→Your note: new section |
Radiopathy (talk | contribs) →User:Koavf: new section |
||
Line 769: | Line 769: | ||
Please see my reply on the talk page. Thanks, [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
Please see my reply on the talk page. Thanks, [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
== User:Koavf == |
|||
Please take note of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Rafablu88_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_edit_filter_log_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29_and_consensus_on_Remain_in_Light this discussion]. <b>[[User:Radiopathy|<font color="#006600">R</font><font color="#0D8147">ad</font><font color="#009966">io</font><font color="#009999">pa</font><font color="#1E99CC">th</font><font color="#67B2DE ">y</font>]]</b> [[User talk:Radiopathy|•talk•]] 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:03, 24 March 2010
Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Search user languages |
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
- If you feel that I deserve a barnstar, please add it here.
- For barnstars I've been awarded, see here
DYK & ITN
This user has written or expanded 151 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. |
My DYKs are on this sub-page.
The 25 DYK Medal | ||
For achieving your 25th Did You Know? I hereby award you this big fat medal. Well done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
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) |
Dyks
- Your welcome ... ask the two people you nominated! They count too Victuallers (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
April Fools DYK?
Hey, MJ, would you be interested in collaborating with me on an April Fools double DYK nom? I'm looking to add two ship articles: one from the WWI era, and one from the WWII era. I thought if you were interested, you could write the WWII-era article. Let me know if you're interested, and I can fill in the details. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you could write an article for the Ellerman Lines ship SS Lesbian (1923), I'll write about their former SS Lesbian (1915). I was thinking about a hook like this:
Other than the usual sources available, like Plimsoll, Convoyweb, etc.; I've found a source for the second one that might be helpful: Here (I also thought of an alternative hook involving only the latter ship, but I'm pretty sure it would be too ribald for the Main Page.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)…that the Ellerman Lines employed two Lesbians in the early 20th century but both met with tragic fates in the Mediterranean, one in World War I, and the other in World War II?
- Well, I'd seen that there was an older one, but Miramar showed it as Leyland Line (I think). How about either:
or:…that the Ellerman Lines employed three Lesbians in the early 20th century but two met with tragic fates in the Mediterranean, one in World War I, and the other in World War II?
This will give a little context and helps avoid the rather suggestive had. If we want to get suggestive, we could always use only the third ship and say:…that John Ellerman employed not one, not two, but three lesbians in the early 20th century?
(no offense intended to anyone reading this.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'd seen that there was an older one, but Miramar showed it as Leyland Line (I think). How about either:
number DYK
I've noticed over the past few weeks that you seem to be on fire for Mills and other articles including Camberwell. Congrats on the 90+. Btw, if you do Braughing, i have a small bit of info on trade (or copy if from Buntingford Branch Line). Simply south (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
ITN
--BorgQueen (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin
Old discussions are archived here.
GetJar
GetJar was created before, and deleted, and is now protected by admin. Can you help me get it unprotected or help me identify the admin who can/should? Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where my reply to your post on my talk page should go, so I am double replying there and here. I plan to make GetJar redirect to List_of_digital_distribution_platforms_for_mobile_devices. But that's really a temporary fallback position. Here is my draft for what I will replace the redirect with User:Mathiastck/GetJar. So yes, I propose to create a new article that meets all relevant Wikipedia policies. I was not previously involved, but when I twittered that I was gonna have to try and create the page they did contact me. So the above draft is what any wiki editor should have done to the original article. Mind you I'm an inclusionist :-) I still need them to send me their original sources. Mathiastck (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Not so long ago you gave Simonpettersen a final warning for inappropriate image uploads based on an issue I brought up at ANI, which can be seen at User_talk:Simonpettersen#ANI. Well he's just done it again with this image. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 14:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Indiana Militia Corps
Thanks for your offering of the userfied version of this article, however several elements are missing including an external link to their website. I cached a better version at User:JP419/rescued_pages-Indiana_Militia_Corps. As I mentioned elsewhere, this article was improperly deleted. The help I require is in navigating the undeletion review process; and if that fails, how I would go about getting arbitration. JP419 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Can you offer any help regarding undeletion and/or arbitration? As I mentioned, the deletion was improper and a violation of WP:Policy. JP419 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link but JohnCD was edit warring me. He blanket asserts there is nothing that can or will be notable about the organization, and therefore the article must be kept deleted. Suggestions??!? Is there someone I ought to go to about this?? JP419 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, whatever JohnCD's status, he's blocked my efforts to bring the article back. I am aware of 3RR, but I believe I already had it pretty well userfied (see my link). The only thing I missed was the Categories (which I can add when I resurrect the page). I did in fact add several third-party sources and a couple of them were relatively recent. And again, mucho thanks! JP419 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I also noted the rationale for deletion, but the notability was within 18 months, and there are articles that have not been notable for well beyond 36 months. I noted that in the debate and was ignored; I seem to recall that "current notability" doesn't mean that you have to have recent news feeds detailing what's currently being said about an organization. And let's face it, we're talking about militia groups that are not well known for being mentioned regularly in the news. In fact, they seem to go to lengths to stay out of the news and off peoples' radars. The lack of recently dated citations, therefore, doesn't reduce notability. (I pointed that out as well, and was still ignored). JP419 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, whatever JohnCD's status, he's blocked my efforts to bring the article back. I am aware of 3RR, but I believe I already had it pretty well userfied (see my link). The only thing I missed was the Categories (which I can add when I resurrect the page). I did in fact add several third-party sources and a couple of them were relatively recent. And again, mucho thanks! JP419 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link but JohnCD was edit warring me. He blanket asserts there is nothing that can or will be notable about the organization, and therefore the article must be kept deleted. Suggestions??!? Is there someone I ought to go to about this?? JP419 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I felt I should inform you that I started a new thread at WP:ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indiana_Militia_Corps.2C_part_deux regarding the deletion of Indiana Militia Corps. Angryapathy (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Last of the Summer Wine (series 31)
There's an IP editor who keeps making unconstructive edits to Last of the Summer Wine (series 31). I templated him twice yesterday but he's done it again (content removal). I've reverted; but do you think a level 3 is in order such as {{Uw-delete3}}
, should I go back to level 1, or ignore him? Level 3 warns of a block, but issuing a block is not in my power. What do you think is best? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's only one IP editor. After a period of being reverted for continual adding of unsourced information, he's now doing the opposite. He's not removing the whole table, just part of it - either the header or footer, which breaks the wikicode. I shall slap a
{{Uw-delete3}}
on him, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Suspected sock
Hi Mj, I've never reported a sock before, so don't know the procedure. Could you please let me know what should be done re Gellrok (talk · contribs) who is doing something similar to Gellrock (talk · contribs) that was blocked by Rodhullandemu yesterday? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Associates of Gellrock
I suspect that JoshuaHillman (talk · contribs) and Hillmajo (talk · contribs) may be associates of the above, judging by the edits each has done. These two also have user names with similarities. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- JoshuaHillman (talk · contribs) has previously been issued with a
{{uw-vandalism4im}}
(not by me), but has continued this morning. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600
See what I said at the bottom of Bigtimepeace's talk page; in the discussion itself when I was designing the wording, I explicitly mentioned that we were using Thatcher's sanction (almost identical, except that it would be indefinite and inclusive of discussion-ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that in light of his history of attempting to game the system by testing the boundaries of previous restrictions, there are concerns he's doing the same here. Instead of editing in an area that would not be so controversial, he consciously chose to edit in an area where politics and science are very much linked - and the pages he was working on did not solely focus on the scientific aspects. I know of the BLP value of the edit I brought up, but it demonstrates that in the midst of already controversial editing, he made a very clear edit regarding a US politician (such edits which he is explicitly banned from making). So everyone isn't talking about climate change probation, but rather the topic ban. That said, the climate change probation seems relevant to this also though, and perhaps it might prove simpler enforcing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Unban I appreciate the heads-up at WP:RESTRICT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Aircraft & Airlines
Earlier discussions are archived here
Re: Ethiopian Airline
Yes, Lebanese news networks are reporting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.243 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Colgan Air Flight 3407
Sorry for the mistake. I will be more careful next time and not delete references that are repeated later. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Cubana de Aviación Flight 310
Tuppence ha'penn'orth set down. Thanks for the alert! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Message added 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please read my comment; I'm trying to reach consensus without having to pull out the blunt cudgel of asking the closing admin to ignore majority opinion, and I would like you to either change your vote, or provide an argument supported by WP policies and guidelines that would change my vote. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Re Bangladesh Biman Airlines
Sure, I am not editing the article any more. However, do check the note I'm posting at ANB. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I actually gave you my assurance that I am not going to revert until the issue is resolved in ANB. So, edit protecting the page is not necessary. Also, would you care to post a note about your indefinite edit protection at the FAR page? Because of your infinite edit protection, the FAR fixes cannot be made at all indefinitely. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Aviation Notability
You may be interested in this discussion to accept the suggested guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability and the case of Cubana 310 has been brought up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
British Eagle Britannia and Viscount
The Bristol Britannia in the image at Manchester Airport is G-AOVM and the Vickers Viscount is G-AMOC. Hope that helps! RuthAS (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Trigana Air Service Flight 168
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trigana Air Service Flight 168, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigana Air Service Flight 168. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Military operators of aircraft
Well, I that thought that an IP editor, 75.80.151.51 was a vandal earlier on in the day, but in the end I worked out that he may have been referring to former operators, not current ones. My recent edit to the An-12 article that you likely based your response from, I didn't threaten an edit war, or at least not on purpose, but I did state that I wanted a reference on the possible Mongolian service. I hope this clears things up.
"Currently, the only military still using the Spitfire is the Royal Air Force (Battle of Britain Memorial Flight). I'm sure you'd agree that the list of operators shouldn't be reduced to just the RAF!" Lol No Mate! Nohomers48 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand completely. Nohomers48 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Aviation in 2010: Plane crash in Peru
I think you should add info about the plane crash in Peru, near the Nazca Lines, where 4 peruvians and 3 chileans died. Please check the news in ABC and CNN. --JorgeRodriguez (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Good Article Review of BOAC Flight 712
Message added 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Geotags
Geo Links and Geograph
There are problems with your suggestion- which is the reason I haven't done it. There is a discussion forum Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that is discussing the whole thing. The crux is that many people are unhappy if the link goes to one site, no matter how useful, and believes that the link should only go to GeoHack, where the reader can choose the map they want. There are a lot of unhappy people there. I have a problem with the way we are doing the conversion. It looks great, but if we edit either gridref or the location then the other doesn't change. In looking for a solution, I have been looking at the maths and a lot doesn't add up, this coupled with the volatility of forum, I have been hanging back. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello there, and thanks for the contact. To me this looks good, but (and it is a big but) I'm afraid the issue appears more complex and contentious than I had first anticipated. I'm also not particularly "clued-up" about which system is good and which is bad, which seems to be part of an ongoing debate. All I know is that there should be a standard system, and these should be included as part of the text for settlements in the UK. Have you taken this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Infobox geotags- looks as it will take some time. Its on my list! ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Checking inline geotags
- 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)
Mills
Earlier discussions are archived here
Beam pump
Hi there. WT:GM recommended I ask you, I wondered if you'd be interested in this? I'm currently trying to drum up support so it can be restored and preserved in situ, and wondered if you knew anyone who might be interested. The pump is at Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Paltro[c]k mill
Sorry, we both edited at the same time so my expansion includes the Paltrock spelling. I used this because the English reference I was using spelt it that way. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not too fussed about the spelling. My main aim is to translate the German wiki article on the de:Internationales Wind- und Wassermühlen-Museum which is home to one of these mills. If you are a mill expert, it would be great if you could scan the article when it's ready for any errors. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Mills Project
Thanks for letting me konw. My main focus currently is translating German articles on railways and the area I live in - Lower Saxony. But mills sound interesting - if there are any German mill articles worth adding I'm happy to give it a go - Sansoucci mill may be a start. I may also look out for mills to photograph. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just completed translation of the above article. It needs a second eye casting over it and probably more links. It would be good for a DYK, but the original gives no in-line references so it would probably fail. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just added this article as well. Grateful if you could cast an expert eye over it if you have time. It is referenced so might be a candidate for a DYK. Don't worry I'm giving translation of mill articles a rest for a bit! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, Patcham is right per all sources; the IP is notionally right in that it happens to be closer to present-day Westdene than present-day Patcham, but the fact remains that it was built long before Westdene was built within the old parish of Patcham, as Patcham's windmill. I've put some more details on the talk page, and have added an explicit ref to the lead. (I probably didn't help matters by putting a paragraph about the mill in the Westdene article when I wrote it!) Best regards, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Goole Fields
Hi, as you have created the list articles for mills you may be the best person to answer this. I have just spotted Goole Fields mill on Geograph and there appears to be no entry in List of windmills in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Is this an omission or is it really called something else? Keith D (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Textile mill progress
Just to up date you. I have these two templates, that sum up progress and what needs to done. In the first you can pick up the company histories and a lists of lists of textile mills. In the second you can see the progress on individual later mills.
Yes, I'm still upright and breathing.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that Yates of Blackburn was a predecessor to Yates & Thom; and that the latter subsequently became Foster, Yates & Thom. Their factory was on both sides of Manner Sutton Street (at the Eanam end). I remember that there was something resembling a bridge across the street, connecting the two buildings, which may have been some sort of housing for pipes or ducts. This was painted a dark colour - whether black, grey or blue I don't recall - but with the FYT logo in yellow. A few years ago I bought a Corgi "Dibnah's Choice" model steam traction engine and low-loader; the latter carries a Lancashire boiler painted black, with "YATES & THOM LTD. BLACKBURN" in white. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
People
Earlier discussions are archived here
Selena
Hey there Mjroots, not sure if you noticed, but Alwaysshawn (talk · contribs) reverted your edit in Selena after I brought it up at WP:ANI. Thought I'd let you know. — ξxplicit 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
John Barnett Humphreys
Hello Mjroots, having you by chance some information about John Barnett Humphreys. Please have a look at de:John Barnett Humphreys. We have no information about the birthday, the live after return to England and the death of him. Thank you for help. --Beaverbear (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the right section. :) The problem with Charles Fryatt is that when the article was created it copied the contents of [1], which includes contents by two different writers from two different sources, neither of which would appear to be pd. The situation was discovered this morning, evidently, and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 9 by User:Jackyd101, who also noted the issue at Main Page/Errors. Evidently, the DYK hook was already on the front page at that time. User:Materialscientist said he would "try to fix that article in a moment" in response to the Main Page/Errors report, but I can't see that he did anything? He's a busy fellow, and nothing pops in his edit summaries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the panic. I'd have felt the same way, I'm sure. :) I'm still a bit confused and kind of alarmed about how all of this went down. As far as I can tell, nothing was done to delink that copyvio from the front page even though an administrator was notified of it and acknowledged that notification hours before the DYK update. Obviously, this is no fault of yours (and I've have been pretty bummed to lose a DYK myself because somebody else violated copyright), but that doesn't shine a good light on the project--admins ignoring copyvios. I think I need to bring this up at DYK. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, the copyvio was nothing to do with you. I'm just shocked that somebody pointed it out and the complaint was archived without action. That was nothing to do with you, either. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I've raised the matter here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, the copyvio was nothing to do with you. I'm just shocked that somebody pointed it out and the complaint was archived without action. That was nothing to do with you, either. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
←Wow! I'll say. :D Would you like me to go ahead and process it (being still an uninvolved admin and all)? Even if we get permission for the earlier text, we can just restore it under, since this is scads better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's the main reason that I would do it, but, no, I don't think it would be a problem for you to do it yourself. It doesn't technically qualify for G12, since it doesn't meet the criteria. Generally, we'd keep it listed for a week at CP and then delete it under that criteria in the pull-down menu. But when a new article is written to replace an old one, I will usually delete the first under G6, with a note of explanation something like: "Copyright violation foundational. New article written to replace." (Only usually I'm sure I'm not that long-winded.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Henry Allingham
Ah yes - much much better that way round - wish I'd thought of that! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Buglism!
Ha! You're quite right, I did mean to do something about that: thanks for the reminder. But please don't hold your breath - an honest answer to your question would be something like: "paining me from time to time, but unlikely to prove fatal, thank you." With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Danielle Campbell
See my comments at WP:AN. I've never heard of her either, until tonight, but there was an AfD just last month to not allow an article on her. The editor is edit warring to keep creating the article, even though it's been salted. Woogee (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
They've been indef blocked for repeatedly creating the article. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Carr
Article looks good so far. I agree with you the old page needed to be moved now we have more than one notable Sarah Carr. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
List of people from Doncaster
Re your recent edit to the list, in what way was my edit Vandalism? What objection do you have to the only civilian female outright winner of the George Cross appearing on this list. Barbara Jane Harrison completed her schooling in Doncaster and began her short working life there too. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- No objection at all! It would seem that i reverted one revision to far when removing these vandalism edits, catching Barbara Jane Harrison as collateral damage. Quite naturally i have reinstated her to her proper place on this list, which should nor be free of bogus and vandalism entries as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (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}}.
Deletion review
I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Image:Sarre86.jpg which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Geograph
I have a bot on Wikimedia Commons that uploads photographs from Geograph:
- commons:User:File_Upload_Bot_(Edward)
- http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=File_Upload_Bot_(Edward)
I've also upload a lot using my regular account:
Edward (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
License for Image:Image:Stiens 1974-1.jpg
The image :Image:Stiens 1974-1.jpg is a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. When you uploaded this image, you licensed it for use under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). On behalf of the Wikipedia and Commons communities, thank you. However, the GFDL requires that reproductions of the image (and any other GFDL-licenced works), must be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. The GFDL is intended more for documentation and not images, so downstream re-users may be hindered by additional restrictions of the GFDL which may not work well on the use of one image.
Before I copy this image to the Commons, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to multilicense your work under an additional license, such as a Creative Commons licence. Creative Commons licences, such as the Attribution Share-Alike license provide a similar copyleft permission to the GFDL, but without some of its requirements such as the distribution of the licence text. All you need to do, is place the additional license tag alongside your current license. Users can choose between which one they want to use the image under. There are many free licenses accepted on Wikipedia and Commons which can provide freedoms similar to the GFDL, but without some of its requirements.
You are under no obligation whatsoever to alter the license. Doing so merely cooperates with those members of the community who believe that multilicensing your work can ease the reuse of images outside of Wikipedia.
If you use a GFDL license tag which requires distribution of Wikipedia's general disclaimer (indicated by "Subject to disclamiers" in the template), it is also suggested that you switch it to one which does not apply them.
Whether or not you choose to dual-license your work, thank you for your consideration.
This message was placed using Template:Dual-licence. |
Thanks! --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:Horse tram, Southampton.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Horse tram, Southampton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Horse tram, Southampton.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BG7even 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:SS LESBIAN (3).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SS LESBIAN (3).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
HMS Archer (D78)
Thanks for your message on my talk page [2]. My memory of image uploads from four years ago is more than a little hazy, but I will try to help as best I can. Searches at Haze Gray and the Naval Historical Center turned up nothing quite like the photo in question, but I think I found it at NavSource [3]. The image there has "IWM" listed for "Contributed By And/Or Copyright." Today I presume that stands for the Imperial War Museum, but back in 2005 I probably did not know and just assumed it fell under the "Or Images Believed To Be In The Public Domain" listed on the site's copyright information page [4]. However four years later (and with a significantly better understanding of WP:IUP), I recognize that is not a good assumption to make. I also tried searching the Imperial War Museum web site, but while I found a similar photo [5], I could not find this image.
How do you feel we should proceed from here? My recollection is that after uploading around a dozen images of escort carriers in September 2005, I decided that my understanding of IUP was not nuanced enough and I stopped. These images should probably be reviewed and deleted as necessary. I will double-check with a MILHIST coordinator and if they concur, I will start sometime this week. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your patience, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Thelnetham derelict.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Thelnetham derelict.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done
NowCommons: File:Sklr-oldmap.jpg
File:Sklr-oldmap.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bowaters Paper Railway-old map.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Bowaters Paper Railway-old map.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:MV Danny F II.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:MV Danny F II.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- And File:MV Don Carlos.jpg - can you go back through your last few uploads as you seem to have missed an important step - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Places
Earlier discussions are archived here
Westerham Brewery
What was wrong with the article as a stand-alone article. The section in the Westerham article says less than the article itself did. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I normally put merge to *#* per WP:Company and WP:Breweries when merging a small and problematic brewery article to a new location. The article flagged up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Cleanup listing, and when I went there I didn't find much of value, so I redirected to the most appropriate place. I like Westerham beers, and considered writing an article on the brewery for either CAMRA or RateBeer shortly after it opened, and Robert Wicks invited me down to have a look around, but then I got too tied up in other matters. However, I wasn't motivated enough when looking at the material to tidy it up and build it into a meaningful article, so I did the quick fix, and redirected it. Also, I am unsure of the notability. I don't feel we should delete it, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's notable enough for a stand-alone. So - redirect for now. See if the material builds, and then split it out from Westerham in WP:Summary style when there is enough meaningful content. SilkTork *YES! 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Lakanal fire
You should find I've sourced all my material. If there's something wrong with the links i've given, please let me know. Jpmaytum (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wormshill
I think most of the new content is referenced where possible. The only difficulty I see is the statement about disconnecting the phone box. This isn't actually verifiable by print sources yet but will be soon - I have returned to live in the village after a brief spell overseas and noticed an announcement to this effect on the village noticeboard.
As to the East Kent / West Kent division, I had always colloquially understood the line to be that of the River Medway however Hasted referred to the boundaries relevant to the Quarter Sessions and the administration of the two regions - the line of which runs through the village. I'll take out the reference to Men of Kent/Kentish Men as that appears to be separate from the administrative regions of East/West Kent and the demarcation aligned with the Diocese of Rochester. For what it's worth, I am also a Man of Kent. Dick G (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Dutch settlement infoboxes
It will be migrated to that presently. Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC).
Hamilton Road Cemetery, Deal, Kent
Thanks for your interest and the advice on referencing for a wikipedia newbie.. I'll ensure this gets sorted in the next week or two :-) Kbaughan1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the referencing :-) Kbaughan1 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks also for info on citeweb. Looks fiendish, but I'll start converting all the references next week. Cheers! Kbaughan1 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK
Okay, I added it to the prep area for a future DYK update. It was missing the tag to say where the information was from at the point the information is given. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Glynde's only female teenager.
As a piece of trivia, it highlights the sheer tininess of the small village of Glynde. For readers looking up the famous Glyndebourne, it is a pretty wonderfull footnote. And I'm fairly confident that it is true. Please do not be so prudish in removing it.
It is interesting to note the allowance of implying an ex-[spunge] member is a member of the BNP as acceptable and relevant, but not something harmless and interesting like this.
I appreciate the good faith given to me and believe me when I say it is not vandalism. I genuinely feel that it helps to give an understanding of the sort of community this village is. It is also worth noting that what you'd consider to be Glynde ends at the station, beyond it is Beddingham. This is the only reason for this claim. If I was to rephrase my addition to become more suitable, would this be fair?
I shall return with a census as proof. We can work out time frames from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.123.82 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Pix in Listed buildings in Worthing
Hi Mj. My preferred method would be having a 75px or 100px image column in the main table itself (like here) w/ an image for each building. That won't be possible, because a lot of the buildings are on private land or are otherwise very difficult to photograph. Accordingly I've gone for the strip down the side as a compromise. I'm less keen on a gallery, as the images would be collected at the bottom (when they run down the side, they help to break up the block of text in the table a bit) and it might feel like image overload in one place. I'm open to suggestions though ... I can't visualise your ideas, so if you get a moment could you just put something together really quickly in one of my sandboxes? Just copy a few rows from the table and use a few random images, if you like. I'd be interested to see some alternative ideas! You can use this sandbox. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Problem with an image column within the list is that I won't be able to get pictures for quite a number of the buildings; it wouldn't look great to have lots of blank spaces in the column. Maybe I'll take a look at the gallery idea... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll play around with various possibilities. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Somme edits
Hi, my edits to articles for communes in the Somme department are really minor: I remove an obsolete map of France from the infobox, and as a result the default map of France is used. I didn't add an edit summary out of laziness (it slows down my replacement rate), but I can add "map" if you like. Markussep Talk 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Contributing about aerodromes
Further to your comments in the discussion about Middenmeer_Aerodrome, I finally created a beginning of Former aerodromes of Belgium as a table. I'll be glad to have your comments/suggestions! BTW as you are into mills, make sure to check www.mot.be - and drop me a line if ever you come along! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Railways
Earlier discussions are archived here
Hawkhurst branch
I think it's definitely possible. I've got enough material to produce a well-referenced article, the only question mark is over images. I'll draw up a wishlist on the article's talk page. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar, I've still got some refs to add in from Hart and also check if there are any interesting magazine articles which could be used. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Well done on the very thorough job you've done cleaning up the text. I've had a look for the Railway Modeller articles and came across this useful page [6]. Do we need to include track plans in the article given that there's already a pretty comprehensive routemap? I'll try and get hold of a copy of the Railway Magazine article. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the ref requested. The track plans look a lot better than I had imagined possible using the RDTs, but I wonder if it's not overloading the article too much to go into any more detail about the stations? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The system of referencing was introduced to me by User:Redrose64 and I've asked him to look into your question. He may also be able to help us get the article into FA shape which I think is definitely achievable before June 2011. By the way, I'm not sure if you noticed but the original Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway article seems to have been started by the curator of the Col. Stephens museum. I think I might drop him a line to see if he has any out-of-copyright material that we might use here. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Route map
Please look at this: User:Sameboat/x4. I use the {{bs5-sc}} ({{BS5-startCollapsible}}) to hide the features except for stations and branchings. Because using the in-map collapsible section will increase 1 more row for the route map, it is justifiable if there're enough materials to be hidden rather than just 1 single section like the siding. Alternatively you may create 2 maps, 1 simplified for including the stations and branching, another 1 for detailed characteristic of the line. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Cudworth locos
I'm trying to get something together at Talk:Hawkhurst Branch Line regarding your recent edits where loco classes are mentioned. Basically: the Cudworth 118 class 2-4-0 and the SER E class 2-4-0 are one and the same. Unfortunately it takes some WP:OR using Bradley's work on SER locos (2nd ed, at least) to work it out, but: on p.15 we have "E - Cudworth standard 2-4-0s" and by eliminating all non-Cudworth locos, the small (ie non-standard) classes and all non-2-4-0 locos, all that is left is the 118 class (pp. 101-112). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- following sentence moved from User talk:Redrose64 (Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
- If you read the James Cudworth article, you'll see that the locos were rebuilt. Is it possible that the E1 class were the rebuilds of the 118 class? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- end of moved section. (I dislike disjoint conversations, and this page is on my watchlist)
I have problems there. I am assuming that the section you mean is the paragraph beginning "By 1855, Cudworth started to introduce more conventional steam locomotives", since that is the only one to mention (a) the 118 class and (b) the word "rebuilt".
First, the only reference given for that paragraph is "Nock, O. S. (1961). "VI". The South Eastern and Chatham Railway. London: Ian Allen. pp. p70-79. {{cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=
and |month=
(help)" which is somewhat vague. I happen to have a copy (albeit the 1971 paperback reprint), and looking through those ten pages for the classes described, a better citation would be "Nock, O.S. (1971) [1961]. "VI: Early Locomotives and Trains". The South Eastern and Chatham Railway. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 71–72. ISBN 0 7110 0268 1.".
Second, the only mention of the 118 Class is in the sentence "Fifty three 0-6-0 goods engines were constructed at Ashford Works between 1855 and 1876, the 118 class". This, and the two sentences which follow, are backed up (Nock pp. 71-72) except that Nock does not mention "118 Class". Checking elsewhere in the chapter, he doesn't mention "118 Class" at all. According to Bradley (Bradley, D.L. (1985) [1963]. The Locomotive History of the South Eastern Railway (2nd ed.). London: RCTS. p. 91. ISBN 0 901115 48 7. {{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)) the 53 goods engines were known as the "Standard Goods", and no. 118 is not listed in the class summary (Bradley p. 98).
Turning now to the sentence "In 1857, Cudworth introduced a class of 2-4-0s" and the three which follow it; these are all backed up (Nock p. 72), but it is these engines which Bradley describes both as the "118 Class" (Bradley pp. 101,103) and also as the "standard 2-4-0s" (Bradley p. 103) except that he separates off the first six from E.B. Wilson as a distinct class (Bradley pp. 99-100), giving 68 from Ashford and 42 from contractors - and no. 118 is one of the Ashford engines.
Now, to the letter or letter/digit class codes. These are listed as introduced by Stirling in September 1879 (Bradley p. 15), where we find the "Standard Goods" as the I class, the E.B. Wilson 2-4-0s as the D class, and the Cudworth standard 2-4-0s as the E class. Bradley rarely uses these class codes in his text, until Stirling's own classes are mentioned, and does not do so at all for the three classes in question. Nock similarly ignores these codes until dealing with Stirling's classes. I have never come across E1 used to describe anything in that part of the world other than Maunsell's 1919-20 rebuilds of the Wainwright E class 4-4-0. Most of the 118 class were indeed rebuilt, some twice (Bradley pp. 105-106), but the use of the suffix "1" to a Stirling class letter does not seem to come up until the SECR period (B1 rebuilt from B by Wainwright, F1 from F, etc.). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see where I've gone wrong (I think). the 59 and 118 class were both 2-4-0s. I don't have access to Bradley so perhaps you can expand the article a bit. What class were the 0-4-4s that Cudworth introduced? Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks to the James Cudworth article. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, more confusion. The 59 class were the three 0-6-0s built at Ashford in 1879, to Mansell's design although incorporating features of Cudworth's standard goods; Stirling allotted them N class (the standard goods were I class). Principal diffs included the driving wheels (5'0" instead of 4'10") and cylinders (17"x24" instead of 16"x24"). (Bradley pp. 156-157)
- There were several designs of 2-4-0 in the Cudworth period, and Bradley divides them into seven classes, six being small in number.
- The 0-4-4Ts on the SER fell neatly into three classes:
- the Cudworth "235 class" (J class) well tanks, 7 locos built 1866 by Brassey & Co; (Bradley pp. 122-123)
- the Mansell "Gunboats" (M class) side tanks, 9 built Ashford 1877-8; (Bradley pp. 134-136)
- the Stirling Q class side tanks, 118 built (48 by Ashford; 60 by Neilson, Reid; 10 by Sharp, Stewart) 1881-1897 (Bradley pp. 160-171). Rebuilds of these with H class boilers by Wainwright or Maunsell were Q1 class.
- Re the Cudworth article: puzzled by your title for chapter VI - it's called "Early Locomotives and Trains" in mine, in which it's chapter X that is called "South Eastern & Chatham" (and not "The South East and Chatham Railway" as you put); removal of the mention of the 118 class is good; the table is a start: I'll see what can be added directly, rather than putting more notes here. Bear in mind that my Bradley page numbers will be (as they are above) those of the second edition, which is much expanded from the first.
- It's a good idea to get yourself a copy. Looking around second-hand railway book sellers, the first edition is far easier to obtain - I think because the second is always snapped up by those who already have a first, who then dispose of the shorter first ed. Try Geoff Gamble Books in Crawley. I've picked up some real good stuff from them. They'll be at Leatherhead model railway show, 26-27 February 2010. Make sure you ask for "The Locomotive History of the South Eastern Railway, second edition, by D.L. Bradley", because he wrote eleven books covering the SR's locos - Bruce Smetham (who took over Geoff Gamble Books after the death of the founder) will know exactly what you mean, given that sentence. Altogether, Bradley's books in this series were: one each for the SER, LCDR, SECR (1960-1963); two for the LSWR (1965-7); three for the LBSCR (1969-74); two for the SR post grouping classes (1975-6); and one for the Isle of Wight (1982). The SER, LCDR & SECR books all went to a second edition in 1979-1985 (see LCDR R1 class#References for details), so these are far commoner than the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the chapter title in the ref. Must've still be half-asleep when I did that! Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re Cudworth's unusual middle name "I'Anson". I've been poking around and have found this website, where we find that it seems to have variant spellings including "Ianson"; see this page. In the same site I have found this page - it doesn't mention our James Cudworth; but note the word "Ashford" in the heading (which suggests a family connection to that town), and much later on, the paragraph beginning "Mary, the sole surviving daughter of William and Mary Ianson, married William Cudworth, grocer and druggist, of Darlington". It's both the right town and the right religion; so do you have anything that gives the names of James I'Anson Cudworth's parents? Would they be William Cudworth and Mary I'Anson by any chance? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Bingo! See James Cudworth#Early life. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding your text "2-4-0s for the Hastings Line. These engines were known as the 59 class.[8]"; all that ref. 8 says is "Woodlands class Designed by Alfred Kitching in 1848 ... Nos. 58 Woodlands, 59 Hallgarth ... John Kitching claimed that the design was copied by James Cudworth for the 59 class used on SER Hastings trains.". Looking at Bradley p. 88 we have the "Hastings" class, which it says 'appear to have been influenced by the 1848 "Woodland" class long-boiler 2-4-0s of the Stockton & Darlington Railway' Nowhere in Bradley is "59 class" mentioned in connection with these engines, whose numbers were 157-170.
- Considering other possible SER locos numbered 59:
- Watkin built an 0-6-0 no. 59 in 1879, which was of his "59 class".
- Right back at the dawn of SER history, there was no no. 59 until 1844. Some 2-2-2s were built by Sharp, Roberts in 1841 for the London & Brighton Railway, one of which was L&B no. 20. On formation of the Brighton, Croydon & Dover Joint Committee in 1844, this loco was renumbered 59; on the dissolution of the joint committee a year later, it passed to the SER but retained its number. (Bradley pp. 35, 37, 39)
- Now, we have "No. 59 which had been rebuilt as a 2-4-0 in 1855" (Bradley p. 50) and we also find that several Sharps 2-2-2s, including no. 59, had been rebuilt as 2-4-0s by Cudworth at around the same time (Bradley pp. 38-39); but none of these rebuilds are described as "59 class". No. 59 itself was withdrawn in 1879, which leaves no space in between the old L&B engine and the Watkin 0-6-0 in which to put a Cudworth 2-4-0 - unless the 1855 rebuild be the one; but I don't think that a rebuild could produce a copy of an existing design on another railway. However, a new design, such as the "Hastings" class, could well be a copy. I think that the steamindex page has mixed its sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you've got Bradley, so if you think the 59 class is wrong I'll not object to it being changed. The table coud probably do with some wikilinks once all the classes have been sorted out. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK nom
Don't know if you've noticed, but I left a comment at Template talk:Did you know#James Cudworth, because I expanded that part of James Cudworth which is directly related to the DYK sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've not finished the table of loco classes - at least as far as the section "Cudworth rebuilds of pre-1845 locomotives" is concerned. However, the section "Locomotives built new to Cudworth's order" has all the rows which it should have. I've removed the "under construction" tag, also added notability to the lede, items to the infobox, a succession box at the bottom (see below re Watkin) and reset the paragraph on the coal burning firebox. Here's a composite diff of this morning's work. nb Watkin's name pops up as a redlink in several articles, with almost no consistency - I have seen Alfred Mellor Watkin, Alfred Meller Watkin, Alfred M. Watkin, Alfred Watkin, A.M. Watkin. One of these redirects to Edward Watkin. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see that Cudworth is now at Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep area 2 .5Bedit.5D. Any idea of typical timescales by which time any tweaks to the article must be completed? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
dyk hook suggestion
Hi, I am just wondering if you noticed the discussion regarding your dyk hook here. You may want to comment. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of James Cudworth
Hello! Your submission of James Cudworth 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! Materialscientist (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Kings Ferry North Halt the same as Swale North Halt?
You asked this question on my talk page on 18 Nov 2009, and I replied there using info from the only books I have, which suggested that the answer is no. However, User Lamberhurst might have better information in his copy of Colonel Cobbs Atlas.
More recently you stated this again on the talk page for Closed stations Kent, and so far no-one has replied there.
What source of information suggests to you that Kings Ferry North Halt the same as Swale North Halt?
Efficacy (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to add the information that I have; I shall do so at Template talk:Closed stations Kent. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on the template's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents)
Just a note to say that whilst I'm battering the guideline, and indeed the idea of the guideline, I'm absolutely not having a go at you, and accept fully that your intentions are the best. Please don't be discouraged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Milk Tanks
Milk tanks are a peculiar case. They fall into that grey area of rolling stock categorisation which is neither passenger nor freight, and is described in many books as "non-passenger carrying coaching stock" or NPCCS, being stock which doesn't carry passengers, yet is permitted (by reason of wheelbase, brakes, etc.) to run in passenger trains. On annual returns made by railway companies to the Board of Trade, milk tanks were included under the heading "open carriage trucks". This, I believe, stems from around 1927, when the railways started to switch from churns to tanks for the carriage of milk. Despite them being essentially inseparable, for many years (right down to the end of milk transport by rail in the early 1980s I think) the rail chassis was owned by the railway, and the tank itself by the dairy. Thus, since the railway was not responsible for the tank, it saw no reason for a special classification - so they remained under the "open carriage truck" heading. Details of SR no. 4430 (Diagram 3157, HOO no. 768, Lancing September 1933), which carried a UD tank, may be found in
- Gould, David (1992). "Chapter Nine: Milk Tanks". Southern Railway Passenger Vans. Headington: The Oakwood Press. pp. 99, 105, 114, 115. ISBN 0 85361 428 8. X50.
which contains the interesting text
No. 4430 was obtained by the Bluebell railway in August 1981 following its withdrawal in 1980. The actual tank was donated by St. Ivel, but the underframe, being BR property, had to be bought by the Bluebell!
So, I don't really agree with your recent changes. Sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wagons may only run in passenger trains if they meet certain specifications. Most apparent "wagons" used in passenger trains were actually NPCCS, such as fish vans, fresh meat vans and parcels vans - the common factor being that the items that they carried were penalised by delays, either because they were perishable, or because there was a promised delivery time. This meant that they needed to be conveyed as quickly as possible, so virtually all suitable vehicles were built to passenger train requirements. Since milk tanks carried perishable goods, they are NPCCS and not freight stock. Petrol tanks on the other hand, carried materials which were non-perishable, did not attract a penalty if delayed; and because of the inherent dangers, were expressly forbidden from being formed in passenger trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Rivers
Earlier discussions are archived here
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. Wikipedia 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)
River Medway | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers; that may interest you. Later tonight I will be posting some of the changes. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
Ships
Earlier discussions are archived here
Barque Alf
Hello Mjroots
Thank you for making your valuable contributions to the article Barque Alf and for the nomination to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. I will watch with interest for any developments. I was impressed with the inclusion of the image you found of the Alf, well done!. I agree that the article would probable be better named Alf (barque).
stavros1 ♣ 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
SS Ragnhild
I've added a response to your comment on my talk page. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
SS Avondale Park
Thanks for the heads up. I have reviewed your nomination. Please have a look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Park Ships
Thanks for the invitation to participate in the ships list project. However, I must decline. First, my interests are so scattershot, I would not stay focused long enough to see it through, I'm afraid. I tend to dabble, not specialize. I do hope my work on the Park Ships was adequate, however. That was my first foray into the naval field where there are clearly many experts (such as yourself) and much interest. Second - my only source at the moment is a couple of Web sites which other users have thoroughly slammed. Don't want to go there ... Some day maybe I'll look up Syd Heal's book and build up the Parks Ship article. Best wished and thanks for your help with the article. Thanks also for your nice piece on the Avondale Park, BTW.I had never see the Lloyd's material before. Great stuff! Verne Equinox (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Sport
Hadlow Cricket Club
My pleasure. A pity there is not more data about the old club. Regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Slindon Cricket Club
Hello again, Mjroots, and thank you very much for the nomination. But really I have done nothing except split the cricket content from the village article per your own action re Hadlow and Hadlow Cricket Club. The author of all the Slindon cricket information seems to have been User:BlackJack. Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, Mjroots. I've done the inline citations for this article: could you take a look and let me know if it is okay? Thanks again. Best regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Michael, it's there. Nice to see. Thanks very much for your efforts. Best wishes. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oz GP
This is an unbelievable race! I haven't seen anything of Hamilton, he's had a boring race lol. Nakajima might even get a point here...
Kubica
I realised it wasn't intentional vandalism - sorry if I gave the impression that it thought it was. Cheers. DH85868993 (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Grand Prix
Thanks for the tip, man. I was getting a little annoyed at how three people were trying to edit at once, and one of them was saving every time he added a new line. I've sorted it out now; the page is pretty much done for today aside from cosmetics.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2009 F1 season
I thought that was the probable source and wasn't too impressed but it could have been worse, they might have meant one of these. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Flags in F1 articles
Hi there, I see you changed a flag in one of the F1 articles and you got reverted by the editor who just watches F1 articles in order to revert the flags to her chosen preference, and then leaves a false link to a discussion in her edit summary. The correct link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Flags in articles. We're trying to finally decide on a proper policy for the flag icons, and your input would be very welcome. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You're quick. I was just about to undo my revision myself after looking it up once I saw "tyre" somewhere else. Oh well, I learned something new. Cheer! --Bark (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry
I'm sorry because edition in 2010 Formula One season page. Cdmafra (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: My editing
Earlier discussions are archived here
Miramar
You wrote to me some time ago because of broken links. Have you seen the note on start page that the website won't be public available anymore? Can you add a note to {{Cite Miramar}}? Merlissimo 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Om nom nom...
Debkafile on RSN
Can you revisit WP:RSN and say which article Debka was being considered for? The response was a lot faster than I'd like to see on RSN, and I think this deserves a closer look. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar for MV Willesden (1944)
I had at first been impressed by the MV Willesden (1944) article, but when I saw just HOW MUCH you contribute, especially to topics of interest in the UK, I thought "Tireless Contributor" seemed pretty appropriate. --SmokingNewton (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Other users
Earlier discussions are archived here
User talk:Lontech
Hi! You probably meant Wikipedia:Signatures, no? Currently the link is quite an easter egg and certainly doesn't actually point to the relevant policy... Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
fixed-- LONTECH Talk 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up
I was hesitant to intervene earlier because I've seen editors with language problems and other world views be bitten quite badly here before and didn't want to feed into that pattern. A couple of comments by the editor in question over the last month and this latest spate of nominations was enough to dispell any lingering thoughts I had about speaking up though. Thanks for taking care of that. Tiamuttalk 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good to know. About the babel, can someone explain to him/her how to do it? I don't know how it is added. Tiamuttalk 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- How stupid of me, its on my own page. I really need to become more familiar with tech lingo. Tiamuttalk 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
F1 2010/vandals
Thanks for adding the protection. The vandal attacks have stopped, but for one user. User:Dineshdl92 has repeatedly edited the driver table, and then five minutes later after his edits have been reverted. He has been asked by three users - including my page - to stop on his talk page, and I've added a section for him under the discussions tab, though I doubt he's the sort who checks it. I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's good enough for me. I can't speak for the others, but if they take exception to it, they can go out and find a better one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Redirects, NRHP listings, etc.
Hi, Mjroots. I didn't reply to your comment until now because I was not quite sure what to say, but I've finally
The issue regarding Downtown Norwich is the outgrowth of several months of petty squabbling, edit warring, etc. I don't think that it would be productive to bring the matter up at WP:ANI right now. The situation has been discussed ad nauseam on numerous talk pages and noticeboards, and the conclusion always is (in essence) that all involved parties are productive good-faith contributors who ought to be able to talk through the disagreements. Acroterion has agreed to attempt to mediate, but the issues pile up too fast for one person. If you think you could help him out (or know of another candidate), I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you...
For some background on the dispute (and possibly some perspective on how it came about that an article title from Connecticut, USA, got redirected to Norwich), see (listed in no particular order): Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Rhode Island, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Vermont, Talk:Poquetanuck, and User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Warning
Understood (although I don't think I was being that uncivil). From what I have seen, certain editors continue their bad actions regardless of what I say anyways. I will be more careful with my words. TJ Spyke 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Officially Mr X
Hey mj, I don't mean to be complaining here, but would you mind taking a look at the edits made by User:Officially Mr X? He's been all over the 2010 Formula One season page (yeah, I don't do much on wiki except F1 stuff) with his tendency to edit things in ahead of time. I've asked him to put a little more thought into what he does and check his sources, and I've noticed other users have done the same. But he tends to ignore what is posted that he should wait for official annoucements, and he seems to get sucked into rumours very quickly. He's been blocked for disruptive edits in the past, but nothing seems to get through to him. I see you've been invovld with him before. I wouldn't call what he does vandalism, but the sheer weight of his edits suggest he has been around a long time; at the very least, long enough to know better. Since you're the resident moderator who follows the page, I thought you might like to know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
User:White Nights in Stockholm
Hi Mjroots, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
My signature
Thanks for the information. I did not realize it was not linking. Of course, as usual, would have been nice to just get the information without a warning ("This is against policy." Yeah, the universe is against policy). But, it was still useful, the first information part. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Total retraction. You are correct: it was not a template. So, I change my post to: thank you for letting me know my signature was not linking. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Crash Talk Page edit mistake
I'm not sure what happened, I suspect I was editing a much older version of the page and perhaps got an editing conflict warning but didn't notice. Am I within my right to remove the RFC I started if I feel like it's resolved? - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I started a thread on the new EL noticeboard for the 3D model. The RFC was lopsided with two detractors and no proponents. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Redlinks
Sorry to get back to you so late. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and before your comment, I believed that redlinks were simply mistakes, not something wanted in any way. Thanks for enlightening me!--Mister Zoo (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Historian 69
Hi Mjroots, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Avoiding speedy deletions and AfDs
Usually those articles get expanded by other people too, by starting the article in the mainspace they get a chance to work on it too and add info that I don't have. That happened for example here: March 881. Dr. Loosmark 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- True, however not always I have the possibilities to better develop the articles myself. But lets be clear about one thing, there was no reason to CSD those articles. Dr. Loosmark 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Earlier discussions are archived here
Map of the Norfolk Broads
Hi - I just calibrated the template which aligns markers on the map, I didn't create it. User:Jza84 created the map, and may be able to assist. Warofdreams talk 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Lists of listed buildings
Hi, there's been more discussion at WT:HSITES about naming lists of listed buildings. So far you're the only one to have strongly objected so I'd appreciate any further comments from you. The suggestion would only apply to lists of listed buildings (so not lists of mills as they're not all listed) because of the repetition of "list" that is currently involved in the naming convention. Nev1 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Rijksmonumenten
Thanks for note to my Talk page, but indeed I already understood all those selected Rijksmonumenten were in the category set up for it. But there remains no source in their articles, or anywhere else as far as i know, that establishes any or all of them are in fact Rijksmonuments. This situation is far different from what i am familiar with in U.S. NRHP listings, where it is easy to check at government set or several private mirror sites which places are actually NRHP-listed. I notice in several of your mill articles that you do seem to have precise information, including the Rijksmonument listing number, but I don't see a specific source. The Rijksmonument article DYK is going down the tubes for lack of any specific source. If you could provide specific sources for some mill articles, I would be very happy to cover just those ones and drop the existing selected ones, in order to save the DYK. doncram (talk)
DYK for Rijksmonument
Thanks for all your good work in this! You were meant to co-receive a DYK. doncram (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Already did, and added to my DYK sub-page. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
PROD of Rijksmonument (Belgium)
Hi, there's a PROD for Rijksmonument (Belgium) with it being asserted that "Rijksmonument is a purely Dutch (The Netherlands) term, in Belgium monuments are simply called "monuments" (monumenten) or "protected heritage site" (beschermd erfgoed). The site linked to is from a community which is part Dutch, part Belgian,and the section linked describes the Dutch situation only." Does that seem right to you? It seems opposite what i/we were told before when developing what became Rijksmonument (Netherlands). And should "Beschermd erfgoed" be the article name for Belgian monuments, instead, or would we need a French term to be part of the article name, or should it be "Protected heritage site (Belgium)"? doncram (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Rijksmonument template proposal
Hi Mjroots How do you think about a Rijksmonument template looking somewhat like this
Dutch Rijksmonument number :Monument Number [7] |
.
To be placed somewhere at the bottom of the page The number can be added in the template format, and it will add the article to the rijksmonument category. I have not (yet) managed to include the number in the deeplink for the source Let me know if you like the idea, in which case I will set op the template in Wikispace. Arnoutf (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, just checked not to make it a unsupported solo action. I now created the template at template:Rijksmonument. I will start adding it to the bottom of monument articles. Improvements are welcome. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Goachers
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Weston Road get-together.
In real life I invite the neighbours and their kids to let off their fireworks and drink their beer in the garden on November 5th (and generally mill around), anytime after it goes dark till whenever. Kent Wikipedians are most welcome to come and join us at 65- though parking can be a challenge. As always it will be a multilingual event and there should be a bonfire too. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Editing scalabe vector graphics
If you're interested in editing .svgs then I'd advise downloading Inkscape. It's free and has no "free trial" crap. Editing the map of the UK and Ireland to change the colour of counties is quite a simple task. When you have the map open in Inkscape, left-click one of the counties then left-click one of the colours at the bottom of the screen to change it to that colour. You'll probably want to chage it to the same colour as one of the other counties. To do so, when the county is selected, press F7 then left-click the county which has the colour you want your selected county to be. Here's a link. Jolly Ω Janner 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Press TV
Hi Mjroots. I am an employee at Press TV & I am assigned the grand task of making sure the wikipedia page regarding our news agency stays accurate & has propaganda & slander removed.
I noticed that you have place a semi-lock on the page. Thank you for doing so because many people continually attack us through wikipedia.
If you may please direct me - I'd like to know how & what process to remove the majority of inaccurate & slanderous information. If you notice most of the text has relatively little to do with Press TV itself yet full of opinions, biases, and slander. These comments could be made regarding any news organization such as CNN or FOX News or Sky News.
If possible, could we keep the semi-protection lock on for a longer period of time while some of us work to create a more accurate and unbiased profile that is free of defamation. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presstvwiki (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Snowy december
Just wondered if you were interested in Talk:December 2009 European snowfall#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Service awards proposal
Housebarn DYK - add European world view
That's a great suggestion! Unfortunately I don't speak that language. I was hoping to get a better world view on the article - I even asked Victuallers to help me but he wasn't able to. Would you help the article out by adding content in these areas? There's plenty of DYK credit to be awarded, of course! I was surprised to find no article on the topic while watching a television program on historic barns in my state and I wondered if I was missing the article somehow. Many thanks! Royalbroil 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great job with adding content about Netherlands housebarns! I have added expansion credit to you on the article. Royalbroil 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
New messages
Your note
Please see my reply on the talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Koavf
Please take note of this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)