[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:Mjroots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Mjroots2)
I miss the "Orange Bar of Death" notifying me when I had a new talk page message.

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

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

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

Barnstars

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

DYK & ITN

[edit]
This user has written or expanded 233 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.




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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK nomination of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Did you know nominations/De Akkermolen

[edit]

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

Incomplete DYK nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

DYK nomination of Wendhausen Windmill

[edit]

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)[reply]

Eckwersheim derailment has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

DYK nomination of Godmersham Park

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Admin

[edit]

Old discussions are archived here.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cockermouth

[edit]

You protected this article in 2011. I was thinking it could be lifted now as vandals would be long gone. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: - I'm willing to give it a try, can always re-protect if needed. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LibStar (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

The WikiEagle - February 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 2
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ANI and VASP Flight 210

[edit]

I haven't been editing much[1] of late because I'm busy getting my next book ready for publication. So I didn't check in on the ANI till a few minutes ago and I saw you closed it. Sometime in the next few days I will make a few comments here about the ANI and that article. I promise to be polite not like I was on my talk page.

In the meantime, I'm letting you know I'm going to gut as you call it, VASP Flight 210, and I will summarize why right now.

  • Before I came upon the article, it had just two sources. But one of them is another wiki[2], and per WP:CIRCULAR this is unacceptable as a source. I removed these references from the article.
  • Now the one reference on the article, its ASN. ASN says very little about the accident and where it is used in the article as a reference it mostly says no such thing.
  • If I pare down VASP FLight 210 to just what ASN says, there isn't going to be much of an article left and I will probably send it to AFD.
  • There is another source available here[3] for this accident. But if you read what it says at the bottom of that website, 'Sources: Folha de S.Paulo, Jornal do Brasil, ASN, Wikipedia and FAB.' The reliability is therefore doubtful. It looks like somebody's personal website and these almost always fail WP:RS.

Maybe @Ahunt: and @MilborneOne: can chime in on what I wrote about the Varig article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: - your alternative source mentions the Jornal do Brasil, which presumably meets RS. May be other newspaper coverage available online, such as The Times. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - March–April 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 3–4
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - May 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 5
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - June 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 6
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominicana DC-9 air disaster

[edit]

Hi Mjroots! I noticed this edit which you made: [4], by protecting the page Dominicana DC-9 air disaster from being moved and I'm well aware that this hiatus aligned with the page move controversy in 2021. However, I wanted to raise my concern that this title is highly inconsistent with other aviation accident titles without a flight number (e.g. 1972 Adana Turkish Airlines DC-9 crash or 1969 Aswan Ilyushin Il-18 crash). A quick search too indicates that this name isn't a common name which is used across the media. In that case and noting the controversy over the flight number of the accident:[5], I suggest moving this page to the 1970 Santo Domingo Dominicana de Aviación DC-9 crash. Not certain on whether this should be listed as a technical request or a requested controversial move on the talk page. I await your response.

Thanks! GalacticOrbits (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GalacticOrbits: Any move protection is aimed at preventing page move wars. I'd file a requested controversial move request. If there is consensus that the page should be moved, I've got no objection. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots:, I appreciate your response. I will conduct a requested move on that page. GalacticOrbits (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Angara Airlines Flight 200 for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angara Airlines Flight 200 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/Angara Airlines Flight 200 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash 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/2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crash for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crash 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/2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

[edit]

The image I removed from the helicopter crash article was File:Ebrahim Raisi helicopter crash site 19 May 2024.jpg. GMGtalk 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: - Oh, my apologies. Thought you'd removed the infobox image. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but I think we were cross purposes on which infobox image we were thinking about. GMGtalk 13:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comac c919 engine

[edit]

Reference don't support the text, which states "CFM supplied CFM56 engines". Sayanpdd (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayanpdd: isn't the LEAP engine a development of the CFM56? Which particular reference in the Comac C919 article do you mean? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i send you references articles which are attached with the misleading part, I read the full article ,no where the article mentions that Comac c919 use rebadged CFM-56 engines. Sayanpdd (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the LEAP engine is the successor to the CFM56,but the text mentioned that CFM supplied Comac with rebadged CFM-56 is misleading. yes, leap-c version is more heavy ,but components are identical with other leap engines and it's more matched with leap-A.Also the reference does not match the misleading text.
Reference that is used:-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2022/09/20/china-comac-c919-boeing-airbus/
https://web.archive.org/web/20181013014334/https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20E110%20TCDS%20Issue%207%20LEAP-1A-1C.pdf

Sayanpdd (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayanpdd: - I claim no "ownership" of the article. If you think that a correction needs to be made, be bold and make it, using your source to reference the correction. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section, which I am taking about need to be deleted , what reference I should add when it is misleading.
Lastly, you should undo the revision you did on my edit on Comac 919 article. Sayanpdd (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sayanpdd: Apologies, I've just realised what this is about. I'll copy this conversation over to the talk page of the aircraft article, and ping others involved. Hopefully we can get consensus on this. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geotags, Grid refs etc,

[edit]
[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mills

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Proposed deletion of List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

[edit]
Notice

The article List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) 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 windmills in Friesland (T–V) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Lizzy Rose

[edit]

hi MjRoots thank you for your comments on the draft page on Lizzy Rose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lizzy_Rose#Things_I_have_learned_the_hard_way_-_retrospective_(2023)


The comments have been resolved but I don't seem able to remove them so it can be approved - and I can't seem to talk directly to the person who made those comments. Is this something you could do? Thanks so much Chopschopschops (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chopschopschops: I'm satisfied that it is in a fit condition, and have moved the draft to Lizzy Rose in mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing, thank you so, so so much - it means the world to me Chopschopschops (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chopschopschops: of course, that means other editors are likely to rip your hard work to pieces work on and improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
haha of course :) I have edits I want to make too so I'm sure I can handle that (I do comms as a job so it goes with the territory) Chopschopschops (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Brian E. Kinsella - Meritorious Public Service medal Recipient

[edit]

Hi Mjroots,

I am new on Wikipedia, and joined as I want to write articles about individuals I find notable for their efforts to change the world for the better, but who are often overlooked, due to the massive amounts of bigger biographies to read out there.

I have spent some time now to ensure that my first article was in the review queue as a Class-B prediction. But I am not sure what happens now? I tried to request an assessment from the Military History portal, which is how I received a notification on an edit from you, but it didn't show up on the self-request page at all.

I've ensured my article is well documented with 2nd degree sources of citations/references, and have optimized my writing to the best of my ability to be accurate, factual and unbiased.

You are clearly a veteran on here, any advice as to what I can do to have my first article published?

Thank you so much in advance, and I hope I hear from you.

Best,

Mwikiforce

Mwikiforce (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwikiforce: - the proto-article looks fine. I've removed bolding from a section header per MOS. I don't forsee any problems with it being promoted. You'll just need to wait for a reviewer. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjroots,
Thank you SO much for taking the time to look at it! You can’t imagine how much I appreciate that! Does that usually take the four months that is suggested?
Bedankt!
MWikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

[edit]

@Mjroots: I found a copyright-free image of SS Richard Montgomery in-tact on Flickr here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/135648140@N02/29712569787/in/photolist-MgAFPZ-MgAFNX-3bjAY9-msjJWT-Wu34UT-2meaP83-62XCiC-2mdDgXQ-2mdDgX9-Zx132W-2mdC9WW-2fznVGe-DhSdV-5RotDB-ee23TP-hW8STy-ee7JBY-2mdHhWN-8Mb6um-hW8UHd-MW8dtk-8xhE19-2kTDwb8-bsBZeg-2mAXCAv-2j4gyDU-2mBqEZF-2gG27BY-d4jQ2q-6rMion-N4FHnk-Wo4fmQ-2mdFUK4-MNmew1-fHiaXM-42nTc4-2mdDgWC-2mdDgWh-3bf7U4-DhScL-XUhoJW-j7xvB6-2cUFbek-bKyiBP-2mdHhXu-mYis9M-3bf7Cp-pdmuju-3bf7bi-725zc9 But, it was speedy deleted, without discussion because the image was also on VesselFinder, and because of that, the image was somehow "Copyrighted by VesselFinder" even though VesselFinder images are user-generated content, and the image was used by many news sources without copyright disclaimers. I wanna reupload the image while specifying it's on Flickr, but I'm scared that if I do, I'll be reprimanded. Could you do it for me? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebrakeman2: - that image is not copyright free, it states " All rights reserved " under the date of uploading. It might be possible to use the image under "fair use" rules, but as a standard Liberty ship it could well be argued that any other image on such would also be just as useful. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Ok, how would I go about doing that? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebrakeman2: - You need to read WP:FAIRUSE and WP:FUR. All 10 points of NFCCP need to be met. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Could you possibly help me with that? Also, which points?
@Thebrakeman2: - WP:NFCCP - all 10 points have to be met. You're going to struggle to meet point 1 I fear. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Are there that many other photos of Mongomery in-tact? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that as a standard Liberty ship, she looked no different to hundreds of other Liberty ships. This image conveys the same info and is usable. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image needs to be renamed

[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_Elbert_at_the_National_Railway_Museum,_York,_1982.jpg has several issues in its titling. The subject is named "Christopher Awdry", not "Elbert", and the image was taken in at least 1987 (the book he is reading was published that year). I can't seem to figure out how to rename it myself, so I'm gonna ask you to do it instead (you seem like a good admin). Cheers! 108.48.97.70 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.48.97.70: unfortunately I'm only an admin on en-Wiki, not at Commons. That said, I've put in a request for the file to be moved to the title you suggested. Should be done in a day or two. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rename to c:File:Christopher Awdry at the National Railway Museum, York, 1982.jpg went through at 06:16 today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother, but it appears that only one of the two errors was corrected. The file name still says "1982" instead of 1987, when the book in the photo was published. Shouldn't this be corrected too? If we needed a source for that (and I don't think we do), then it could be easily found. 151.188.25.140 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.48.97.70: I've put in another rename request. Sorry I missed it first time round! Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Places

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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)[reply]

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

"Point Flinders" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Point Flinders and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Point Flinders until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Help in requesting a page be moved.

[edit]

I'm not exactly sure how to propose a page being moved, so, could I ask you, the resident "transportation admin", for help. I want to move Lee Hall station to Lee Hall Depot under WP:CommonName, as "station" is much more rarely used than "Depot", like in articles, the NRHP listing, travel sites, etc. This would be the third step in one of the multiple things I wanna do involving the page, the first and second, being category reform and making descriptions on other pages more accurate, are complete. The next step is massive page revamps, and the page is massively outdated, and undersized.

Thanks for the help, signed - 108.45.170.249 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.45.170.249: I can move the article over the redirect, but is "depot" capitalized or not? You can always file a move request at WP:RM, in this case under "technical requests" as I don't think there will be much controversy with the move. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has depot capitalized, and I'd say that most sources capitalize it, and that most "Bla Bla Station"/"PLACEHOLDER Depot" make the Station part capitalized. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.45.170.249: I've moved the article for you. The lede will need rewriting to cover both titles. BTW, you don't need to use {{Re}} on someones's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the tip, and the help. Would you mind moving https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lee_Hall_station and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16894038 for me? Thanks - 108.45.170.249 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@108.45.170.249: I can't move Commons stuff. You'll have to put in a move request for that over at Commons. As for Wikidata, Tagishsimon and Pigsonthewing are the experts. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.45.170.249 Wikidata done. Will do commons once I'm not on my mobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
::Thank you so much @Pigsonthewing:! 108.45.170.249 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan

[edit]
Notice

The article German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability, just a name among many in some lists, and an entry in Lloyd's which doesn't indicate any notability. No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently. Perhaps there is a good redirect target?

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan 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/German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Could you run a Citation Bot on Lee Hall Depot

[edit]

I’ve been expanding the article a lot, but with reciting and all that, the citations are getting messy. So, since I can’t, could you run the Citation Bot on the page for me? Thanks for all the help. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@108.45.170.249: - I don't run any bots. Will take a look at the article for you. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #1 is a deadlink. Refs #3, 10 and 17 not available in UK so I can't tell if its dead or alive. Ref #9 I get an access denied message. Refs #11 and 15 are to Facebook, fails WP:RS. Ref #16 unavailable (in UK) due to legal reasons. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I updated Ref 1, amd Refs 3, 10, 17, 9, and 16 all work fine for me. And, for Refs 11/15, if's their official Facebook page. It's like their official website since the old one was taken down. Also, when I said, run a citation bot, I meant to use this thing: https://citations.toolforge.org/ 108.48.97.70 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nuneham Railway Bridge

[edit]

I can't see the Sunday Times article that you cite, as it is behind a pay wall. But I wonder whether you have quoted it accurately in that the current problem is with the *south* abutment, not the north one. The north abutment is solidly built and is causing no problems. Should your second sentence perhaps read "It stated that the south abutment should have been completely rebuilt, but this was not done due to the Great Depression"? TedColes (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TedColes: try this link, which should allow you access to the article and give you access to a 1 month free trial of The Times and The Sunday Times. I might have misread the article, will edit the bridge article. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. TedColes (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tunbridge railway station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Tunbridge railway station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 23 § Tunbridge railway station until a consensus is reached. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cadeau

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ships

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire C ships

[edit]

Template:Empire C ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire B ships

[edit]

Template:Empire B ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fishing in West Germany has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Fishing in West Germany has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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)[reply]

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

Nationality and license issue

[edit]

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

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

For info

[edit]

Hi - hope you are well. Incase you didn't get the ping, I mentioned you here. I hope the notification for the AfD was OK - IE netural per your last comment (which I've linked in that thread). If there's anything amiss with that, please let me know. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: - I was just answering there. All is OK with me. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My editing

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1869, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anchor Line.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Almut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Almuth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional, both are disambiguation pages. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of French ship Gapeau (B284) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article French ship Gapeau (B284) 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/French ship Gapeau (B284) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots. I am sorry that I have no additional arguments in favour of retention to add to this deletion discussion. But I do want to ask about what Gröner says on "Q 455". I am very surprised that he did not know that it has nothing at all to do with fishing or Quiberon. Do you still have the volume to hand? Until quite recently, when French naval ships were decommissioned and then "condemned", they were transferred to "Les Domaines" for disposal. At that point the ID of the ship is no longer its name, and it is given a Q-number while the method of disposal is determined and carried out (sale for reuse, sale for scrapping, tranfer to another public body, sinking as a target etc). - Davidships (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidships: - Ah, so I've misinterpreted Gröner then. Groner states "20.11.69 ∞ Q 455 br." The ∞ symbol denoting sold out of service, br meaning broken up. Will amend the two affected articles. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable with a vessel that had been a fishing vessel before. I think that that would not have occurred if the ship was Q 525, the former HMS Colossus (1943)! This little end-of-life detail is rarely included in enWP articles, but does appear more frequently on frWP. - Davidships (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1876, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1877, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaiserliche Werft.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of shipwrecks in 2024

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of shipwrecks in 2024, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1880, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dysart.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1881, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shipwrecks in May 1877

[edit]

Your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1045405193&oldid=1045382703&title=List_of_shipwrecks_in_May_1877 left an incomplete reference. Please correct it. Thanks 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Other users

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Request for advice

[edit]

Hi Mjroots: This is a request for advice, not an attempt to canvas for support. I am asking you directly for advice given your knowledge as an Admin of WP procedures. I hope doing so removes any issue of canvassing. Currently User:Fram is unilaterally, and at an increasing pace, redirecting articles I have written on 18th & 19th century vessels. I believe that they are doing this to avoid the AfD process, which can take a while and where the outcome is uncertain. (AfDs are more visible and lead to other editors trying to improve the article.) I would like to revert all the redirects but am concerned about triggering retaliation. User:Fram has just proposed for deletion a ship index page where another editor moved articles Fram had redirected. I am a bit at my wit's end. Thoughts? Thanks for considering this.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin: - Had a brief look at Fram's contributions. Agree that it appears that the AfD process is being circumvented. A nomination can lead to article improvement. Suggest you ask him to stop as a first step, then revert the redirects with an edit summary to take to AfD. Should he continue after being asked to stop, then it's off to ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's very helpful. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Social_Responsibility_Score

[edit]

Hi there

I recently contributed an article of the title of this topic which appeared to be written in a neutral style and is of the public interest. It was quick deleted which I don't believe to be fair. In addition, the article has no backup and took a long time to write. Another article on NPS, a direct comparison also of public interest, is also available on Wikipedia

Could you please help me a) recover the work and b) understand why it was deleted? It is not promotional. I can see that the admin who deleted it is quick to delete articles without following due course.

Thank you Timginger (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timginger: Firstly you should discuss this with the admin who deleted the article as it would appear that they are currently active. I'm not willing to intervene until this has been done. This may not be the answer you wanted, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but an admin doesn't revert other admins decisions without good reason. You may well have a good case for undeletion, but discuss if with him/her first. Are you sure that the draft didn't come under WP:CSD criteria? I've had a look at the deleted draft (something I can do as an admin) and I will comment that it was woefully under referenced. FYI, when using {{cite web}} a minimum of {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |access-date= }} is needed. You were missing the |access-date= parameter. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry I'm new to this and had done my best to write a relevant article with references. I will contact the admin, and revert if I am unsuccessful in moderating the ability to respond. Are you able to provide access to the content from the original article? It took a long time to write and if it's not published here, now, I'd like to retain it for my records. Thanks Timginger (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timginger: I can provide the text of the draft. Do you have e-mails enabled? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @mjroots I do have emails enabled I think. Appreciate your help. Contacting the admin who deleted the article now for their feedback. Timginger (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Earlier discussions are archived here

May 2024

[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the constructive criticism you shared here. Thank you and have a nice day. The Film Creator (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of windmills in Friesland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Norris Greenholt (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Norris Greenholt: - please provide a diff of the alleged vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor indeffed, likely a sockpuppet. This can safely be ignored. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New messages

[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mjroots&oldid=1243658590"