. As multiple articles seem to be affected, WT:UKT would be a suitable venue. Semi-protection is something else that can be looked at, but let's see if there is a response first. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Thanks for your quick reply. I've left them a message on their talk page so hopefully we will be able to come to a resolution as soon as possible. All the best wishes for the new year - Coradia175 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MIademarco

Dear Mjroots. Thanks for your previous help. I have a listing for the list of rail accidents, for June 19, 1926. It got deleted again because of inadequate reference. I have an internal Pennsylvania Railroad letter of which I am the owner. I (or with your help) uploaded the image of that letter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_(1900–1909). Please advise, help.

Best wishes for a New Year - MIademarco (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Catterick Bridge Explosion

Hello Mjroots; unsure if Catterick Bridge Explosion should be listed as a railway accident of not? Basically, in February 1944, the poor handling of ammunition onto a railway wagon in Catterick Bridge railway station caused a massive explosion, killing twelve and injuring over 100. Thoughts? Happy to seek wider consensus from WP:UKTRAINS if needed. Regards and a Happy New Year. The joy of all things (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: I'd say it is, per the example set by the Soham rail disaster. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA Nomination of 2016 Croydon tram derailment

Hi, Mjroots. I saw on WP:GAN that a good article nominee was requiring a second opinion, so I left my own review on the talk page. I hope it helps. Thanks!Mgasparin (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: Thank you, I've had a quick look, and will address the issues raised in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maria Asumpta.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Asumpta.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Pakistan train fire

ITN-worthy? ——SN54129 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've already nominated it. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Rivers

Earlier discussions are archived here

River Len

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

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. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rivers#Route diagrams gives the discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cadeau

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

Medway diagram

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)

v t e River Medway
Legend
00.0 Source TQ 334 359 51°06′25″N 0°05′37″W / 51.10694°N 0.09361°W / 51.10694; -0.09361 00.0 Upper Reaches  B2028  Fen Place Mill  B2110  Bluebell Railway West Hoathly Stream Weir Wood Reservoir Mill Place Foundry East Grinstead Stream Brambletye Mill  A22  Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central Line Tablehurst Mill Parrock Forge Hartfield Iron Mill  B2026  Hartfield Stream Warren Brook Waterdown Forest Stream Groombridge Stream Ashurst Mill  A264  Oxted Line Kent Water Ashurst Furnace Chafford Mills  B2188  Poundbridge Stream Barden Mill Stream Pound Mill 00.0 River Eden to Leigh River Eden  B2176  Ensfield Mill Ensfield Road Limit of navigation Redhill to Tonbridge Line  A21  Ramhurst Mill Powder Mills 00.0 Leigh to Yalding South Eastern Main Line Tonbridge Tonbridge High Street  B2260  28 Town Lock Town Mill Cannon Lane  A26  Southborough Bourne 25.6 Eldridge Lock 24 Porters Lock Hartlake Road 22 East Lock Tudeley Brook Pen Stream 20.8 Oak Weir Lock River Bourne Sluice Weir Lock Branbridges Mill Branbridges  A228  Medway Valley Line 00.0 Yalding to Allington Lock Site of Stoneham Lock River Teise Greater Teise Sluice Twyford Bridge  B2162  Lesser Teise River Beult Hampstead Mill Hamptons Bridge  B2162  15.3 Hampstead Lock Breden's Boatyard Hampstead Marina Hampstead Lane Canal Wateringbury Stream Wateringbury Bridge West Farleigh Stream 10.4 Teston Lock Teston Bridge  B2163  Barming Bridge East Farleigh Bridge 7.5 Farleigh Lock Line to Tovil Goods station Loose Stream River Len  A20   A20  Maidstone Maidstone East Line Boxley Stream Allington Castle 00.0 Allington Lock to Rochester Allington Lock  M20  Cossington Stream Aylesford Bridge East Malling Stream Friars Mill Addington Brook Holborough Brook Borstal Mill Cuxton Mill High Speed 1  M2  Priory Mill Strood Tide Mill Rochester Rochester Bridge  A2  Chatham Main Line Strood, Thames and Medway Canal Chatham Chatham Tide Mill Chatham Dockyard Medway Tunnel  A289  Gillingham The Swale Isle of Sheppey Thames Estuary   TQ 903 758

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

I have been putting a bit of input into Misplaced Pages 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

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

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

Earlier discussions are archived here

PS Edith (1870)

I know you have an interest in railway ships and have access to lots of old newspapers so could you help on this article? The gun running claim is sourced to a dead link so I can't verify it and miramar and tyne ships both have her scrapped before this event albeit with different places and dates Lyndaship (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"SS Elllen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SS Elllen. Since you had some involvement with the SS Elllen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks August 1827

Hi Mjroots, Herald appears to have been lost on 20 AND 22 August. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Spirit in List of shipwrecks in September 1863

I did the Gaines work too long ago to remember what I did regarding specific ships, and I can't get the Gaines link to open this morning, so I can't trace Spirit for you. (If you can get the Gaines link to open or find Gaines via a different route and search on ""Spirit", then power to you.) I don't think Spirit was one of mine though, because her entry mentions her captain by name, something some editors are fond of but which I never do unless the captain is of some historical significance in his own right.Mdnavman (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)mdnavman

Konarak vessel incident

Hello.

First, you cannot locally override wikipedia-wide guidelines. See WP:Categorization, especially the part on set and topic categories, and WP:INCOMPATIBLE.

Second, there is an article on the incident, and don't you think it looks a bit odd if both are in those categories you re-added?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - why do you say that this was not a friendly fire incident? As I said in my edit summary, the "Maritime incidents in (year)" categories are for shipwrecks (however caused) and also for maritme incidents which do not result in a hull loss. In this case, Konarak is a total loss. It is not odd that both articles are categorised accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What a funny question. Like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". I did not "say that this was not a friendly fire incident". What I said was that this is not an incident at all, it's a ship. I didn't remove the categories from the incident article, did I?

Using your logic, why do you say that you can locally override wikipedia-wide guidelines?

Btw, did you read those guidelines? And yes, it is odd.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - Yes, the article is about the ship, which was involved in a friendly fire incident, which is why I added the category. That there is currently a separate article about the incident is not relevant, as said article looks like it will be merged back into the ship article. This will leave the ship article covering the ship and the incident, so the category is valid. Where a ship and its sinking are notable enough to both have articles, it is appropriate that both appear in the relevant mari¨´time incidents category (and also on the relevant shipwrecks navbox, which I noticed another editor had removed from the Konarak article, so I reinstated it) - see RMS Titanic and Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is circular evidence. Did you read WP:Categorization and WP:INCOMPATIBLE att all?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read them. WP:INCOMPATIBLE is about redirects, is it not? Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Redirects are one way of avoiding writing the same article twice over, like with the 24 Heures example I assume you're referring to, while still populating categories correctly. If the incident article is indeed – which is not certain – merged into the ship article, this could be one way of solving it. If both a ship article and an article on an incident in which it was involved, are notable, it seems weird to me – and additionally violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE – to have both in the same categories. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In cases like this, I usually mention Honey Lantree. Oh wait, I already did - see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#Categorization issue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We have indeed been here before, and one way of not having to come here again could be to finally get it right. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got a good memory, Redrose64. HandsomeFella, as we've been here before and still disagree, perhaps the best way of getting wider input on this issue would be a RFC at Wikiproject Shipwrecks. Said RFC can be advertised at WP:SHIPS, WP:MILHIST and other relevant WPs. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Aberdeen Built Ships

Picking up on your comments on Twitter, where you asked me to contact you.

As regards the project to gather data from Aberdeen Built Ships I've added some more background to the Readme file of this Github repo.

Best wishes

Watty62 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Watty62: - I don't get involved in all that background stuff at Wikidata. However, there are other similar databases the you might want to give a similar treatment.

• Clydeships - ships built on the River Clyde.
• The Sunderland Site and Sunderland built for ships built on the River Wear.
• Tynebuilt for ships built on the River Tyne.
• The Yard - ships built by Harland and Wolff, at Belfast and on the Clyde.
• Teesbuilt - ships built on the River Tees.
• Shipping and shipbuilding - Ships built across the UK, not covered above

That should keep you busy! Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Let us get our Aberdeen stuff done and we'll see! Could happen. Cheers, Watty62 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

Yes, thank you, I got the message after the first two reverts. You don't like my edits. But I would like to ask, why do you insist on using 20em columns? It's very narrow, and Template:Reflist notes that 20em should be used Where Shortened footnotes are used, which is not the case for these articles. This is pretty much the standard for all other articles, why should these be different? kennethaw88 • talk 05:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: - I was going to post on your talk page. "Charlestown" is an historic spelling of Charleston. I'm not that bothered by the change to the modern spelling, which is why I've been leaving that change in.

Not sure why you removed the bolded article title. As for 20em, that is so the refs display as two colums, seeing as the ability to force refs into two columns was removed. Where references in a list run into the hundreds, it looks better as two columns rather than a single one. There are over 1,000 shipwreck lists, so it is preferable that they are kept as similar in appearance as possible. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of the historic spelling. The article on Charleston does mention it, and the current spelling took effect in 1783. I've left alone other articles about the 18th century, but anything 19th century onward I have been changing.

Re the columns, 20em definitely produces more than 2 columns on any desktop screen (5 very narrow columns for me, only fitting about 4 words per line). I still believe they should use the default column width of 30em.

Re the bolding, I somehow remember reading or just thinking somehow that titles like list of xyz isn't the actual name of anything, and doesn't need bolding. I've probably just interpreted something wrong. But just now, reading MOS:BOLDLEAD: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold, I'm still not sure if these titles meet that criterion. Maybe something else like This list of Shipwrecks in 1800 would be better? Or maybe I'm the only one with that interpretation. If so, I'll leave them alone. kennethaw88 • talk 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: 20em produces 2 neat colums for me. Firefox browser and enlargement set to 170%. Like I said, it's a pity that the ability to force 2 columns, whatever the screen resolution, was removed. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Two columns on an iPhone could be unusably narrow; two columns on a modern widescreen desktop monitor might yield large blank areas. There's plenty on the matter at Template talk:Reflist/Archive 32 (and several previous archives back to Template talk:Reflist/Archive 25). In short: because you don't know how much space anybody else has available (screen width and zoom level being just two factors), you shouldn't configure a page to suit your own setup. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely the solution here has to be a technical one that allows {{reflist|2}} but which is disabled when viewed on a mobile device. Is that something which is technically possible? Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been through all that before, in the archives that I linked, going back to March 2014. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SS Jagiełło

First, apologies - I put in an edit summary that Miramar didn't suggest an IMO number - it does have that number in its joint LR/IMO column - not that that makes it right or even possible.

Second, engines - I'm trying to understand what the arrangement was with two steam engines, two low-pressure turbines and two screws. One thing though is important to note; LR, for some strange reason, when a ship had twin engines - one per shaft - decided to add all the cylinders together and call them one engine in the register, hence C4cyl and, as in this case, T6cyl. Only LR adopted this, other registers describing them - as they were - as "2/twin T3cyl, 2-screw" and most modern authors do the same. Hopefully a suitable source will emerge (I've ordered a book on Soviet passenger shipping - fingers crossed).

and lastly, I meant to ask for some time, for LR cites is there any particular reason you prefer to quote the volume name in French for those pages where it's like that at the top - they alternate? It's not in the name of the book itself at the front, eg . cheers - Davidships (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davidships: - 1, no need to apologise, we all make mistakes. 2, Interesting, but the {{Hansa A type ships}} all had a single propeller. Forum chat is that they had a single engine which was well liked by the crews. Two engines driving one shaft seems unnecessarily complicated to me. How good is your Russian? Maybe you can make better use of the Russian sources I found re Jagiełło's engines? 3. I just go with the title at the top of the page in question as one has to use a title to avoid a ref error. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re IMO numbers, pretty sure there were introduced c.1963, but their use did not become mandatory until the late 1980s. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Engines: There are many reasons for choosing two propellers (or more), but one is sufficient for most straightforward cargo ships until this day - twin is much more common with passenger vessels. I would be interested to find a source for the Turks' initial twin-screw choice, with some increased power from bolting on a low-pressure turbine to each T3cyl engine (might have been speed requirements, draught limitations or something else). Have you found anything more specific on Jagiello's engines than the description in LR? A Russian source? I don't read Russian, but am confident about understanding factual details with the help of Mr.Google, especially in my own fields. But that wouldn't work for things needing linguistic nuance, so I avoid that.

By the way, Lloyd's Register of Shipping (later titled Register of Ships) has never been published by Lloyd's of London, a quite different entity Davidships (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Some books use the term "engine" to refer only to a cylinder (and directly-associated components: piston, connecting rod, crank, valves and valve motion) or group of cylinders that work from the same steam supply at the same pressure and act upon the same shaft. In such books, a compound arrangement might be described as two (or three) "engines". So a twin-screw triple-expansion system could be seen as having six "engines", but perhaps only one boiler. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly true in the 19th century, but from memory seems to have largely died out with the introduction of multi-stage compound and triple expansion engines which were clearly seen as a single units. I don't recall ever seeing reference to a six-engine reciprocating installation. I'll ask LR if they can throw any light on their reasoning at that time. Davidships (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Shipwrecks in May 1869

Apologies if I'm bothering you, but I have fulfilled your request and added the (copied) template to the talk page. I have never done this so I hope the result is acceptable, if not you can always contact me again. Have a fine day. Indylover2010 (talk) 4:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Red ensigns on British ships registered in India

What's this about Indian merchant ships flying the British Red Ensign? The new Indian flag was introduced in 1858 1863, replacing the previous flag of the HEIC. As the flag of India, it was flown by Indian merchant vessels. Pretty sure I've seen photos of ships with said flag at the stern. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Davidships#Indian flag)

Re your query, from at least 1854 the only defaced red ensigns that could legally be flown on British ships registered in colonial (or similar) ports were those which had received a Royal or Admiralty warrant to be used as such. No such warrant was ever granted to British India (only to certain Indian princely states). On page 7 of this is an authoritative list of the warrants that were issued in colonial times (which I have added to Red Ensign). This reference, already used elsewhere on WP, includes "For merchant vessels registered in British India (as opposed to the princely states) the proper ensign was the British Red Ensign. A Red Ensign with the Order of the Star of India in the fly was used to represent British India in international organizations, leading some sources erroneously to identify it as the national flag of British India." There were many British colonial territories where there was never a defaced red ensign warranted for maritime use.

The defaced Indian red ensign was not introduced, for any purpose, in 1858 - certainly not before the 1860s, more likely in the 1880s (the Indian blue ensign warrant for Government vessels was in 1884), though possibly as late as the 1920s, and then only for civil use on land. In India, the official national flag remained the undefaced Union Jack until 1947. Davidships (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Found the 1863 article you mention. That does certain produce an earlier date for the Viceregal flag than given in, for example, Star of India (flag), but there is no suggestion in the report that it had wider use - or that there were white/blue/red ensign derivatives. Not really relevant to merchant shipping. Davidships (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Does this mean that we need to add a civil flag to {{Country data British Raj}}? Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Davidships#Indian flag)

Regarding {{Country data British Raj}}, I don't know. If the main flag in these templates is supposed to be the national flag (or in this case a colonial equivalent) then this one is hopelessly wrong, as it should be the Union Jack, with the present main one in "Flag variants". That would have the additional practical advantage of not having to be date-limited as it was correct for the whole of 1858-1947. The actual dating for the red ensign in Star of India (flag) and its variety of uses seem highly problematic and need attention from an editor with access to better source material, as does identifying which flag was the civil flag. It seems that the only other British Raj flag which was constant for the whole period was the undefaced red ensign on British ships registered at British Indian ports - it was the plain one - but it was not the civil flag of British India, it was the civil ensign. Underlying this question is the awkward fact that in general terms for most of its history the red duster as a civil ensign has not been a specifically UK ensign, but a British one, relevant to ships owned by British subjects wherever they live and, subject to the detail of the Merchant Shipping Acts, wherever the ship was registered. Davidships (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (PS - I would much prefer to conduct this discussion on a single User Talk page, though do not mind which one; do you concur?)

@Davidships: Agree that it is probably better to have this discussion in one place. What I was proposing was the addition of a label on the country data template. If we call it "civil", then {{flagcountry|British Raj|civil}} would visually produce India, although clicking on the flag itself would take you to the British Raj article. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving your part of the conversation. Visually that would seem OK for the purpose in question, as it avoids the erroneous "UK" (though not the specific ship that started this). But I wonder where that leaves the country data page - and the correct use of the defaced red ensign in, for example Member states of the League of Nations. Do you know how else it is done where the civil flag differs from the civil ensign? (I'll be out for the next few hours, so will look in again in the evening). Davidships (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The use of a label can be for many different reasons. It can be used to depict a country's flag for a certain period of time, eg {{flag|Belgium|1830}} the Belgian flag from 1830-31 ( Belgium, compare with the flag in use since 1831 -  Belgium), or where a ship's civil flag is vastly different to the country's national flag (e.g. /  Malta, /  Singapore). Flagcountry is used to display a different name to that which it is wikilinked to, but I suspect you already knew that. I'm not seeing any errors in the flags in the League of Nations list, assuming that the flag used is that in force at the date of joining. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's best I suppose to just focus on what the presentation of the symbol/data on the Wrecks lists is for - I assume it is to indicate the nation of registration and the ensign that, in consequence, would have been flown (at the time of the casualty). As that precludes description of nationality, which for all plain red ensign registered under MSA would be "British", it seems that we have to fall back to the state where the chosen port of registry is located, even though that often had no real significance (UK-owned ships were registered in Bombay and, as with Nerbudda, British-Raj owners' ships could be registered in Liverpool - but in reality their status, rights and obligations were exactly the same).

In a way, it is fortunate that the civil ensign for British ships registed in British Indian ports was the un-defaced red ensign, as that enables us to stand aside from the dubious history of the Star of India version, and whether it was even an official civil flag - I'm trying to find more reliable sources, but at the moment the evidence points towards it being invented in the 1920s. Davidships (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"SS New York (Brown, 1888)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SS New York (Brown, 1888). The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#SS New York (Brown, 1888) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

John Brown was mentioned in the former ship list, but did not start building until 1899. Davidships (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sport

Earlier discussions are archived here

2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship

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

@Corvus tristis: - I've looked at the article and Marino Sato's article and I can't find a source that says he is racing under a San Marino licence. If you can add a source for that and the disruption continues, I'll be happy to semi-protect. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2018_FIA_Formula_3_European_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=861115039 Corvus tristis (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Despite note and reference the situation remains the same... This season contains many drivers with racing license differs from their actual nationality, so it will always confuse casual reader, can you put semi-protection now? Thanks. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: - 3 months' should be enough. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality and license issue

Hi, there is again problem with IP editors how are not able to understand the racing license concept in Motorsport. Here we have more than a dozen reverts of Mahaveer Raghunathan flag. It happens despite the note and reference for his license, so the semi-protection could really help. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: - semi'd for 3 months. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: My editing

Earlier discussions are archived here

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in January 1863, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochefort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melgar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mitchell & Smith

FYI, noticed that you have a pretty common copy/paste error in new articles on disused UK stations: the Mitchell & Smith citation is missing the year. I fixed Blean and Tyler Hill Halt railway station, but there are others (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains#Broken short references in train-related articles for context). Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mackensen: - I've fixed the other C&W stations. Any others that I've missed? Mjroots (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to check; I'm going off this list. Thanks for the quick response! Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mackensen: There's a few more there that are mine. I've cleared the error on Chemin de fer de Boulogne à Bonningues. Can't see anything obvious on Chemin de Fer d'Anvin à Calais, or SR class 3Sub, which I wrote, or South Eastern Main Line, which I expanded. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in September 1863, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sailing barge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in December 1863, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dulas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

List of shipwrecks in April 1864 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nykøbing

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in June 1864, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tranmere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Other users

Earlier discussions are archived here

ITN/C

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

Warning

Hello again, Now I have not left a reply for a while as I was not very happy about the warning you gave me. I do try my best here and the warning you gave me I feel like was and still is unacceptable, I don't randomly change the summaries for no reason, if you have not noticed I do read the final reports so I am not happy with the other person stating that I'm 'making a mess'. I have learning difficulties so please understand that or at least make a note of that on my profile.

Anyways I am happy to see that ASN is a website I can sue for sourcing purposes which is fantastic. But the edit were you gave me warning was a mistake which I never purposely made as I always make sure the right tab is up.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: I never gave you any warning. I was offering advice in my first post and ensuring that you were fully aware of the meaning of removing warnings left on your talk page in my second post. I am actually trying to help you here. I may be an admin, but I'm not the type of admin that steams in with the banhammer first and asks questions afterwards. I don't like having to block people from editing if it can be at all avoided.

Suggest that you take things easy for now. Misplaced Pages can be a very steep learning curve. Allowances can be made for editors with disabilities, but this has to work both ways. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they don't like you. Try proposing edits on the talk page of the relevant articles and gaining consensus for them. You can always ask at WT:AV for advice. That venue may be use to notify project members of ongoing discussions. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry your name is extremely similar to the person who warned me, I do apologie for that. Good news I know how to reference so no more problems with my edits anymore!! I’m happy now, hope you are to, sorry for the inconvenience here’s a cake to make it up 🎂.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Can i ask what is it with you saying im not as new as i claim to be? Ive made edits before i made an account (this one) but i am new to the policies and stuff ok? I dont get the suscipion

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that i think about it, im used to this layout of editing as i use Fandom Wikia which ive been on for over a year

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: - it was just a gut feeling. You may have been editing for a while when not logged in (IP editor). A Fandom Wikia would also explain it, as the software is similar across Wikis. As we're talking policies and stuff, please have a good read of WP:BRD. The D bit is important. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure I’m up for discussing things, however Jetstreamer never responds to my messages I leave onto him undoing my edits. Annoying really especially when I provide an explanation. Say... as you’re an admin, could you have another check to make sure the summary of Aeroperú 603 is good? Along with you deciding whether it’s a cfit accident or a loss of control accident?

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINTy page creation

Sonasan railway station was re-created as a pointy example. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tyw7&oldid=881570427#Second_chapter Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sonasan railway station --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Urgent

@Mjroots: Hey man we have an issue, Harro Ranter would like those photos I accienelty uploaded wrong deleted immediaetly. He sounds very upset from the email I just read. I would like to be on good terms with the guy as his website is key for photos and informaiton. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What images? If they are on Commons you'll need to find a Commons Admin. I have no powere to delete images on Commons. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay thx OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98

You've probably spotted this already ... but if you haven't I'd prefer to raise it here in case you haven't: Looking at the recent sequence of edits:

• 17:17 April 16 - On Moylesy98 talk: Unblock req. by D. Moyses on talk page
• 23:02 April 16 On Kolhapur - Series of edits by 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 essentially attempts at relocating an image which to be fair could be regarded as renderingl awkwardMoylesy98. This was however similar to edits made earlier by a now blocked sock of Moylesy98. I don't think the image is related to Moylesy98 but I could be totally wrong. The article has certainly been the subject of warring.
• 02:10 April 17 - On Kolhapur: Tony May puts the image back, adds a little content, and in the edit summary alleges 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00:FD2C:A2A7:284D:D101 is a sock of Moylesy98. (The allegation seems credible).
• 02:27 April 17 - On Moylesy98 talk: Response by Tony May to the unblock request. It is somewhat confrontational but the underlying concerns seem at a minimum non unjustified. However it does not mention anon IP edits of a few hours earlier ( it takes we very little of AGF the Tony had not unreasonable reasons for avoiding this, perhaps not 100% sure the IP sock accusation is true or perhaps not wishing to add that difficultly to Moylesy98 ).
• 08:37 April 17 WP:ANI - I gave a Weak support !vote and comment at ANI.
• 13:08 April 17 - On Moylesy98 talk: Response to Tony May by Moylesy98 which I read as he indicating he felt hounded/attacked/bullied

Some points on this:

• If Moylesy98 was using an anon IP sock for the purposes to try and circumvent a block then that probably needs checking out and dealing with more formally. Ideally it should be made explicitly clear this behavior severely reduces the chance of a block being removed. (IF I was editing from a public machine e.g. library I might well use an IP and declare it was me edit was controversial. I'd also want to withdraw my weak support for your ANI proposal at this time but
• This re-enforces my concerns interactions being Tony may and Moylesy98 are concerning and pragmatically will inevitably end up in a block for Moylesy98. Without prejudice to Tony May would a voluntary undertaking to report an issue with Moylesy98 rather than attempting to deal with it which will result in escalation. Leading up to the block I was concerned with Moylesy98/Tony May interactions escalation as likely being contributory to actions which resulted in the block .. though even discounting these a block was likely warranted.
• You're probably aware but just to be sure I have raised this discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Livery diagrams in part due to a symptom of some Tony May edits but the subject is slightly broader about livery diagrams which may be growing with WP:UNDUE weight.

Please excuse any mistakes above. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark - apologies for the delay in replying, am under the weather atm with a chest infection. If you suspect sockpuppetry, the WP:SPI is the venue to raise concerns. I think the previous case was not proven to be Moylesy98. I do check the talk pages of UKT and TWP regularly so am aware of what's going on there. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Main thing is you concentrate on getting better .... i might (or might not) looks at WP:SPI ... perhaps to get a line under it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have raised a WP:SPI. Short term this may not be helpful to Moylesy98, longer term it might be (sigh). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok ... Moylesy98 essentially cleared so I am happy for my weak support at ANI to remain standing. thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Response

"Editors are usually willing to discuss things where there is a difference of opinion and you are encouraged to join in these discussions." I feel thats a load of bs, especially as I'm adding information which is true and in keeping with what was there prior. You guys never wanted to know and thats evidenced by trying to block me. I mean, the first comment I got from one of you halfwits was that the distance from the town centre was an 'opinion'. Every one of you has acted abhorrantly and it is no wonder Misplaced Pages's admin get such bad press with people like you lot.

T.taylor1997 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Earlier discussions are archived here

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

New messages

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

List of British disasters

You removed my two entries on the list of British disasters by death toll page, with the justification that they did not occur in Britain. Using that logic, dozens of disasters on that list should be removed, since many of the existing entries occurred outside Britain. The crash of Dan-Air Flight 1008 in 1980, for example, took place in Tenerife, The Canary Islands. The list does not need to only include disasters that took place in Britain or Ireland - it states quite clearly in the intro that it could also include relevant disasters that involved it’s ‘citizens’. I suggest you read the page more closely. AmSam13 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@AmSam13: - I think that the scope of the list may needs some clarification. If you have not done so already, I'd caution you against re-adding the entries as you are heading into edit war territory. Give me fifteen minutes or so and I'll post my thoughts on the talk page of the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying that we should remove all those shipwrecks, air crashes etc. that are already present on the list because these events do not "relate to the United Kingdom or Ireland, or to the states that preceded them, or that involved their citizens, in a definable incident or accident such as a shipwreck"? AmSam13 (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@AmSam13: - See Talk:List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll#Scope of the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in February 1865, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dartmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Willie Thorne

On 17 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Willie Thorne, 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. Indefensible (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Advice, please

Despite agreeing to move on at WP:ANI, Davey2010 continues with his negative behaviour. Even though agreeing to apologize at 18:22, he denies and refuses to apologize less than an hour later. (He had WP:THANKed mefor my edit at ANI, so I charitable assumed that that was a private way of apologizing. In retrospect, it was more likely sarcastic.)

At the TfD he characterised one of my edits as "just dumped under the infobox", again "suggest you get your eyesight checked", and accused me of being a "snowflake" and "pathetic" . Rounding things out, this time of course there's no mistaking the sarcasm in his Have a nice day! salutation!

Since I got my knuckles rapped for initially going to ANI too quickly, I figured that this time I should at least bring it to the attention of the admin who attempted to resolve things, rather than going back to ANI prematurely. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If he really has no desire to interact with you further, why does he continue with the childish and petty WP:POKING? One would think that an editor that who has Barnstars for Diplomacy and Civility would know how to conduct themselves in a better manner. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I agreed to move on however I simply made a reply stating that I had indeed removed them because I didn't want people assuming these were unused when they originally weren't.

No I didn't characterise your edits in this way - I simply felt these were dumped under the infobox and that's how anyone else would see it.

Wrong, I agreed to move on, I never agreed to apologise.

Snwoflakes always get offended over things that aren't/weren't offensive.... and IMHO right now you seem to be getting offended over nothing here - I've told you repeatedly to visit your opticians and to get your eyesight checked which is more of a worry on my part than an actual personal attack.

"P.S. If he really has {no desire to interact with you further, why does he continue with the childish and petty WP:POKING?" - Ummm you pinged me so it was you that did the poking, sure I replied before that ping however I never pinged you and my reply was simply to state I did indeed remove them and that I apologised for not mentioning this to begin with.

I am diplomatic and civil but I'm not either of those things to people who feel it's fine to cause unnecessary drama (case in point being your IDL reply and the ANI thread),

May I remind you you started all of this nonsense with this reply, If you spoke to people nicer and assumed good faith more with people maybe people wouldn't be so annoyed with you and maybe things would run a lot smoother.

Like I said I'd rather move on and focus on our readers who are our top priority on this project, Nonsense posts like this achieve nothing and instead cause more drama than good. –Davey2010 01:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlgaeGraphix's, no apology was promised that I see in your diff —I think you have the wrong diff, though— and none can be demanded. And you should assume that Davey would use the thanks button in good faith. Just go do something else, please. This isn't going anywhere good right now. El_C 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C - I've had to refer this to WP:ANI for reasons explained there. Mjroots (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I replied there already. That was my point of reference. I think deescalation is the way to go here. Once again, very sorry to hear about your loss. El_C 03:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Jagiełło, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castellón (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1865, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flores Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate entry

Hi Mjroots, we have Duroc wreaking on the Mellish Reef on 13 August 1856 and on 13 July 1857. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

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

List of shipwrecks in December 1865 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Port Arthur

List of shipwrecks in January 1866 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tunbridge

List of shipwrecks in September 1866 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Barking

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

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

List of shipwrecks in December 1865 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Newbiggin, Triton and Büyükdere

List of shipwrecks in January 1866 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Portishead and Loch Tarbert

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

April 1821

Hi Mjroots, the items for Neptune for 11 April and "Unknown date" appear to be the same item. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: despite the discrepancy between Saint Petersburg and Baltic Port, I've gone with the original source and removed the entry for 11 April. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

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

List of shipwrecks in December 1865

added a link pointing to Indian

List of shipwrecks in February 1866

added a link pointing to Langstone

List of shipwrecks in January 1866

added a link pointing to Warkworth

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"ST Jacobs" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ST Jacobs. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#ST Jacobs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

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

List of shipwrecks in 1866

added a link pointing to Minatitlán

List of shipwrecks in February 1866

added a link pointing to Paisley

List of shipwrecks in May 1866

added a link pointing to Leven

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

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

List of shipwrecks in October 1866

added a link pointing to Benfleet

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Date error

Here you added the date "210 December 1866". Usually I try to fix typos like these, but I don't know how to verify the correct date. Could you check and correct this? Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: Thanks for the heads-up. It is 21 December (fixed). Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

small details

Hi Mjroots i've seen your note ... good idea :-) thus relating you might like to read small details concerning the Odyssey of Rhosus. Happy sailing :-) --80.187.106.49 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1866, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middleton, County Durham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sammy the Shunter

The article Sammy the Shunter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline and the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Sammy the Shunter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sammy the Shunter is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sammy the Shunter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in January 1867, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topsham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1866, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queenstown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in May 1867, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abrolhos Islands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ship Alicia wrecked october 1807 at Jutland

Looks like you added information about the apparent fundering of the ship of the line Alicia off the north coast of Jutland in october 1807, find it here.

I have found no further evidence of this ship on http://threedecks.org or http://ageofnelson.org or other websites, so probably there is a misspelling.

This happened weeks after the Battle of Copenhagen and in the days of departure of the captured danish fleet. No danish naval vessel had a name similar to Alicia.

Can you help? --Ribewiki (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ribewiki: - I've checked the source, and was is said is accurate to the source. The entry reads (original punctuation and spelling retained) -

A letter from Loeken, in Northern Jutland, of the 5th, states that the diving apparatus invented by M. Kall, Consul of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in that town, was about to be used, to examine, and endeavour to raise, the English ship of the line the Alicia, which foundered in October, 1807, at the Northern extremity of Jutland. At the time she sunk she had on board 1,200 men, to reinforce the army of Lord Cathcart, and 500 of whom, and almost all the crew of the vessel perished. When the water is clear the hull may be plainly seen, half buried in the sand, and many of the breeches of the guns may also be seen, as well as broken spars, lying on the deck. - "A Long-lost Prize". The Standared. No. 8741. London. 14 August 1852.

Alicia was probably a hired merchantman which had been armed and pressed into service as a transport ship. Hence the blue ensign in the list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IRIS Kharg

Hi Mjroots. Do you see a chance that this article can become a good/featured article? Pahlevun (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: - I'd certainly try for GA status to start with. I'd change the infobox parameter from "hull number" to "pennant number" but other than that it looks fine. Good luck! Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I would appreciate any input from you. Pahlevun (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Northumberland

Hello! I hope you are well. I have taken Northumberland out of some shipwreck pages mentioning Newcastle. Am I going nuts? it's possible. Please advise. Cheers (unaggressively) DBaK (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: N-o-T was part of the historical ceremonial county of Northumberland, as well as being a city and county of itself. Similar situations existed with Norwich and Bristol amongst others. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to get into a whole can of worms here but I am assuming that we are not saying "Bristol, Gloucestershire" and the like? I haven't checked: do we? Are you saying that N-o-T, Northd, is indeed correct for those listings?? (NB NB curious/confused/worried, not lacing up boxing gloves!) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

B,G - just checked, oops I see that we do - I am shutting up now. Please revert me re this if you like (but not the Newton please!) DBaK (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Middlesb(o)rough spelling

Hello again. One of my more annoying obsessions is the spelling of Middlesbrough. They would have done us all a big favour if they had stabilized in on Middlesborough, like the one in Kentucky, but very annoyingly they did not. However, in 1867 it probably wasn't in any final form, so where there's a vessel here called Middlesborough helping out with the brig Sultana, that could quite easily be the correct spelling per the source. Assuming that you have superduper access to these sources could you please very kindly confirm that she really was called that? If you can then I will make a note to myself and no longer waste your, my, or the universe's time on this. And if you can't, or it's too much trouble, then I will apologize for bothering you with my annoying trivia, and I will shut up anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally keep historical spellings (Dantzic, Monte Video etc) so it it says the ship was named "Middlesborough", then that is what the source says. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah fine. Then I will officially stfu and leave it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in December 1868, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highbridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

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

List of shipwrecks in March 1868

added links pointing to Scarborough, Bexhill and Ballycastle

List of shipwrecks in February 1868

added a link pointing to Deadman's Bay

List of shipwrecks in January 1868

added a link pointing to Barrington, Nova Scotia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

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

List of shipwrecks in April 1868

added links pointing to Ballyhack and Lismore

List of shipwrecks in August 1867

added a link pointing to Donegal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in October 1868, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annan and Boston Bay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your encouragement of a suspicious user

In response to my highlighting a clearly experienced user pretending to be new, you said "An editor may have edited for years before registering an account.". Of course they may, but that is exactly the point: the user explicitly denied any previous editing experience. The user wants you to believe that this was posted by someone with just ten days of editing experience. Are you not even a little bit suspicious of this? 109.144.213.176 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Thank you for your comment. If you check the respective articles, the user expressed his point of view, extensively repeatedly, I respect everyone who would crawl through on that very long text, the useful recommedations other editors put have been already put in practise. I am an engineer, so I have no problem focusing on the issues, on the other hand I quickly detect illogic argumentation, or suchs behaviors the user endorsing here (straw man argumentations, never ending inverse accusations, despite he was already debunked, denying and continuing with invalid assertions). These tendentious behavior like pretending the issues otherwhise as they were are disruptuve, annoying (nerve killing), but repeatedly contrary the evidence presented another engineer (Guy Macon), also demonstrated his accusations are false, did not make him to stop. He is deliberately provocating, having the last word and pretending by the walloftext repeats if he would really present fair new points. For instance see his latest answer:

"that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not one of your diffs" -> nonsense, all his diffs have been already presented, about what he said, and in fact what was the reality

"your source is off-topic, I was not talking about the 1930 census whose results were published later. In fact, if you look, you will notice that the numbers from the 1930 and 1940 census are different." -> the source was not off topic, it is explaining that the 1930 census publishment delayed with many years and in 1940 were not census, just an estimation. By talking about 1940 census he is reiterating again that IDHT issue which was demonstrated to be invalid one month ago.

Conclusion, you say and prove A, he will discuss about B and claiming C, like A would have never happened, despite the evidence. If another user reinforces A, he will say D and E, not even having connection with the root cause, etc. (hence diametrical opposed views, become a phenomenon, but one of it is fact which the other user keeps denying, from that point they are not the one and the same weight)

I am the bigger man now that I won't engage further on that discussion (hence I replied to you here), since evidence is there, and anyone who seriously care the issue should see what's going on (by three non-admin reviewers one did a really good job)

However, it remains to be seen if the users would change behavior, since he just learned everything he commited has no consequence. Since the beginning, I have been with direct conversations with two admins, who anyway engaged the user's talk page and warned him repeatedly earlier (at least I followed what they told me and updated them repeatedly).

I am disappointed the user could freely continue casting aspersions and denial of evidence (however, the thread is not closed yet). About what you mentioned ("even if he is lying"), and anything else per civility 2/(d) & (e) are still violations (and now extensively).

So, I have now the chance to learn from you, when will be the point when such behavior cannot continue, although our rules are clear? I refrained myself making reports about the user, although I have pretty much evidence now everyone may see as well...can I trust an admin will not let that behavior continue once?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

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

List of shipwrecks in February 1869

added a link pointing to Bexhill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)