User talk:Mjroots

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

Please add new comments at the bottom of the relevant section if it already exists - e.g. Railways, Places, Ships, Aircraft & Airlines etc. Please add new subjects to the bottom of the relevant section; If you are unsure where to add your contribution, the "New messages" section at the bottom of the page will be fine. I'll move it myself if necessary.

Please note: I do not watch article talk pages. If you wish to raise an issue, please drop me a note here.

If your post is an Admin-related matter, please post it in the Admin section on this page. If you e-mail me, please leave a note in the "New Messages" section of my talk page so that I am aware one has been sent.

Contents

Barnstars[edit]

  • For barnstars I've been awarded, see here
  • If you feel that I deserve a barnstar, please add it here.
Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all the shipwreck info! Dibbydib (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK & ITN[edit]

Symbol question.svgThis user has written or expanded 233 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.




My DYKs are on this sub-page and my ITNs are on this sub-page. Earlier discussions are archived here

Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Medal
For achieving your 25th Did You Know? I hereby award you this big fat medal. Well done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Dyk50CE.svg The 50 DYK Medal
Trams, mills, railways ... I think Isambard would have been proud of your approach particulary the French ideas, but he would have barred our veteran editor from further progression for supporting a railway that was merely a metre. But he's not here! So more seriously, thank you on behalf of the wiki. (Let me tell you though that the 100 one s a really cool yellowy gold colour). Good luck with the GA and cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Dyk100CE.svg The 100 DYK Medal  
As I told you at 50 ... the 100 DYK medal is a really cool shade of yellow. I hope you are not disappointed, as the wiki is not regretful at all of your efforts. Well done. The wiki gets better due to your contributions and its a pleasure to thank you again on behalf of the wiki. See you at 200? Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dyk200CE.svg The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your tireless contributions. The Interior (Talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for PS Castalia[edit]

Thank you for thanking me. I actually noticed only one of the typos, but I use Firefox and it apparently spellchecks everything by default. When I went into edit mode, not only was the error I noticed underlined with a wavy line, so were other things. I had to sort out the genuine mistakes from a lot of "false positives"; I hope I didn't change anything that was right.

You are obviously a very active contributor to Wikipedia. I am mostly a consumer -- I benefit from the work you and others like you do. Thank you very much.

I have no idea whether this is the right place for this comment. You replied to my talk page and this is your talk page, so I hope it is. If not, you will move it. Gms3591 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to expand Peace in Africa for a DYK?[edit]

Hi Mjroots, you and Haus seem to have good access to merchant marine sources. Want to expand Peace in Africa (ship) for DYK? Djembayz (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Any additions to Malahat (schooner) at DYK?[edit]

Hi again! I've put in a self nom for Malahat (schooner) at DYK. Perhaps you can spruce it up a bit. Djembayz (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/De Akkermolen[edit]

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

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/QSMV Dominion Monarch at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wendhausen Windmill[edit]

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

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

DYK nomination of Godmersham Park[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)

Symbol question.svg 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[edit]

Old discussions are archived here.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that![edit]

I didn't realize that the ANI discussion proposal was still seeking input. Thanks for reverting my closure... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - no problem. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Aviation[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Good news[edit]

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[edit]

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/wiki/Aerosucre_Flight_4544

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

Geotags, Grid refs etc,[edit]

Geo Links and Geograph[edit]

There are problems with your suggestion- which is the reason I haven't done it. There is a discussion forum Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that is discussing the whole thing. The crux is that many people are unhappy if the link goes to one site, no matter how useful, and believes that the link should only go to GeoHack, where the reader can choose the map they want. There are a lot of unhappy people there. I have a problem with the way we are doing the conversion. It looks great, but if we edit either gridref or the location then the other doesn't change. In looking for a solution, I have been looking at the maths and a lot doesn't add up, this coupled with the volatility of forum, I have been hanging back. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for the contact. To me this looks good, but (and it is a big but) I'm afraid the issue appears more complex and contentious than I had first anticipated. I'm also not particularly "clued-up" about which system is good and which is bad, which seems to be part of an ongoing debate. All I know is that there should be a standard system, and these should be included as part of the text for settlements in the UK. Have you taken this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox geotags- looks as it will take some time. Its on my list! ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking inline geotags[edit]

  • Now the accuracy of OStoWiki has been corrected (+/- 2m) all previous references may need tweaking.
  • The GeoHack tool now has a new interface and at the bottom of the GB section, under the dangerously inaccurate grid reference is a fantastic tool called Map of all Coordinates in article.
  • I tried it on the Loose stream, and because of it I I'm going to make another tweak to OStoWiki.

ClemRutter (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly safe to use: the next tweak will be an enhancementClemRutter (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscoor[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. Although I use OS maps within multimap to find things, multimap gives DMS output, and the numbering of the OS gridlines in the display tends to be hidden; so I tend to think I'm not ever going to use {{oscoor}}. However your intervention did cause me to go back and read the national grid system article, so as to understand the resolution of various lengths of OS coordinate. As I would not have done this without your intervention; thanks! --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with gbmapping and oscoor templates[edit]

Hi, There seems to be a small inaccuracy in the translation of OSGB coords to WGS84. I've mentioned it here and here but haven't found anyone who might be able to fix it. Do you know where it would be best to raise it, please?--Cavrdg (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Grid refs[edit]

I did not like having to display grid refs without spaces. At long last I have got round to asking someone and doing this very simple edit. The php that it calls was already prepared to receive spaces. That means you could do this edit to other articles that call oscoor (which is now a redirect). But certainly, I suggest using {{gbmappingsmall}} in any future case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now implemented oscoor elimination as a tool - see Template talk:oscoor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Geograph[edit]

Moved from my user page
Yes indeed! A terrific place for browsing old memories and old haunts as well! Thanks for the reminder. Palmeira (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the FAQ says CC-BY-SA-2.0 but I think that should still usable. We just have to maintain attribution. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mills[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Medway watermills[edit]

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

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

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

@Pldx1: - I understand that there is a size issue, but I'm not sure what you mean by "what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill". I see not problem with the diagram at all. It is displaying correctly. I created the diagram line by line using the BS-map system, if that helps you. It is complete and is unlikely to need to be altered, which is a good thing. There has been talk at the Trains WikiProject recently where an alternative system was proposed which gets around the size issue at a cost of needing a degree in computing to be able to edit the diagram. Is the size issue that bad that the diagrams need to be tampered with? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots:. Please open User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test and search for Yalding Mill. On the left, i.e. on the 'all' map, the next object after Yalding Mill is Wateringbury Stream. On the right, i.e. on the middle+lower map, we have Yalding Mill, a to mouth link, a to source link and then Wateringbury Stream. This behavior is what was expected. Let us now compare with the junction between upper and middle. Searching for Salman's Farm, we see that some objects, namely Ensfield Mill, Limit of navigation, Ramhurst Mill, Powder Mills, Town Lock and Town Mill, are on the left, but not on the right. This shouldn't occur, but I have no idea of how to proceed, since I know nothing about the Medway river. Concerning the other points, I will try to find the discussion your are mentioning, at Trains WikiProject. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: It would appear that you are using the new system. Looks like a few lines of code have got missed out somewhere to cause that error which you describe. I see it now I know exactly what to look for.
Can't help with the fix though. Don't understand that system at all. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots:. Oh no, I am not using the new system ! To tell it crudely, there are programmers, you, me, other people. They are using programming languages. Here, {{BS-map}} and the sequel. There are computers. They are using assembly language. Here {{routemap}}. Obviously some geeks are writing directly in assembly language, but most of the programmers are using a compiler, to translate from programming language into assembly language. Here, the translation is not too difficult: what should be done on the human side is described at Template:Routemap/doc#Transition_from_legacy_BS_row_template_to_Routemap_markup i.e. some substitutions that are easy to automatize. And all the rest is computer made when the subst are proceeded.

Again, Medway watermills[edit]

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

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

@Pldx1: If I understand it correctly, the full diagram is now on the left. Looking good although there is some random bolding of names that needs addressing. I'm sure this minor problem can be overcome. As I said earlier, this diagram is very unlikely to need to be amended, apart from the names of a few mills not identified by name which may possibly become identified in the future. I see no benefit in adding roads, railways etc. It would all become far too complicated and cluttered. This is a river and mills diagram, best to keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The diagram on the left comes from the actual template i.e. Template:Medway watermills diagram. The only changes were compilation (and bolding four locations near the jointures of the partial maps). On the contrary, the three maps on the right (each one below the other) are the new ones, obtained from assembling the parts and changing the visibility of block14 (at the junction of upper and middle part). This is to be compared with the previous User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway_watermills_diagram/test. What is your opinion about taking back block 18 (Eldridge Lock etc) in the middle part ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "taking back block 18". The only problem I can see with the right hand diagrams is that the continuation arrow on the top diagram is the wrong colour. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of windmills in Ille-et-Vilaine[edit]

Hi,

I did a correction on this list and I'm curious: why is there names in bold or in italic on List of windmills in Ille-et-Vilaine?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Bold text denotes mill is standing, italics denotes remains only. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer. I added a note on the table to be more explicit (and if I find time, I'll probably translate this list on the French Wikipédia). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Thanks. There are other French windmill lists, all linked from the List of windmills in France. I gave each département a separate list once it reached 20 windmills. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Veldkamps Meuln[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. Face-smile.svg 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)

People[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nicholas Winton[edit]

Thanks for trying. Great to see such important real world news taking centre stage yet again. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I was wondering if you'd had any response at wp:cz about the class of the Order of the White Lion awarded to Winton? Although I have more or less given up on the ITN nomination, I'm still intrigued. The report at PrageuPost suggests that both awards were made at the same class, but does not explicitly. I'v also scoured all of the top Google hits in Czech (with the help of Google translate!) but have drawn a blank. As User talk:Fuebaey has pointed out, we don't to seem to have any reliable sources yet for the class. One imagines that there would be a Czech Government website somewhere that would put this matter beyond doubt. Many thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, at least we found out it was a Class 1, the same as Churchill's. So some satisfaction. Now the ITN nomination has timed out and dropped off the queue, of course, so any difference in consensus makes no difference, I guess. Hope you are well. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Cazalet[edit]

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

Source is online and states Military Medal. As for DYK, that one would work, as would Albert Roux being his personal chef. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I can see what's happened with the source there, having read the online article from The Guards Magazine now - the recommendation of the MM refers to a different soldier, a Guardsman - eligible for the Military Medal. Cazalet was the soldier's CO - "Two days later at a laager on a German farm, Gdsm Cumbley’s squadron commander, Peter Cazalet, called him in and told him he would be recommended for an award, but despite a letter of recommendation to Lt Col Windsor Lewis, he was to be disappointed; there was no Military Medal". I'm going to remove the mention from the article. Agree about Albert Roux too, I might nominate this for DYK with a couple of Alt hooks. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bcp67: - no problem, thanks. If you nominate for DYK you won't need to do a QPQ. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think they've changed the rules lately and anyone nominating has to do a QPQ, it's no problem as I've done a few DYK reviews here and there. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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[edit]

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[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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[edit]

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)

Pictures[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Copyrighted images[edit]

Note to self

When uploading copyrighted images, remember to use {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Fair use rationale}}.

File:N269RV.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:N269RV.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Russavia Let's dialogue 04:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted both images. Wikipedia will be poorer without them, but it's not worth a slow edit war to keep them up. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Loose Valle Mills.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Loose Valle Mills.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rakaia-painting.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rakaia-painting.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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

NFC[edit]

Would this image meet NFC? - [1]? I want to use it in an article we have been working on. Cheers, FriyMan talk 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 talk 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[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nomination of October 2013 United Kingdom storm for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2013 United Kingdom storm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oddbodz (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

St Jude storm[edit]

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

Re: Typhoon Haiyan[edit]

If/when they get enough information, we'll consider splitting them then. But for now, it's rather silly to have such stubby sections. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Otham Abbey[edit]

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

Stanmer Church[edit]

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[edit]

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

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Yes, go ahead and edit, but bear in mind my remarks at the talk page re unlocking the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dover Strait coastal guns, 1940–1944[edit]

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! Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't fill in the missing cites, sadly. Face-sad.svg Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack[edit]

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 Wikipedia Face-wink.svg. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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

I now see you changed the dab on List of shipwrecks in April 1851. Thanks.— Rod talk 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I probably did it that way because Queenstown, County Cork doesn't appear at Queenstown.— Rod talk 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Railways[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Class 47[edit]

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 ([2],[3]) and by the later days they didn't bother (i.e. [4], [5]). 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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/wiki/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[edit]

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)

Rivers[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

River Len[edit]

Mike I feel quite pleased with myself! I had found the relatively new Geobox|rivers at River Trent and investigated. You will now see the result at this article (I took an easy one first!). There may well be other information - I couldn't work out the coordinates, and in any case a river covers more than one; couldn't find the exact length; and dunno if there is anywhere to be able to get flow rates etc. You may well be able to add more tributaries - I took the ones you had alraedy mentioned under the mills. None of the blanks come out until you give some information. I had also discovered the exact location of the source - a historical document on the Medway; I'm sure you also know more about its course, although perhaps that isn't too important. Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mill symbols[edit]

As you see I have put two new symbols into your sandbox article. Just a quick fix. Using mills in this way is quite an extension. Come September we need to define what symbols we need- mills with weirs for example, millponds goits. I have been visiting the Dark Peak and realise how much more important water engineering was in the 1780s and the growth of the Cotton Industry. Still I am taking a break now. ClemRutter (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been talking with guys at WP:RIVERS and trying to work out what icon system to recommend. In a nutshell, the cyan worms are out, rivers are dark blue unless you need to differentiate- then non-navigable are light blue and navigable are darkblue. but I am still working on it. You have source at the top. River Len, Kent seems to be correct. See also Manchester Ship Canal for an upside down example. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Route diagrams gives the discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cadeau[edit]

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

Medway diagram[edit]

This takes a little thought. I like diagrams- very useful for showing mill locations- but there is a convention on canals that navigable should be darkblue and non navigable light blue. The tails as steams meet the river seem clunky. I have been concerned about the representation of reservoirs for some time- is a reservoir navigable or not- how do you show the dam bypass channel. In the simple case: a truncated salami would do- but they often are constructed at the confluence of several rivers. A lot of icons need some thought- and that will take a little time- I will put it on the list. (Some mills are on the wrong bank but that is minor). --ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put in far too many hours playing with the diagram on my talk page. Please look over- and see if there is anything to add- you will need to proof read the position of the mills relative to the new locks, and the addition of the Beult and the two mouths of the Teise. I have added some new icons to Template:Waterways legend particularly putting curved dams on reservoirs. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To be positive: it is getting there. A few of your changes I don"t like. A river is a hydrographical item, as well as cultural one. The first uncollapsed diagram needs to stand in its own right, and give the reader basic infomation about its course. The collapsed bits need to show the twidddly bits, that the Teise at Yalding has bifurcated, and where mills were situated. When the course is a navigation we need info on the locks. Background colour needs to show whether the river is tidal, a navigation, or non-navigable. The section names are taken from the NRA, and are used by the waterways community- I don't think Lower Mid Upper is really informative. The whole diagram (uncollapsed) needs to be complete and informative in itself. I think that we should do another round of rollbacks and improvement then wrap it in a template and ask the WP:RIVERS for comment on any points where policy decisions need to be made. I would like to use it as a model to be attached to their policy page. I then want to code up the River Etherow, Irk, Irwell, Medlock, Goyt can't you just smell the cotton. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, width is critical when using collapsable box- expand all the section to see it isn't broken by the change. Titles a lot better- I took one look and thought- I knew I was about to to do that-- but I can't remember having done it. These wretched dock icons look awful- I am going to redo them- I cant see why a narrow dock should be five times wider than the river. I am more concerned about the length if the diagram, then allowing the diagram to be included in Kent pages that make a mention to the Medway. Then into Infoboxes.I am uploading images along the commons:Portland Basin- Ashton Canal at the moment.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know this one? Template:Medway Navigation--ClemRutter (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Well it is certainly ready to be wrapped in a template- so I have. We can do further editing there {{River Medway map}}. I did do one change as the Tidal estuary is downstream from Rochester.

True. There is a limit to the sort of ship you can drive under Rochester Bridge. I think the commissioner of HM Dockyard would agree with me. The London Stone is at Upnor, which is/was the upstream limit of the Port of London- but Rochester is miles from the Swale or Thames. This wrretched river never does things simply!--ClemRutter (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivers[edit]

I have been putting a bit of input into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers‎; that may interest you. Later tonight I will be posting some of the changes. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:River Waveney map[edit]

Hi. I notice you have updated the River Waveney map, but was a little surprised to see that it now runs from south to north. One of the problems of the transposition is that several of the adjoining rivers are now shown on the wrong side. Oulton Broad should be on the other side, as should the River Yare, and the Haddiscoe cut is no longer clearly labelled. I was going to try to sort it out but am a bit short of time at the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am back from holiday now, and have moved Oulton Broad, Haddiscoe Cut and the River Bure back to where they should be, corrected the direction of the locks, and produced a windmill symbol for the windmills. However, I have no sources for which side of the river the windmills should be on, and as the river and Haddiscoe Cut have now been transposed, wondered if you could just check them. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Givors canal[edit]

Hi, given your interest in France and transport and the fact that it's been sitting weeks, I wondered if you'd care to review this one for GA? If you;re not feeling very well I understand though, sorry to hear about that. Your talk page could do with archiving though its 159 kb! Hope you had a good Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ships[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

A page you started (List of shipwrecks in November 1828) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating List of shipwrecks in November 1828.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: - OK, I'm confused. Why are pages that I'm creating showing up as needing to be patrolled? I was granted the autopatrolled user right many years ago. AFAIK, it also comes with the tools granted to admins. Still, there's another 119 out there if you are lacking something to do. All linked from {{1820s shipwrecks}}. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: – Hi, I did not see this on the new pages feed, it came up another feed (the User:AlexNewArtBot/IrelandSearchResult) for Irish linked articles. When I opened it, the new page curation tool appeared! In fairness, it is an easy page to pass (given quality). I would say the issue is with the BOT feed, and I will not it for future reference. Sorry about that and lovely article! Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Unknown date shipwrecks for 1821[edit]

Hi Mjroots, the article lists a "HM hired brig Mercury" being destroyed by lightning at Curacao. Hepper, who has the most complete listing of RN ship losses, has no mention of her. Furthermore, the National Maritime Museum's database (now no longer available but I downloaded it before it disappeared), has no suitable Mercury. I am wondering if the news from Jamaica was referring to a transport rather than a naval vessel. It is, of course, possible that she was hired locally and that news never reached official records in the Admiralty, but it is curious. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1816[edit]

Hi Mjroots, the list of 1816 shipwrecks has two listings for Eagle, one on 10 November and one on 16 November, that appear to reference the same ship. (As an aside, I am working on Asia/Sir Francis Drake/Dona Maria ii, which, as you mentioned, has an interesting, and complex history.) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1808[edit]

Hi Mjroots, there appears to be a duplicate item. The list has Mary Ann foundering and her crew being rescued by Brook on 24 September and October (unknown date). For the October listing I corrected Brook to Brook Watson, and that's when I found the 24 September listing. I checked the Lloyd's List entry for the October loss and it is clear that the rescuer was "Brook Watson," not "Brook, Watson". Furthermore, I checked in Lloyd's Register and there were two vessels named Brook Watson at the time, I just haven't been able to figure out which one rescued the crew. (I am currently interested in the whaler Brook Watson.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - in which case, it's likely that 24 September is the correct date. Would you make the necessary adjustment please. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Roger, wilco. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1817[edit]

Hi Mjroots, the Dutch ship Ceres is listed as having been lost on 6 Jan and again on 10 Jan. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)[edit]

I would have preferred if you messaged me before reverting my move of the above article. As always it seems the guidelines are ambiguous. Under merchant ship in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) guidelines it states "When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name" but then confusingly in the Disambiguating ships with the same name section it states "In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch." Given that the former says May and the later says Do not I hold that the correct dab is the first year by that name. To use the launch date is confusing when there are ships of the same name when one acquired the name later but was launched earlier under another name than the one which was launched under that name. We can see this on this ship as there was a Mary Luckenbach launched in 1920 and bore the name until 1936. If you do not agree with me can I suggest we take this to wt:ships for a decision? Lyndaship (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: - AFAIK we do normally disambiguate by year of launch. It is possible to further disambiguate where two ships carried the same name and were lauched in the same year. Am happy to see this discussed at WT:SHIPS and it would probably be better for it to be discussed there. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in July 1852[edit]

On List of shipwrecks in July 1852 (18 July) there is a dab link to Rundle Stone. I was going to point this at Runnel Stone but for a voyage from Devon to Dorset this doesn't make sense. Any ideas?— Rod talk 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rodw: It was the Runnel Stone (fixed it). It does make sense as sailing ships go where the wind blows them, which not necessarily where you'd expect them to be on a journey from A to B. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in March 1838[edit]

Orient appears twice, first in 20 March and again in "Unknown date". Re4gards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1815[edit]

Favorite, prize to the American privateer Warrior, appears both on 27 January and in "Unknown date". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in February 1830[edit]

We have George Green (1829 ship) wrecking on 6 February. However, The Times already carries the story on 3 February, and the site I have used for the info for the article on her has the wreck occurring on 30 January 1830. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed - feel free to make any necessary corrections yourself - especially where you have other sources to back the info. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I will be a little more aggressive in fixing errors then, at least when I have what i believe is better info. Often though, I don't have access to the original sources and so cannot adjudicate. In those cases I will continue defer to you. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

November 1944 Shipwrecks template overstretch[edit]

I have been troubleshooting the overstretch on the November 1944 shipwrecks template. Here's what I found:

  • I wondered if there was hidden typo in the template format somewhere that was causing the problem, so I copied the top, middle and bottom formatting text (i.e., everything except the dates and lists of ships) from a template that works properly (December 1944 shipwrecks) and previewed the November 1944 template with that formatting copied in. The overstretch persisted, so that's not where the problem lies. Obviously, I did not publish that preview.
  • Given the above, the overstretch problem had to lie somewhere among the dates and ships listed in the template. To start, I looked for the longest line in the the template, which is "10 Nov" under "Other incidents." Removing the entire 10 Nov list and previewing the template without it shows that removing the entire 10 Nov line cures the overstretch problem, so the problem lies in that line. Again, of course, I did not publish that preview.
  • I began adding the ships listed on the "Other incidents" 10 Nov line one by one, previewing each time and then not publishing the preview. Each time I added a ship, there was no overstretch until I added USS Piedmont. When I did, the overstretch appeared. I did not save that preview.
  • I did not see any formatting error anywhere among the ships. I experimented with hitting ENTER (RETURN) at the end of the 10 Nov list to see if there was a missing RETURN or something, but that had no effect. I also tried deleting the later dates (13 Nov and beyond) to see if there was some problem there, but that did not cure the overstretch.
  • As a least a temporary fix, I added a page break between USS Petrof Bay and USS Piedmont. I understand that hard returns like that are frowned on because they can interfere with proper presentation on some devices, but it did solve the overstretch problem completely, at least on my laptop.
  • Perhaps someone more tech-savvy than I am can come up with a better fix. But at least it presents properly now. Meanwhile, I have no idea why it chooses to overstretch on the 10 Nov line. I have not encountered that problem before, and see no obvious reason for it now. Maybe Wikipedia needs to provide some tech help to figure it out.

Mdnavman (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64 is pretty tech savvy, maybe he can help? Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Which template is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
{{November 1944 shipwrecks}}. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mdnavman and Redrose64: Eureka! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Your last edit didn't notify me (nor Mdnavman) because you didn't sign it. As it stands, the navbox uses lists inconsistently. I've worked up a demo using nested lists, at Template:November 1944 shipwrecks/sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ship name dab[edit]

Hi, You recently moved MS Amera (2019) to MS Amera (1988), being the year of launch citing WP:NCS. In the past I've been told it shoud be the reverse which a reading of the following passage from WP:SHIPDAB woud seem to be correct:

In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch.

The confusion arises when people insist on changing the title of articles every time a cruise ship gets renamed, which can happen quite often! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: SHIPDAB seems to be out of line with established practice. The one thing that does not change is the year a vessel was launched, no matter how many times it changes name. What SHIPDAB says is correct insofar as it applies to naval vessels captured and put into service with the capturing navy. Am happy to further discuss this at WT:SHIPS where more editors can join the discussion (this thread can be copied over). Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how you move the discussion, could you do that? It would be useful to get a concensus that could be added to WP:NCS to clarify what is an increasingly common occurence. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Murgatroyd49: You do this and this. The templates involved are {{moved from|link to old location|~~~~}} and {{moved to|link to new location|~~~~}}. In the edit summaries, the comment "get this the heck off my talk page" is not mandatory, but the links are per WP:CWW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

some odd items in shipwreck category talk pages[edit]

I am mightily fascinated by the inclusion of 'disaster management' in 19th century maritime incident categories, and somewhat also by transport/maritime - I would have thought ships/shipwrecks/years would have sufficed... any thoughts ? JarrahTree 10:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: can you point me to a specific example please? Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JarrahTree - of my most recent 25 edits, 20+ adding 'shipwrecks' as imho missing project tag,

and somewhat curious about disaster management and transport (which I have not touched, pending yours or any other responses) I fail to expect for the 19th century that disaster management is relevant, and would expect of maritime incidents that are not wrecks to be minimal JarrahTree 10:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The project tagging seems OK to me. If you have any doubts, you can always ask at the talk page of the relevan WP. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
If thats the case I will leave whatever I find, without removing anything else then, and simply add what I consider a major omission - shipwrecks. Thanks JarrahTree 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sport[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Re: 2010 F1 season/Hamilton[edit]

Don't fret man, I'm sure we've all made errors like that at some point during our Wiki lives. We learn and learn every day. :) Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I was just trying to trim some of the page size by removing the refnames of references that did not have another reference point in the article, as in the only mentioning of the reference. Bad idea in hindsight, but just trying to trim every little unnecessary byte off the page. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Already responded there! Cs-wolves(talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I also believe the ref name tags give unnecessary weight to the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton[edit]

It'll probably help that the 115.134.x.x range is out of the way; though I'm sure that's not the only IP range in Malaysia! Black Kite (t) (c) 09:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags for F1 race[edit]

You undid my edit on the 2010 European Grand Prix because I changed the flag to European one from Spanish one. I think it is better to put the European one, because it is officially named the European Grand Prix. Of course, there is a Spanish Grand Prix, but all other races have their respective flags, bar this one. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seen it. Also, thank you for putting my edit as a good faith edit, and not vandalism - because I just edited it thinking that the European flag was the correct one. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite correct about everyone learning about Wiki (but I guess everyone will be learning about it until they reitre, and the site does need admins :P). And, I am also trying to fight vandalism, so it would have been quite ironic if I were accused of it! M-R-Schumacher (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Water Sports[edit]

Hi Mjroots

I thought you might be interested in joining this new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force, as you have contributed to articles concerning Lifeboats and shipping  stavros1  ♣ 

2011 Australian Grand Prix[edit]

Please do not include blank pre-set sections. A wikipedia article should be ready to be read with whatever information is current at any point in its life. If you are going to 'set up' articles for future expansion, use hides to remove the blank headings from view of those who step into the article for a look prior to its expansion. Just a touch of professional presentation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season[edit]

Hi, Mj,

I've come to you before with a couple of requests, and I'm hoping you can help me out with another one. A few recent developments have lead regular contributors over at WP:F1 to belive that it is time to create a page for the 2013 Formula One season. However, the page has been pre-emptively created half a dozen times in the past, and admins have prevented the page from being created until it is unlocked; we are 18 months away from the start of the 2013 season, and by comparison, the 2012 page was created almost three years in advance. I am hoping you will be able to open up the ability to create the 2013 page, or at least direct me to someone who can if you do not have that happy power, please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've changed the salting on the page from create=sysop to create=autoconfirmed, that should let you get to work on it, I think. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, Bushranger. Not too soon to create the article now, considering there are drivers with contracts to race in 2013. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Folkestone Racecourse[edit]

Thanks for the message. I'd say its "closing" rather than "closed". The racecourse's own website shows that they still have fixtures left in 2012 and the news story on the Racing Post says it will close at the end of 2012, so I'd say for the moment it should still be marked as an active racecourse until it finally shuts it doors. What do you think?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stoffel Vandoorne[edit]

Sorry about edit warring on the Stoffel Vandoorne article. I just wanted there to be a photo from 2016, because Stoffel looks way younger than he does now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgiargiargiFFF (talkcontribs) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton (Opening paragraph)[edit]

(Relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user here). I'm having issues with Lobo151, which has descended into edit warring. I was wondering if you could provide some expertise on the manner, thanks. Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: am aware of the issue, said editor has been given a 3RR warning so is liable to be blocked should he persist. There's a discussion at talk:Lewis Hamilton re the issue in question. Feel free to contribute there. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thank you, will do. Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

GKD Sports Cars[edit]

Thank you for the page move. I had tried to move the page properly before but was told I couldn't because the redirect page was already at the target URL. How did you get around that?Bjones (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bjones: - Because I have administrative privileges I am able to delete the target in order to move the page. Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Next time I see something like that I'll have to contact an administrator. They pop up once in a while.Bjones (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bjones: - If you come across this situation again, post a request at WP:RM, where the move can be assessed and either actioned or discussed. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just copied that to a Word document. Will do.Bjones (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship[edit]

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 [6]. 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/w/index.php?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... [7] 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)

Re: My editing[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Broken Convert[edit]

There are a couple of broken {{convert}} transclusions on the page you just created - List of shipwrecks in September 1851. Mind fixing them? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in September 1851, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Turk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in August 1851 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cutter
List of shipwrecks in July 1851 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lyttelton
List of shipwrecks in October 1851 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Calmar

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do not...[edit]

remove my comments from article talk again. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: - are you referring to talk:The Independent Group? If so, I copied the entire page into talk:Independent Group (United Kingdom) as when the page was moved, for some reason the talk page didn't get moved. Thus your comments have not been removed.
It it is something else, then that would have been accidental and I offer my apologies. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You did, because what I posted at 17:16 was not included in what you copied over to the other page at 17:28, but your willingness to apologise is appreciated. Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: I see the article has been moved back, but again the talk page wasn't moved. I've now move-protected the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Réseau Albert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Dlohcierekim. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DlohCierekim 18:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in January 1853, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in April 1853 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Macduff
List of shipwrecks in December 1852 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochefort

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Other users[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

ITN/C[edit]

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[edit]

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. Wikipedia 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[edit]

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

Copyright Urgent[edit]

@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[edit]

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 [8] - On Moylesy98 talk: Unblock req. by D. Moyses on talk page
  • 23:02 April 16 [9] 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 [10] - 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 [11] - 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 [12] - 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: Wikipedia 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)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

OTD[edit]

Not an error, Megawatt is MW, not Mw. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Mw isn't the abbreviation for megawatt. However, it is an abbreviation not used in everyday English, which would have caused many readers to stumble over it. I was also pointing out that the ITN item above it used "a magnitude 8.1 earthquake," a construction much more familiar to the general reader – and that inconsistent terminology was being used on the same page.
I suggest that your dismissive "not an error" ignored the issues. Sca (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sca: It seemed to me that you had mistaken MW for Mw, which is why I said that it was not an error. Besides which, didn't they use the Richter scale back then? Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps they did; my experience dates from the '60s. But the main point was that (in my experience) Mw isn't common English usage. I've never encountered it in news coverage of earthquakes. Formerly news stories referred to "measuring X.X on the Richter scale," but now they mostly use the simpler "a magnitude X.X earthquake." (Perhaps Mw is more common in British English, but as noted it seems like scientific jargon to me.) Sca (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mjroots. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

.. and good wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

busing vs. bussing[edit]

Yes, that's correct American English. The single-s spelling is used (I think) to distinguish the "transport by bus" usage from "bussing", which would be taken to mean kissing (I don't know how prevalent using "buss" to mean a kiss is in the UK, but in the American South it's still in quite regular usage, not in the sense of a really passionate deep kiss but more like a big sloppy kiss, the kind of kiss your parents would tell you to give your grandmother on the cheek when you were a child. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was going to[edit]

add a qualifying item have to jump off - will add later - cheers JarrahTree 09:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I may come over at the project talk page blah we have heard all this before - it is the big problem for over a decade of editing there have been some really absurd re-inventing the wheel for the sake of it stuff - when its all been through before.

I have little faith in trying to protect readers from distress - just watching the news is more stressful than most of the most problematic wikipedia articles or items. So real life is really a lot more traumatic than most items inside the pedia. I strongly suggest if persons are upset by an image of something on a project item on a talk page, then they clearly need toughening up. The real world is a lot worse.

Having said all that - if there is something other than predictable trolls turning up at such discussions - or the mentioned editors who were pinged - with genuine cases of deep trauma from a very small image - and clear indication they are not set up to it in any way - then I would take notice, and suggest some negotation for ways of protecting them. But when it is the usual mob, I see no need to do anything. JarrahTree 12:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Death project[edit]

do you have the capacity to remove the skull and crossbone image from the death project talk page tag? Or know someone with the rights/skill/capacity to do so? it makes the project look so so tacky JarrahTree 07:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I probably do have the capacity to do so. Whether or not I should is a different question (much the same as I can block Jimbo Wales, but whether or not I should...). As I understand it, there is a RFC on the abolition of portals. If the portals get abolished, the problem will disappear. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(LOL) to your response. Shows what a bunch of idiots in a decreasing cohort - to the rfc to remove portals. (AWKS) to what the rump is doing to the world. I still think the skull and crossbones needs to go regardless. But hey - thanks for your response, thank heavens someone here still has a sense of irony and or humour (sic) JarrahTree 08:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: - Being an admin carries a certain amount of power. That power has to be balanced with an equal amount of responsibility. That an admin can do something does not mean that they should do it. If you really want rid of the skull and crossbones from the portal template, then open up a discussion at WT:DEATH and gain consensus for said removal. I can see that jumping in and removing it on one editor's request is likely to be highly controversial and it's not something I want to risk my administrative privileges for. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I had put request first, then only after did I notice the blue block of things above - very very sincerest apology - must have seemed like a very stupid troll, dare I say it about myself - sorry JarrahTree 08:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to apologise for. Didn't see you as a troll either. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Kind of you to say so - everything about the death project tag suggests a complete blank tag with no image JarrahTree 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @JarrahTree: The "death project talk page tag" is Template:WikiProject Death, and there has been discussion on the matter of its image at its talk page. See also its documentation regarding |image=no. Since it is a WikiProject banner, this means that it is not a portals issue - whatever the outcome of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, that banner will retain the image. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I'm pretty sure JT is talking about the removal of the |PORTAL from that template. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If you use |image=no the portal is suppressed, as are both images. Since that wasn't clear, I've amended the doc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mjroots. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- BilCat (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: - It's already been dealt with by Favonian. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I just noticed that myself. I'm glad someone was able to take care of it quickly. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mjroots. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and compliments of the season[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on the shipwreck lists and wish you a great Christmas/New Year/whatever. I've been expanding the lists from a large volume on the history of New Zealand shipwrecks, and I keep seeing your name cropping up in the history lists. I hope you have a great new year, and more power to your editing fingers! :) Grutness...wha? 10:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New messages[edit]

List of shipwrecks in 1836[edit]

The Blenheim lost on 29 November and on 30 November appear to be the same incidents.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have the name of her master? The Times article doesn't. The reason I ask is that I have a Blenheim, Wilson, master, listed in Lloyd's Register in 1837 and no longer listed in 1838, and I wonder if the Nov Blenheim and mine are the same. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hard to read, but it seems to be Watson in The Standard. Wilson is a possibility. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Unfortunately there is also a Blenheim, Watson, master, from Sunderland sailing at the same time, and although the locus of the loss is more consistent with her than with my Blenheim, the Sunderland Blenheim remains in Lloyd's Register for some years, albeit with minimal and stale data. For now the verdict is, "Not proven". Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Shipwrecks in February 1826[edit]

Hi Mjroots, it looks like we have a duplicate listing for Albion on both 2 and 3 February. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Aeroflot Flight 1492[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 6 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aeroflot Flight 1492, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in August 1853, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1819[edit]

Hi Mjroots: we appear to have a duplicate listing for Aberdeenshire. There is a long mention on 23 November, and a short mention under "Unknown date". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in October 1853 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Coringa
List of shipwrecks in September 1853 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Emu Bay

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in October 1854 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scalby

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Response[edit]

"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 Wikipedia's admin get such bad press with people like you lot.

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in August 1854, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in November 1854, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch Guiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

List of naval launches 1897[edit]

Hey there. I noticed that you reverted my split on the list of naval launches 1897. I agree that its a bit odd to do so when almost all other lists haven't. However, the reason i did split the list was because of the 1892 list which had been split. You might want to check it out and change it if you so wish :P ShaDoW 03 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShaDoW 03: Thanks for the D part of WP:BRD. I've had a look at the list of ship launches in 1892 and its history. That one will have to be manually reconfigured. Will get round to it in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1813[edit]

Hi Mjroots, we have Bellona being lost on 12 November, and on 13 November. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in April 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Middleton, County Durham and Nykøbing
List of shipwrecks in May 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dundrum

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in August 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Newburgh, Tranmere and Constitución
List of ship launches in 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Canal boat and Devonport Dockyard
List of shipwrecks in April 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Emu Bay

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

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

List of shipwrecks in October 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Scutari and Donegal
List of shipwrecks in November 1855 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Irvine

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John McCririck[