Hello, Murgatroyd49, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for RMS Mauretania (1906). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Done. I have fixed it. For future reference, you can do it with the "Move" tab at the top of the page. That leaves a "redirect" from the old title; consider whether it's useful, and if not (as here) put {{db-r3}} at the to to ask for it to be deleted. There can be complications: see WP:Moving a page for details. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Murgatroyd49! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Occidental and Oriental Steamship Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
It does, but I've added a link for the Society's Reflections listing. We should rely on it rather than the inaccurate ISSN. Doing so gives the reader more direct access. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COSCO fleet lists 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. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've looked at it, They appear to use a non-standard, possibly deprecated, infobox, so not as simple as I thought. Can be done, I'm just pondering the best way of doing it. Maybe substitute the infobox with infobox historic site. Hopefully will sort it out today. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox version looks great, the only criticism I have is removal of the cost field. But if that's not feasible to include, then I'm all for the sandbox version anyway. Cheers – Ozankk12:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message - I understand your points. Hope we have solved the isue between us now by removing the unsupported claim until it can be validated. Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BR Class 37 renumbering 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. Nightfury13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information was provided by the National Trust Dapdune Wharf group. I suspect their information is not complete so I will go with your change. The group (and me) are new to using Wikipedia and we are working out the best way to capture the great deal of information we have about the Wey Navigation. We will be creating more pages as we sift through the various documents we have. We will also be working on the providence of the information so we can cite the appropriate references. Thank you for your other amendments. Regards WNRGMike(Talk) 08:45 October 31st, 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a group of volunteers called the Wey Navigation Research Group which I am part of. I am encouraging them to use Wikipedia as the place of record. We have a good amount of research but it is in folders which are not available to everyone and the research is often duplicated. By using Wikipedia we can create a central repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WNRGMike (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Murgatroyd49. 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.
Hi! Are you based in Southampton? I notice you uploaded a couple of the photos used in the article. If you're passing the cenotaph in the near future we could do with some more photos. We don't have any on Commons from the back or the sides. Merry Christmas. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Murgatroyd49. You have been invited to join WikiProject Surrey, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Surrey-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits within the scope of the project. You may wish to visit the:
And if only part of the title should be in italics, you can use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template. When doing so, just be sure that the spelling of the parameter passed matches the actual title of the article with respect to spelling and capitalization. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)23:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tedster007: It's a somewhat less tenuous connection than L S Lowry who painted one picture in the county! I see what you are getting at but I think the reference is justifiable in that people interested in Oates would appreciate knowing where his collection was housed. Possibly should be moved to the museum section instead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least Lowry has a connection! There is only a museum to Oates at Gilbert White's house because a previous owner was interested in his family. Agreed it should be in the museum section.
You forgot to undo the reupload of the photograph that corresponds to your undoing of my date edit on Needle's Eye. – Ozankk17:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozankk: Hi, there seems to be a problem with the image file on Commons, the description says the photo was taken 2015 but I now realise that was the date of your original photo. The metadata on the replacement photo shows 2018. My apologies, I assumed it was just a reframed version of your photo. I'll revert my undo and edit the image description. It's a bit naughty to overwrite someone else's photo like that, he should have added his photo as a new image and changed the page link to point to it. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Well it just so happens I was the original uploader of said image - I actually wouldn't mind his since superseding mine, as it has similar quality and three years more recent, which I think is suitable. – Ozankk21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Murgatroyd49, I noticed you undid my edits to the above article diff, which I'm not that bothered about. If you want to claim it's for consistency reasons, however, you'll need to undo all of my edits there because I changed the formatting of the entire article. By the way, your version of the the line break tag <br /> is not correct HTML markup; it is, and always was, <br>; see here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dthomsen8: Hi, I'm not directly involved with the restoration project, just a passing National Trust member. I will try and find out what the latest information is next time I am passing Dapdune. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi there, could you please review "the position" of the picture that you have moved again? In that place of the article it creates a blank gap of space of 7 cm, totally empty, that requires the readers to scroll down unnecessary, and makes the page design looking empty and incorrect. I am probably the user that improved this page the most in the years, and I would appreciate your help in keeping the page tidy. Additionally the picture you are moving, is related to a ship that in these recent years has been converted into a museum, so keeping it in between two age sections would make sense. Thank you
Goodwillgames (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodwillgames: What device are you looking at? On a standard desktop it displays fine. It also displays correctly on a tablet. I suspect the problem may be caused by the non-standard and idiosyncratic "table" layout you use to display the ship names and classes. Perhaps that would be better presented as a proper table as used on other shipping line articles. As to the position of the image it would perhaps be more appropriate to move it to the section on WW2 where the ship is specifically referred to. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry there is a misunderstanding. White and Poppe was closed when you imply Dennis Bros closed. Dennis Bros went to the dogs and was sold off in 1972 and the business has since had a very chequered history. I will separate out the Dennis Bros story from Dennis Specialist Vehicles but don't hesitate to point out if I seem to have gone wrong. it will take me a few days. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddaido: Ah,I see what you mean, missed that as I'd removed the company title originally to avoid repetition. As to your other changes I am more than happy. My main objective was to de-Americanise the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited for the first time in adding some info into the notes sections on certain ships on the Royal Caribbean International Page.
Since the notes already list some ship refurbishment, I thought it would be appropriate to complete the list. Should the other ship refurbishments be removed from the article.
I gather from your note the better place is on the individual ship pages. Thank you for any help/tips.Mrdewit (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrdewit: Hi, the notes about ships on the company page should be a very brief outline of the individual vessel. eg where it came from an where it went to with details of name changes. More detailed information should be the province of the main article about the ship. Otherwise the company page gets bloated and you end up with effectively two articles about the same ship. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Murgatroyd49! Thank you for proofreading yesterday.
I ask you to suggest how to better insert deleted comments, they are important, but in order not to overload the main text.
And I did not quite understand what was wrong with the shipyard' name.
This is a valid name. Navy shipyard number 1.
This is a small shipyard, but one of the first in Russia. [2].--Pavel Goncharuk (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Павел Игоревич Гончарук: Hi Pavel, the yard number in the infobox is the ship's yard number. Comments are not references, the latter refers to citations to justify the statements in the main text, eg details of the book or website where the information came from. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJ9674: Ah, that's a secret known only to the initiated! Seriously, it's the "bgcolor=123456" tag at the beginning of each box on the line. If you check back with the index above the table, it will give you the relevant values for each situation. It's a 6 figure alpha-numeric code. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, than you for bringing the typo i committed in Category:Birmingham Museums Trust to my attention, and for fixing it. My question: Shouldn't the incorrect one Category:Brimingham Museums Trust be made into a redirect, rather than being speedily deleted? I'm unfamiliar with the policy for category redirects, and couldn't actually find the right guideline page for them.
@YuriNikolai: I had gone through every page with the incorrect Category on and changed them so no redirect needed. It's much easier than if it was an article name, that would need the redirect. Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for adding Twyford Brook to the list of tributaries on the River Loddon article. I think that River Broadwater probably ought to be removed. I have proposed it for deletion, as I am not convinced it is a real river. It might possibly be an alternative name for the section of the River Blackwater from the River Whitewater to the Loddon, though the evidence is very shaky, and even if it is, one sentence in the Blackwater article would cover it. Twyford Brook was also historically called the Broadwater, and indeed is still marked as Broadwater Brook on Openstreetmap, and the mouth location on the Broadwater article is actually much closer to Twyford Brook than to the Blackwater. I thought I would just mention it, as you have made numerous edits to the Loddon article. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Thanks for your support over recent and no so recent issues. You may be interested in this SPI - if you can add any more names, that would be great. Many thanks VelellaVelella Talk 08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Murgatroyd49-- The phrase was used in an addition to the article May 1943 which gave no details about the number of people who died in the training accident, and it had been paraphrased from the HMS Untamed article; I wasn't able to find a mention of how many people had been on board, other than that the article said that there were no survivors. Mandsford20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhoda McGaw Theatre 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. // Timothy :: talk19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with leaving it as it is, it already points out that her and her sisters were the largest of their type in the world when built. (That may well still be true, I haven't checked). That by itself means she is a large container ship so it doesn't need repeating. Allow the reader to have some intelligence. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert a logical taxonomy! This is not an index to a paper encyclopedia, the very suborder setting of the tabulation lists was for tributaries as a prime example! What else would it be for, Fish & Chip shops in Birmingham? I mean really! Also to revert my river swift in favour of an at-best equal status Bourne Rivulet name which is not not borne out by the article. I mean one would think there was only one real source to river articles in the area.- Adam37Talk19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What section? How is one to second-guess what you find acceptable? Category is the place to put a basic, alphabetical index of rivers, navbox should enable clear navigation, like good old books on geography do, listing items underneath their respective headers. As wp:en is far more detailed on Eng. rivers than any global atlas, then even more so, if atlases do it, so should all navboxes of lists of say more than 15 rivers! If somehow you think mild explanations obfuscatory then simply reword. English is a very flexible language; text can always be improved on. If you want to compose a tree at least you have a foundation. In this visual age when other people (not us) cannot be bothered to read you may have a point. But once again, why just replicate Category:Rivers in Hampshire when navboxes enable truly so many other better alternatives. And don't destroy taxonomy for the sake of a rigid love of letter-order.- Adam37Talk08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken on board what you've said. I don't particularly like the style of no 'River' adopted by the few other county river boxes that exist; I know you'd agree with that stance like me. However writing as you have copied from elsewhere River x is a river is just pathetic, no one in years past called each River "the River x" (almost no-one) and so to state the French-root word "river twice" is the height of sophistry and "fine speech", just not needed. However back on to topic I've really sorted the rivers into the sort of officiously rigid uniformity and banality which seems to be your touchstone and indeed it is a fine improvement. In fact my explanations were a little too bespoke but that is me, I like to be precise and bespoke. Quite honestly I would have subsumed many of these piddling rivers like the Fleet Brook into their parent rivers just like WP:UKVILLAGES mandates that for hamlets so much as possible, but hey ho!- Adam37Talk09:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surrey Archaeological Collections papers now available on Archaeology Data Service
Hi Murgatroyd49. I thought you'd let you know (as a fellow Surrey enthusiast) that many research papers from the Surrey Archaeological Collections are now available from the Archaeology Data Service here: ADS Library search and Journal index. I may be telling you something you already know, but I've only discovered recently that these articles are 'open source' (i.e. no longer behind a paywall). I am not sure if this is a recent change, but I wasn't aware until this month and so thought I would spread the word.
Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for bothering you with a non-WP question. I quite understand if you do not wish to help. I am trying to find the numbers of the following UK locos. I don't know whether they are part of a group. They are The Institution of Civil Engineers, Wild Swan, Resilient, Magpie, Sea Eagle and Solway Princess. The numbers that I have found are 47540, 60021, 47741, 44806 (I don't trust that one), 60139/60028 (but which one, if either?), 57312. I believe the first one may be right, but I'm not at all sure about the rest. If they turned out to be part of a set, I might be more confident. Again, please forgive me for bothering you with a trivial question. I should add that I'm asking you because you have contributed to WikiProject UK Railways. Storye book (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted one of your edits on Norwegian Cruise Line for a couple of reasons. All other cruise lines still have their future ships second. Two the ships have not been cancelled. I also added a source. If you believe it still fits WP;CRYSTAL feel free to revert
--Life200BC (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Life200BC: All future cruise fleets come under WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. It is quite likely that many of the currently planned ships will not be built. Probably best to see what happens next year before adding anything to the page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be left as it was before as they were ordered. They can all be changed once they are cancelled .
Hi Murgatroyd49. I wonder if I could ask another favour? I am in the process of creating an article here about the above British Railways Board engineer who was involved in setting up the 1960s UK rail electrification system. I am not a rail buff as you know, so the rail tech stuff in the article really needs checking for talking-out-of-hatness before I publish.
There are citations for everything, except for one sentence identifying the trains (should I say locomotives?) used with the 1960s electrification system. I have made three guesses, but have not been able to find sources for that, at all. Is there any chance that you could shed light on it? If not, I'll simply strike the sentence out.
I found this chap while researching his parents. They are very notable, but sadly not notable on WP terms, because what they did has no citations. There is a large collection of their postcards, currently in private hands, all written in a unique cipher invented by them, while they were courting. It's a charming love story, but I can't make an article from that. The coded postcards are in the process of translation, and I plan to scan the lot and put them on Commons, because ciphers and postcards are always of interest there. Then perhaps one picture (and no more) can be added to the forebears section of the article at a later date. I'm just telling you this to explain why this non-railway-buff has written about a railway engineer - although actually I think Claxton deserves recognition for what he achieved.
I had asked User:Tom walker for assistance due to his interest in railway electrification, but I have now realised that he is not on WP all that often. I should add that I am not related to the Claxtons - their postcards were found around 1990 when rescued by charity workers following a house clearance in London. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: Hi, you are talking about the locomotives that would have hauled the electrification trains, though the Class 73 and 74s were dual diesel and third rail electric locos, where the diesel engines were fairly low powered to enable them to shunt trains in non-electrified sidings. I can't see them being used in this scenario. Class 47 (and 37) diesel locos were the main heavy haul locos avaiable from the early 60s so both were quite likely to be seen on electrification trains but not exclusively. Frankly, I wouldn't worry about what the locos used were as they would have changed depending where the work was taking place and what was availble. As an observation I recall seeing the electrification trains used for extending the Great Eastern elctrification at Stratford in the late 60s, they used a lot of redundant pre-nationalisation carriages both for accomodation and stores as well as using the underframes with the bodies removed for transporting the cable drums and supports. good luck with the article, looks quite interesting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for the prompt reply. That's very useful. I'll remove that sentence, then. It sounds as if you are as ancient as I am, if you remember the late 60s rolling stock. In those days I hated the steam locos because of the thick layer of coal dust on them, and the state of the carriages after nationalisation. And the noise. On Gillingham station I shut my eyes due to noise of the letting-off-steam, and walked straight into a pillar, and got black eyes. I love steam locos now. Strange how things change. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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.
Hi. I agree Twinkle was born in Surbiton but that is now a part of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. She moved with her family to Warren Cutting, off Warren Road in Coombe, also part of RBK, and lived there for some years. I lived near there and knew her briefly in the mid 1960s. Best wishes. Duncan Harrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanharrington (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49:
Hope all is well. I have been working on the Dorking article over the past couple of months. Another editor (who knows the town fairly well) has kindly given me some feedback and I wondered if you would be willing to do the same? Please do leave any comments on the talk page.
I would be grateful if you would consider grading the article for WP:Surrey. It is currently rated as 'C class', but I am hoping that it is now sufficiently complete to have reached 'B class' standard.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murgatroyd49: From the pattern of your edits, I guess that you are based in west Surrey and I think it would be good now to have feedback from someone, like yourself, who is less familiar with the east of the county. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I missed the hidden reference here under "all German agents in Britain had been turned". Even then I think that my change was an improvement (with making the hidden reference more obvious), especially to link the sub-section V-weapons deception [[3]] would make it very clear. But I won't touch it any more. --SchmiAlf (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please give me a tip about using {{ill}}? I assumed that it is always helpful to provide a link to a page in other languages because editors can get some info from it, but you reverted my edit. Le Loy09:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ле Лой and Le Loy: Hi. The document referred to is written in Latin by English monks, there is no discernible Russian connection. The article in the Russian Wikipedia is a stub that adds nothing of substance to the English language article about the Abbey. If it was a scholarly essay on the document that would be more relevant, but again would be better added as a translation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the LT&SR article and this one. I was thinking about copying this one into my sandbox to carry out a comprehensive re-write as its still a bit of a dogs breakfast in places. Before I get started, are you planning any more changes or do you want to help?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having fun finding little bits to add to the above, but if you want to change any of my edits you are welcome. We have hit the 5x expansion mark today, so you are welcome to have that for DYK if you wish - I'm not doing DYK on my own behalf right now - having a rest from that for a little while. I have searched on Geograph, Google, Flickr and Ebay for images, and the only one I can find is the copyright one attached to the English Heritage listing. I still have to go through the old newspapers, but I don't have much hope. My daughter lives in West Sussex - I can possibly set her on it, if and when the lockdown will permit. Let me know if I can help any more. Storye book (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found some little bits of gossip in the old newspapers. A bishop turned up to tea at Tyes Place with a woman. All totally innocent of course, but one can't help smiling. There is a (poor quality) picture of Mr Powell. I think he got 4 bishops at his funeral - I'll have a proper look tomorrow. There was a local hunt, which ended up at Tyes Place for the kill (yuk), when it still had lots of land. I'll see if my daughter can take a picture, then. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've added some more bits from the old newspapers. I think that's about all I can find, now. My daughter reckons that Streetview suggests that the house is not visible from the road, and I would agree with that. Perhaps there is a view of it from a public footpath, you never know. Over to you. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. The criteria for cultural references on geographic location articles are not how important or unimportant they are to the plot, but simply any reference
I totally agree with you. I've tried to research a suitable source as to why they are there but can't find anything that is worthy to cite except "it is thought to have been a firing squad" which obvious isn't factual. I'm ashamed that the information is speculative, but I can't think of any other plausible reason as to why the holes are there, hence the "unsubstantiated" at the end and gone with what a lot of sources say albeit nothing in a factual way. Feel free to amend it though to disregard firing squad or put the disclaimer about them being scattered around. – Ozankk17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for coming to my rescue where I had messed up the Ref on that bit about Gas Factory Junction. I'm newish to this process of editing Wikipedia, and it was my first Ref, so I'm not surprised I got it wrong. I still don't know what I did wrong, but hopefully, next time.....
@Grumpyxch: It's one of those things that is not intuitive. When trying to put a ref in if you use the Cite menu, top right of the edit window, that will give you a menu of useful presets (web, book etc)that will guide you through the process. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did use Cite. The trouble was I found the Ref/Ref thing before I found Cite, so maybe that put something in that I didn't delete before I used Cite. Grumpyxch (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds likely, better luck next time. It's always worth while playing around with things in your Sandbos before unleasing them on an unsuspecting world if you are not sure about them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49: Hope life is treating you well. I'm contacting you because you have edited the Grey Wings, Ashtead article in the past. I have proposed a merger of the page into the main Ashtead article. I would very much welcome your input into the discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to support or oppose the merger. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: Done. Sometime, now restrictions are coming off, we ought to organise a Surrey editors get together at a suitable hostelry, perhaps in Dorking. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murgatroyd49: Yes, good idea! It would be great to meet over the summer with other local editors. I'd be happy to meet Guildford-way if that's more convenient for others. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you reverted an edit on the BR class 50 page citing unsourced, however the source was given in the comment section of the update.
The reverted version has the oposite claim, but with no source apparent at all. If the update is redone with an inline source would you revert it? If there is a source for the opposite claim perhaps both views need to be in the article.
As you've realised, an apparent cite in the edit comment is not an adequate reference. If you have a proper cite then insert it into the article properly. Refs in comments can't be checked in the future, or even found without editors having to search every single edit. Also note that when making comments on talk pages you must sign your posts. In this case I have no idea who you are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed you removed the addition I made to the facilities section on the Leyton page. I'm somewhat new to editing so would be keen to better understand why you didn't feel it was appropriate? Conscious of making the same mistake again, otherwise! Thanks.
Hi. I see in a recent addition to River Churn you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Hi, thanks for the correction. I’d actually got the original text from another editor working on rivers so will have to make sure I use the corrected version next time. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the Epsom article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for WP:GA. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the town, but I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve the article before nomination? I have set up a new section on the talk page for interested parties to discuss what additional work is required. I will ask a few others to chip in with their feedback and suggestions.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
You reverted a change I made here a few days ago. I added the names and links of the Big Four liners because the term 'Big Four' was present without obvious explanation. If the ships are linked elsewhere, then I can see links are not needed (though by the same token, we wouldn’t need the Big Four link either) but I suggest it is still worth adding the names, for clarity. Otherwise someone like me is left wondering what they are. Do you object to the names being replaced? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the edit tp Leyton on Ancient Counties. I am currently in a frustating discussion with an editor who wants to put this fact in the first sentence of the lede of everywhere in East London, that used to be part of Essex. Moving it to the second para was a compromise. Personally, I think Norman boundaries can be in the article, though not of primary relevance in the lede. Please join their talk page User talk:PlatinumClipper96 of you have a POV on this. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello It's me, N1TH Music the guy who's been writing individual locomotive articles, I've read the Section you and Black Kite have made to "Project UK Railways" and I understand that you don't really want me making more of these, I think if I'm not mistaken that it's ok to make articles about the most notable individual locomotives so the way I see it, stuff like 442 001, 314 209 390 033 "City of Glasgow, ect. but I have a few questions. 1. It's hard to see what is the line between a useful article about and individual locomotive and a useless one, does it have to be preserved or does there have to just be something special about it warranting an article, for example 314 209 is the only remaining 314 unit and it's being hydrogen converted, is that enough? is my existing article about 02 003 which Black Kite called "more interesting" enough or are neither of them enough. In addition I read the Wikipeida instructions that say what articles should be on wikipedia and stuff like that. It makes a point saying that just because something is true and is sourced does not mean it should have an article, just because it can does not mean it should, but it also said that articles on wikipedia shouldn't be too long. If I were to take all the information and sources I put on 02 001, 02 003 and 02 004 and put it all on the Class 02 article, the article would be very long and wouldn't be very user friendly and I only wrote aritcles about the 3 units that got TOPS classifications, If I wrote about all 20, the article about class 02 would be immense. You might tell me then it's too much information but the way I see it, there are some people who only want skin deep information about the class but there are others who might want to learn about a single unit. In this case the person who wants to learn about the class will be confused and maybe even lost about the Giant article that has a lot of information and the person who wants something specific must go searching through said giant article for the little specific information they want. There are 2 solutions, one is to just not jam pack the article with tons of information, but then the person who wants to find out something specific will have to look through the source material or go on FlickR and I know from experience, trying to find information that only Wikipedia's source material has is incredibly annoying. And that's the soul reason I began editing on wikipedia, I wanted to add information so if someone added it it's there, I felt it would be better to make new articles about these locos then it would be to make the existing articles titanic in size. The other solution is what I did, but I understand your point, not all Locomotives need an article, there are 996 Class 08 locomotives, most of those don't matter, maybe a list simply listing and talking about the simple most basic facts would be a simple Idea, I know you did that twice with the class 47 and class 37 and those are great articles, maybe that's a solution, but I would please like you to reply to me on my talk page what you are ok with me writing and what you're not because I don't want to be a rulebreakerN1TH Music (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither 442001, 314209, nor 390033 are individually notable. If a locomotive or unit has some claim to fame that differentiates it from the rest of the class, that is something that can be mentioned in the Class article. Black Kite (talk)14:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about "this is an encyclopedia", but this encyclopaedia has over 6 million articles in just English, it's like no other but I still understand and accept the points you are making and I will cease to make an article about every single Locomotive. But for the LU standard stock vehicles, I'm only writing about the preserved/formerly preserved ones which there are 13 which I wanted to make an article at least the size of teh smallest one for each of those, and looking at the article about Standard Stock, It's already huge, nearly 60 cited sources, and external links, and further reading it is full of serveral section each with different subsections and thousands and thousands of words more and as much as there is much more to say, I felt it would be much better to write 13 articles about 13 different cars as oppose to Putting 50,000 bytes worth of new information in the existing article. And back to the class 02s is making an article about every preserved unit too much or not, because well Black Kite said that the article about the preserved one is ok and said that more like that are fine, I get now that I'm not allowed to make articles constantly about individual Locomotives and Train carriages but am I allowed to make one about every Preserved one? You haven't told me, I please would like you to tell me exactly where the boundaries are so that I know what to make, lastly as unnecessary as the other articles might be, I would like them to stay up as they took me a lot of time, and It will take me a while to transfer the information to the main articles or to consolidate them, and I can't do that to deleted articles.N1TH Music (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's me again N1TH Music (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I'm writing to ask if a certain topic I plan on creating is "notable" enough to be worthy of a wikipedia article, I figured you're the right person to ask as you're familiar with some of the stuff I've created, I want to make in on unit 314 209 as it is the only 314 unit to remain and is also being hydrogen converted which I consider important. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and take care when reverting. My first recent edit at Buxton did two things: it fixed a broken citation and it moved a wikilink (from a picture caption into the text). My thinking was that since there was a duplicate link in the section anyway, it would be better in the text than in the picture caption. You seem to have taken exception to the latter and reverted the whole edit (with the edit summary "already linked in previous section of text"), thus reinstating the broken reference as well as the wikilink in the picture caption. I accepted your position that there should be no duplicate links, so my second edit was actually to remove the wikilink from the picture caption (which I assume it what you wanted) and to fix the broken reference (again). You reverted that edit too – so ironically you were increasing the number of duplicate links to Buxton Opera House (as well as reinstating a clear error that I'd fixed in the reference). I've fixed the reference (for the third time) now but I've left the duplicate link in the picture caption. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think your application of WP:OVERLINK is a little inflexible – the guideline says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article but may be repeated, if helpful for readers, in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" (my emphasis). In the case of the Buxton article, there's a list of notable buildings in the lead (each with wikilinks) but it doesn't seem unreasonable to repeat the links later when the buildings are described in more detail. Currently, the Buxton article has links to Buxton Opera House in two places: once in the lead and once in a picture caption. Is that logical? Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: I wasn't complaining about the link in the picture caption at all, though it had other problems, but the fact that the Opera House was linked in two successive sections as well as the lead. This you don't seem to have noticed, hence the request to look at the whole article before assuming I had got it wrong. There is something about assuming good faith that would seem to be appropriate here :-) I apologise if my edit summaries are a bit terse, I try to strike a balance between sufficient explanation and being long-winded. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49: I have been working on the Haslemere article in the past few weeks and would like to submit it as a Good Article candidate in the next few weeks. I have left a note on the talk page asking for some help with a few issues that have arisen. Would you be able to have a read through and to give some suggestions as to how the article could be improved please? I would very much value your wise counsel and input into the discussion. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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.
RE [4], because I am working on this article and in the middle of converting those entries to a table. Can you stop reverting me please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not necessary. Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and I will make incremental improvements. Improving this article may take several days/weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: It is necessary, otherwise people won't know what you intend and assume it is going to be left like that. If you intend changing the complete list for a table, do it in your sandbox and then transfer the table wholesale when you have it completed to your satisfaction. Or, if you have to change the live page piecemeal, then use one of the under construction templates so that people know that it is an ongoing process. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to take me quite a while because I'm trying to gather information about the dates each station was active and which actual vessels were used at each. If you have access to any good sources of information, I could use some help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I appreciate that you need sources…albeit I’d argue a source has to start somewhere!
Regardless, you’ll see I linked to Wikipedia articles on Kingsmeadow, Chelsea Women AFC and the Women’s Super League. Surely those are sources?
If not, can you explain what constitutes an “official” source? EdGossage (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read that - particularly “when and why to cite sources” which suggests sources are required “for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged”. Not sure any of my edits constitute that? In fact, I’m challenging the current content which is factually wrong (sorry - no debate on that one!).
There’s plenty of content on the page which doesn’t appear to have any sources - generally where it’s factual (e.g. the Thames runs through Kingston…).
I’ll leave it with you - if you’re happy to leave the page as is, so be it… EdGossage (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the information has already been challenged it would suggest that proper references wouldn't be a bad idea. To give you a clue, if you go to other Wikipedia pages on the subject you will find some sources that might be useful. And claiming there is no debate on something you say is why sources are needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure quite where the debate or challenge is about where AFC Wimbledon play (or don’t play)! Anyway, I’ll leave it with you as I’m clearly not qualified to navigate through the red tape. EdGossage (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is about justifying your assertions about where whatever teams play. It's hardly that difficult to provide sources to back up those statements. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope this finds you well? I'm hoping you might enjoy this enquiry - a great picture with a loco crossing the edge of a lake, but I don't know the location. Of course I'm not asking you to do any work on my behalf, but is there any chance that (with your interest in railways) you might already know where it is? The artist Bernard Walter Evans visited Scotland - and as far as I know, he visited no other country with big mountains and lakes like that. And he died in 1922, so the railway might be a defunct one. His commons category is here so you can get an idea of his painting locations. I'm currently working up an article about Evans, and that really is quite a good picture to use at DYK, with its loco and its drama - if only I can find out where it is. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: Nice picture. I'm not an expert on Scotland but I'd hazard a guess it is the north shore of Loch Eil near Fort William but I've asked some Scottish friends for ideas. I'll let you know if a better identification comes up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have just found the same picture reproduced here, where they think it's in Wales, possibly the Ffestiniog Railway, although they're not sure. Another possibility, anyway. I have temporarily categorised the image file as Wales, but I have added a note to say that we're not sure yet. Storye book (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would certainly explain the rather odd looking train if that is a rake of slate wagons. However the only lake along the line is the Tanygrisiau Reservoir, created in 1963.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. I was too hasty to believe that info, then. Perhaps I had better put it back into the unknown location category. Note to self: must be patient. ;-) Storye book (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was interested in your edit to Haslemere railway station. You seem to have interpreted the BBC report as saying that the signal box would not be in use after next week's line closure. My understanding was that the box replacement would come in a later phase of the works which continue until late 2024. The BBC report says that "During the nine-day closure until 20 February, engineers will start work on the new signalling system" but I don't think that "start work" means removing the old box at this stage. Hopefully we'll find another source which isn't as ambiguous as that BBC page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reverted my change here. Fair enough, but do you happen to know how to put them on the other side of the running line, as my personal knowledge backed up by maps tells me that it's where they should be? Thanks. Britmax (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would be much more useful to the objective of having an accurate reference if you researched news on a subject instead of destroying accurate information. The Santa Fe Group no longer exists there are now two separate firms under different ownership one being EAC Invest A/S the successor to the East Asiatic Company the other being Santa Fe Relocation which is part of Proventus. The two articles that should still be up are in bold. You don't need to read Danish there are articles on the company in English and there are translation aps.RichardBond (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case supply references. I suggest you go back and reread the guidelines on how to edit Wikipedia before attacking other people for your shortcomings. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the owner a welcome and coi notice on his talk page. Have watchlisted the article for a month. PBLOCK is available to be used if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the extra quote marks, but it should still be in double quotes with no italics. It's the video for a song, not a short film. --Viennese Waltz10:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There we have a philosophical conundrum, is it a pictorial depiction in it's own right, in which case it should be in italics. I would argue that it is as the song track stands alone without it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read music video. Every example there is in double quotes with no italics. The Castle Howard example should read "the video for the 2018 Arctic Monkeys song "Four Out of Five"". --Viennese Waltz11:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me, just do it. Incidentally the other reason I reverted the original was that you couldn't make up your mind about which words in the title should be capitalised. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have reverted my insertion. I am a demographer, working regularly with the population of local government areas and postcode areas, as stated in Office of National Statistics figures published online. I regret not having explained the source, and will now restore the reverted entry, accompanied by a statement of that source. I have deliberately rounded the precise figure given by ONS, as obviously the actual figure is an estimate based on a combination of the populations (as at the 2011 Census) for the following postcodes, taken from the ONI website:
Farnham: GU9 (29,684) and GU10 (22,238)
Aldershot: GU11 (23,292) and GU12 (31,479).
Farnborough: GU14 (54,994)
Camberley: GU15 (34,778), GU16 (23,767) and GU17 (11,101)
Yateley: GU46 (14,829) and Sandhurst: GU47 (18,852). Before 2011, these were formerly part of GU17
Fleet: GU51 (23,604) and GU52 (15,953); before 2011, these were formerly GU13.
You will be able to calculate for yourself that these total 304,581. The population of this region has slightly increased since 2011 (the results of the 2021 Census have still to be released, but I have deliberately rounded off the total to "about 300,000" as my main intention is to give the reader some approximate idea of the scale of the overall population in the highly urbanised Blackwater Valley. Incidentally, I used Postcode areas rather than local government areas because the former more closely coincide with the boundaries of the Blackwater Valley. I hope this is now clear. Regards from Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rif Winfield: Hi, supplying sources is key in these cases. There are, regretably, some editors who get a kick out of sticking random numbers in these sort of articles to see if anyone notices! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have just given The West Indian Company Ltd. the wrong name and linked it with a company to which it is not a successor. RichardBond (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB03:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Murgatroyd49; I'm enquiring why my recent edit of British Rail was undone? I only ask as there were a few grammar checks that were undone, and I was in the process of adding two new sections (services and regions) in line with DB, SNCF and OSE... also there has been debate about making the History section smaller, and I feel that would be a step in the right direction... if the issue was the section on privatization needing to be at the end, it's important to know, the article is not linear and can go back and forward. but I can just leave it there, but I'm one of those who know we can make this article Good article and more work still needs to done. Thank you ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠(talk)00:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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.
Hi, I'm not going to make any changes to the D of L infobox re: it current situation, I did actually visit it last week and it was originally beached in the late 1970s but now it certainly is now landlocked.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
An article you recently created, SNCF Class BB 1500, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969TT me14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In a recent edit to the page British Museum, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Canterbury Tailtalk14:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saddened by your deletion of James Seeds yesterday (and also Forsyth) - whilst I understand your reason only about one name a year has been added so I don't think the list was in danger of becoming unwieldy - James was my father;s brother - he died when he was 20 before I was born - but I have a little suitcase of all his school exercise books, photos and letters and am reluctant to throw them away...adding his name seemed a good way of my honouring his memory - so I am saddened and wish you would reconsider and only delete if loads of people asked to add names - which they haven't Corinna seeds (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinna seeds: It's the same criterion as that for adding notable people to articles about towns and cities. While to you, your uncle is important, he is not notable in the wider world, neither is mine, I have the same problem. If you think I am wrong I suggest you start a discussion on the talk-page of the article and get a concensus, after all I am just one editor amongst many. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the current state of the house, see instagram post of @amy_boyington, (3 january 2023) with 10 pics and history . Beautifully restored by Charles and Lila Pearson, owners since 1997 151.38.241.191 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to remove the part where you claim "I didn't like it" on the talk page for County Durham as nowhere in my edits did I say I don't like them. That's a misconception and your own interpretation not factual. Please be so kind as to remove your claim about me. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Newlands Corner and Sheepwalk Lake, challenged information was re-added without an inline citation directly supporting the (present-tense) content. This is incompatible with the verifiability policy (specifically WP:BURDEN).
Doing so with an edit summary complaining about a lack of sources is rather strange.
It is also not sockpuppetry to register after having edited as an IP address.
Yup, [5], [6], [7], [8]: That's the problem. You can't "challenge" the removal of material by requesting a source. The burden is on you to provide one when restoring the material. If you know of a reliable source that directly supports the statements you made in present tense, do feel free to provide it. Else, please don't restore the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it again, the cited material was removed and replace by an uncited statement. Surely it is up the person adding the uncited statemnt to provide a source for it, not me? I replaced the cited material so what is your problem? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where was anything added? Your diff is entirely made of blue-highlighted text. There was nothing added to be proven!
I have not added anything. A cited statement was replaced with an uncited statement. I restored the cited statement as per the guidelines. How is that wrong?????? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we may need to do this in two steps.
Step 1: Please tell me which "uncited statement" was added to the article. Which? I'd like to see a quote. Which "uncited statement" have you been challenging? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Th eriginal article said the area concerned was managed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust, supported with a reference. That was replaced by the bald statement that it was managed by Surrey County Council with no supporting ref. That is what I reverted.
Original text= It is owned by the Albury Estate and managed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust under an access agreement between the estate and Surrey County Council.<ref name=SWT>{{cite web |url= https://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/nature-reserves/newlands-corner |title= Newlands Corner |publisher= Surrey Wildlife Trust |access-date= 4 December 2018 |url-status= dead |archive-date= 24 October 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181024192151/https://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/nature-reserves/newlands-corner }}</ref>
Reverted text= It is owned by the Albury Estate and managed by the Surrey County Council.
Please note the lack of supporting reference for the second version.
Now please explain why it is wrong to request a souce for an unsourced statement and why I should not have reverted the statement to the sourced version. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true; I was wrong when I wrote "There was nothing added to be proven"; you are right about "managed by the Surrey County Council" requiring a citation after having been challenged by you.
What I tried to say is that the removal of a statement is something a user can't really provide a source for. That's what the heading of this section was about. I thought you were referring to the edit summaries, so I asked for a quote because I didn't believe that could be happening. I thought you were asking for a citation for "Newlands Corner is no longer managed by Surrey Wildlife Trust, management was handed back to Surrey County Council in April 2020"; sorry for my misinterpretation.
The second concern I wanted to voice ("step 2" if you like) is that you're not the only person who has challenged the verifiability of material in the article. For example, [9] is completely fine. [10] is not. While you could argue about the archive links at "Newlands Corner", that argument doesn't work with the "Sheepwalk Lake" edits.So when VPinder questioned the verifiability of the statement "It is managed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust." by removing it together with a broken, outdated reference, there was no need to revert the change. By doing so, you took full responsibility for the content (see "Responsibility" at the Terms of Use). After [11], the article content contained an outdated statement, and it had been added by you with a broken citation.
It's a common issue that even experienced recent changes patrollers sometimes complain about "unsourced" statements and respond by... adding unsourced statements. I don't really get this; it was something I tried to avoid as far as anyhow possible when I patrolled recent changes every day. I personally am not interested in being legally responsible for content I didn't take a second to verify. It's worse when it's about living persons, of course, but that wasn't the case here. Still, if someone complains about the verifiability of a statement, a simple revert is often the wrong answer.
A correct response to such edits is to just remove the statement entirely. If it's unclear which version is true, just remove both. That's fine. And it had upset me to see that [12] did exactly this and was met by a revert. And that [13], too, did exactly this and was met with yet another revert.
Out of genuine curiosity, how would you provide a reference supporting these? I don't necessarily disagree with your removing them, but I want to know how their presence might be supported all the same. Thanks. XAM2175(T)12:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there is some sort of official description of the various liveries. I remember when SWR took over from SWT there was a news item describing the new livery with graphics. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure that that's routine, though. I get the impression that a lot of the diagrams have been created based on viewing photographs and/or official renderings, which I don't think is inherently wrong because the illustrations are only general in nature and those sources could be cited. What are your feelings on that? It doesn't seem to me that it's much different to including a gallery of livery photographs (that didn't fall afoul of WP:GALLERY, of course) – I think the vast majority of users would accept that without additional referencing so long as the captions didn't introduce any additional claims like the names of certain liveries, or the identities of designers, extent of usage, etc etc. XAM2175(T)18:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are taken from such sources then those sources should be cited.
Most of the articles have enough photos depicting the different liveries to render the graphics redundant. Also, if you are genuinely trying to depict each livery, you only need to provide an image of one vehicle for each version. It gets silly when you have multiple versions of 9 and 10 car trains depicted in full and not very accurately. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you are being unduly inflexible about this. This is my local park so I have some interest in raising the standard of the current article, and spent some time looking up facts. The list of facilities is straightforward and is mostly covered already by the Historic England reference. Redevelopment of the park is not mentioned at all and I refrained from going into that only because the history is complicated and needs quite abit of research. Your response is not encouraging. ProfDEH (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the references, put them in. "Believe me I'm a local" isn't an adequate response. May I suggest you read WP:RS before going further. It is not me being inflexible, it is the whole ethos of how Wikipedia operates. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating this well-written page about MV Cowes Castle!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ppt91}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
If anyone wants evidence to the facts that I include on this page, please add Citation required in the relevant locations within the text - and I'll provide it.
I have a website page full of MOD files and manuals for the Stalwart, and I have letters from Alvis, etc to give further evidence - which will answer any and every query that you have.
There is no point in Wikipedia if it's full of false information because Wiki keyboard warriors keep deleting fact instead of bothering to ask for the relevant evidence.
@Darzet boy: there is no point in adding informaton without proper, reliable sources. If you have them why don't you add them. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what is appropriate.
Also, being rude and insulting to other editors because you can't be bothered to follow the rules could end up with you being banned. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOD documents and historical documents are sound evidence. You've been asked to show where you want citation to be added, so be good enough to do that. Darzet boy (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this editor deletes factual content when he could easily tag citation required. Very disappointed with his reversion to the MV Triton page. Vessel has been moored in the UK for more than five years looking for a buyer, and his reversion makes it seems like it is still hired to Australian customs. ChrisMCau (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says “ Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.”
If the material is not challenged it can be retained.
see
” For individual claims in an article not supported by a reference:
If the article is a biography of a living person, then any contentious material must be removed immediately: see Biographies of living persons. If the material lacking reference is seriously inappropriate, it may need to be hidden from general view, in which case request admin assistance.
If the material added appears to be false or an expression of opinion, remove it and inform the editor who added the unsourced material. The Hello, I'm ChrisMCau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. template may be placed on their talk page.
In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a [citation needed] or [dubious – discuss]tag against the added text.” ChrisMCau (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that is a quote right from the guideline you linked to? Your behaviour amounts to page vandalism. Please comply with wikipedia guidelines.
The recommended action is that references are definitely required only when the material is contended, and the first action in the event of doubt should be to add a citation needed tag. Not a revert war. ChrisMCau (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know so much about Wikipedia procedures then you know not to hijack other threads to air your complaints. You also know that any material added to an article needs referencing. Sort yourself out before attacking me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It had diesel engines so wasn't a steam ship. It is a mistake that has propagated through various sources due to sloppy journalism not understanding what SS stands for. Not an uncommon error unfortunately. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can have a look at recent contributions to Eurostar by IP and new user (presumably the same person). I'm not going to go 3RR but at the same time the image added is very poor quality. This IP and user so far only seems to be focused on putting their own images on as many articles as possible. Mostly I don't care, but this is a rail article and the image is bad. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
b.t.w. the image is still in the article. I think it should be removed pending any agreement to reinstate it - especially given the sockpuppetry that led to the two accounts being blocked last night. At the moment it looks like bad behaviour is being rewarded. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, also he had a point about the Ashford International image, I've brightened and cropped it but we coud do with a new one if anyone is passing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Murgatroyd49. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:SNCF Class BB 1500, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi @Murgatroyd49: I hope you are well. There's a discussion on my talk page about adding the author Leonard Arthur Bethell as a notable person on the Dorking article. I am concerned that only primary sources (letters and electoral roll entries) are being used to support a connection between Bethell and the town. (There is an almost complete lack of secondary sources on him.)
Could I ask you to have a look in on the discussion please? Am I being unreasonable in asking for a decent secondary source? Unfortunately the other editor involved appears to be a little confused between policies on notability and source reliability. I would very much value your opinion and input. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: I've read through the discussion and I agree with your conclusions. The best route for the original editor is to effectively engineer a secondary source via, either the museum website or the local paper. The latter will almost certainly be delighted to have some currently obscure local history to feature. There is a biography, copy in the Ghurka Museum, this could be checked for appropriate references. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murgatroyd49: This is very helpful. Do you have a link to the catalogue entry for the biography please? (It may only cover Bethell's time in the army and not include his later life in Dorking.) Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of lurking... See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. How is an entry in the electoral register a bad (primary) source? It seems very reasonable to me to take an entry in an official government-published register to be confirmation that somebody was resident in a property at the time that the register was compiled and - being an electoral register not a one-night-snapshot like a census - that their residency had some degree of permanency / longevity. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I could hear muttering in the background :-) As I understand it there is only one entry in the electoral roll so that doesn't really prove an extended stay. Could have just been spending 6 months with his parents between overseas trips. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Dart. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Your recent editing history at Dennis Dart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. –Davey2010Talk11:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because of you I cannot edit witj my wiki accont in this free page, just beacuse you think in the style of the page and not adding verifiqued information Enmanuelgac (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you go about contacting members of the crew from 1952 who have survived? My Dad Francis John Elderfield was on this ship.Joining the Navy as an Apprentice engineering artificer, age 15.Leaving at the age of 30 as a Chief Petty Officer.He is now 88 years old and will be 89 in September this year..Colin. Colin Elderfield (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking... Facebook has a group for everything, including groups for most RN vessels. There's bound to be a HMS Diamond group where you can ask. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to copy-edit, remove some information that are written like an advertisement for the Lister Mills; however, I have seen that you reverted my edit. I have removed unnecessary information, like "cut a ribbon across the entrance to the mills" and "It was a sell out and a great boost for the project". I may have done other minor edits, like small gaps, but my main contribution was to remove such advertisement-like information and to improve the neutral point of view, which is an issue for this section (see the template). Chiserc (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, In doing so you left nonsense sentences, eg "In September 2004 Freda Watts, construction work started. Also unecessarily made two sentences out of one which broke the flow of the prose. Agreed the sell-out line is superfluous. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This information is only partially true. The culprit, Alex Gurteen started editing in 2010 on the oscar1994alex1999 account, which was banned in 2012. I am his old school friend and has long been subjected to his juvenile attempts at humour. The TinyTemper account was also banned for vandalism in September 2012, before the long term account Oscar248 was set up at the end of the year. This was banned in December 2017 after Alex wrote an article about himself before quickly adding some trolling edits. The sock rampage in earnest began in early 2018, with spectacular trolling from 'do your balls hang low', to Mike Hocks Hucker (renamed Michael Hucker before too being blocked). Mr Gurteen usually edits constructively but does not possess the temperament to avoid trolling the site at timed. He does not mean harm and is a big fan of the site. Epsomgentleman et.al (2021-present) is also Gurteen. He says he will be be editing again soon. Apologies.
At talk:Colchester#Proposed replacement infobox, where I'm proposing to replace the settlement infobox with a UK place one, I'm having trouble with the map caption. When I omit pushpin_map = Essex (as with Chelmsford and many more), I get a world map with no caption. When I add it, I get a map of Essex ok, but a strange ##Location within caption. If you can spare a moment, would you try to identify my error? (It is not a talk page artefact, the same error appears when I test it on the live page.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TYVM. I'm not having a good day. I see now that the image captions don't appear. Must be a missing }} somewhere but I can't find it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you undid my recent edit, claiming that it is "no improvement". Of course it was an improvement; it got rid of unnecessary wording and made the whole thing clearer. The rest of the article needs similar improvement - it's way too wordy and pseudo-"learned" for this project, and I'll be continuing in this vein. Deb (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't make anything clearer, you changed the meaning, controlling is not the same as owning for instance. If you want to dumb down the article you should first discuss it on the articles talk page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change any of the meaning; I made it clearer and removed the superfluous verbiage. I will be making further changes to the article, which is pretty awful as it stands. Please don't revert other people's changes without good reason. That's an attempt at ownership if ever there was one. Deb (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did change the meaning and I reverted it with good reason. Insulting me doesn't improve your case in the slightest. I repeat: if you want to make major changes I suggest you discuss it on the talk page first. And, for the record, others agree with me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea race (competitions) 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.
Hi @Murgatroyd49: I noticed that you edited the G Live article today. I wondered if you would be supportive of merging the Guildford Civic Hall article into the G Live article? As I’m sure you know, the Civic Hall was closed in 2004 and the site was redeveloped for G Live, which opened in 2011. I don’t think there’s very much more information available that could be added to the Civic Hall article, which seems destined to remain a stub. Obviously there is considerable WP:OVERLAP and the closure of the Civic Hall and opening of G Live are dealt with in both articles at the moment. What do you think? Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wikidata tag added in the "ridership" paramether (see) does not provide the information required so the message "error" appears at the "references" section.
This item should be added manually indicating reliable sources. That's why I removed it. If you disagree, it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Fma12 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a report by Trenes Argentinos (current operator) udpated as of 2021. It's the most recent data that I could get. Fma12 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you asked @what wrestling field is referred to?@
This is a well known field in Porthleven - it has a plaque. It is the only field in Porthleven called the wrestling field, its coordinates are SW 62409 25785 - this seemed like too much detail for the article
Hi, I wasn't sure if you meant to add this back in again? I had removed it as unsourced (and puffery as you say); another editor reverted my removal; I took it out again and you have added it back in, but with an edit summary that suggests that you think it should be removed. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article stating that one of Tyseley's residents is possibly to be oil fired doesn't rule out 4965 as while not gauge friendly the article does say they may look at narrowing it's cylinders. They said that ONE of their engines is possibly being converted due to the ongoing coal crisis. It's not stated if it's to be either 4965 or one of their resident castle's. Until it's been confirmed that it wont be 4965 that's converted the article is to remain as it is with the interview from Michael Whitehouse. A reference was included too. 77.103.154.52 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said that they haven't decided on which loco it will be but they aren't ruling her out as they could also be looking at having the cylinders narrowed if they do decide to use 4965 and it would cost one third of the amount required to return Kolhapur or Defiant to service. It's not stated in the magazine if it will be either a castle or a hall that's converted, and it's very unlikely to be one of the resident pannier tank engines due to their size and none are presently in the queue for overhaul. 77.103.154.52 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well delete the Carnival Liberty, it's off of the Carnival website, the Carnival symbol up top would be copyrighted, and any image of the ship in the middle of the ocean or taken from a bird's eye view, is probably copyrighted. So lets get to some deletion requests! Am I right? 2601:4C1:837F:E620:D066:E6E:3182:92B9 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that there is a point of view that a pre-reformation CofE church changed denominations at the reformation. There is also a point of view that the present CofE is the same denomination founded by Augustine of Canterbury. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot endorse one point of view over another-- so, please, stop restoring POV content to articles. Marnanel (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marnanel: It's not a point of view, it is fact, Christian churches in this country before the Reformation were Roman Catholic by definition. So please stop imposing your point of view on articles about pre-Reformation churches. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Previous" implies a change. The opinion that there was a change is not a neutral point of view. Calling an opinion a fact does not make it a fact. Marnanel (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marnanel Your edits removing "previous denomination" seem a good deal more POV than the existing infomation. Please STOP doing these rather disruptive edits. By the way, that Augustine of Canterbury "founded" a denomination is an extreme view held by almost no-one since the 18th century. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a personal point of view. So it would be a NPOV if I claimed it in the infobox, just as it's a NPOV violation if someone claims the opposite. The view that the CofE was founded by Augustine is a common one among Anglo-Catholics, but the CofE itself claims continuity from Augustine to the present day[16]. I can get you more references if you like, though I'm surprised that anyone's asking for them. Marnanel (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Church of England", as a local branch of the Catholic Church, is one thing (though of course there were many Christians in England and Britain long before Augustine), but the idea that Augustine founded a new denomination is wildly fringe, & has been for centuries; that is not what the CofE website claims. I wonder how much you know about these things. Do you have any references from serious historians? I think not. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand the point of WP:NPOV: other than fringe opinions, Wikipedia cannot endorse one opinion over another. I don't care whether you think the Church of England's website is an unbiased source (of course it isn't): the question is whether it's a fringe opinion, which it clearly isn't. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot endorse it. Therefore, we cannot assert that any pre-reformation Anglican church had a previous denomination.
Augustine didn't found another "denomination" because that concept didn't exist in his time. Nor did it exist in its modern form during the Reformation. This is why we cannot assert that there was a previous denomination. Am I going to have to take this to WP:NPOV/N? Marnanel (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take it where you like, you are talking rubbish. Of course there was a different demonination before the reformation. If you know anything of the history of the Christian church you surely know that pre-reformation Roman Catholicism is only one, though the dominant one, of several demoninations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps you are, if you don't stop making these edits. I'd do some research first though. Augustine's period, or especially a lttle before it, was full of doctrinal breakaways and schisms. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya - I put the In Use flag on The Vyne as you've suggested previously. Could you please give me a bit more time to complete my expansions before editing? I believe I indicated I'd be an hour, and I will remove the flag when done. Unless I've missed something else? Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49 No worries, I'm done for this evening, and the flag is down now. If you do happen to have a look at it, there are still awkward placeholders for the rooms on the ground and first floor which have yet to have content added. They were part of the original article, so I've left them there. I do plan to add that content, whenever the British Library is back online. Isaksenk (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Mndata2#November 2023 and earlier. This editor appears to be running a campaign to change thumbnail sizes, from the trivially pointless 1.1 upwards. I expect this to end in a WP:ANI referral, if so I will need to refer to your reversion. The editor has ignored all invitations to justify their behaviour. But perhaps adding your voice may give them cause to reflect before it gets that far. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, may I ask for advice about having this article approved from draft version?
Montague Birrell Black, was a renowned painter, illustrator and poster artist.
He produced lithographs for the White Star Line (Titanic), the British Underground Group, and the British Railway Lines. I continue to receive messages that he was not notable enough, however his works are some of the most iconic and well known in the maritime/rail/London underground categories. Thank you Goodwillgames (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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.
Hi Murgatroyd – I found a folder of Surrey photos from 2014 and 2015 which had not been sorted for uploading, and there were about 70 station photos (15 different stations across the county), all of which I have uploaded today. Have a look at my latest Commons uploads and see if there's anything useful for station articles. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the link I shortened at "Hailes Abbey".
The IP editor who edited that page today is a blocked user known as "Harry the house". Would you mind keeping an eye open for him? He usually changes concise redirected links to "piped" links, overlinks the names of political figures, and his trademark is changing the word "after" to "following". He mainly edits pages on British politics and television, and Hampshire. He's very mobile, but often returns to the same IP addresses periodically. A few recent addresses he's used are: 92.26.174.243, 82.132.184.17, 82.132.184.248, 212.88.54.161, 82.132.187.53, 82.22.100.60, 86.135.23.27, but there are many more.
Thanks. I agree that those edits conform to the MOS, and that's why I'd left them alone, but Duncan's approach is that block evasion should be reverted on principle. I think we should try to coordinate our approach, or we risk wasting a lot of time and effort reverting one another. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Firstly, thanks for your help the other day.
I would like your advice please.
I have someone who is taking all my updates, and then reformatting pages, and rewriting text, within hours of my updates.
As a good comparison, I would request you check out both the 46ft Watson class, and 47ft Watson class lifeboats, esp check the code behind the page.
and please advise if I'm being overly sensitive etc.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojsyork:. Geoff sees to be tidying up the table layouts rather than actually deleting anything you are adding. A quick glance looks all right to me. One thing is, Wikipedia convention is that dates are spelt out as 25 December 2023, rather than 25/12/23, (avoids Anglo-American date confusion) which is one of the changes he is making. Hope that helps and have a Merry Christmas. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realised about the date formats (12/23), and rattled through all my updates, correcting most. maybe the odd one still lurking.
Any like 25/12/23 are historic, not my doing.
The page reformat looks ok to display, but the code behind is a right mess, incredibly hard to update now.
I'm just shocked that there's been no effort to update for many years, but the moment someone makes an effort, its corrected and re-written within hours. I just find it incredibly insulting.Ojsyork (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojsyork: I don't think Geoff means to be insulting. It is just that such pages may have been on his watchlist for a long time. It's only when someone does an edit that they come to one's notice and then one sees something that could do with adjusting. Hence you suddenly get a flurry of editors all sticking their oars in! It's a phenomenom I've noticed quite a lot recently as I have been adding relevant images to various pages as I slowly scan my collection of old slides. A page that hasn't seen an editor in years suddenly sees a lot of activity.
Don't let it put you off, the pages you are editing are badly in need of a fresh look.
As a thought, while you are doing a succession of edits on a page, put { {In use} } (remove spaces between brackets) in the header of the page (under the short description) before you start, that will let other editors know there is work in progress.
Regarding Leeds. Do you think some of the images could now be updated? Considering the old gallery is now removed (which we couldn't update); now the current one allows us to update each image.
My wife and I completed our seventh Viking cruise yesterday. All seven cruises (in Europe, the Americas, and Asia) were dominated by "affluent retired Americans". FYI, Buaidh talke-mail16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the aforementioned category, I don't feel that it is derogatory. I don't think that Viking even acknowledges that it targets "older travelers".
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi, I notice that you changed United Kingdom to 'England' in the article. Please note that Wikipedia uses the proper name of a country to help identify or locate a place, and in this instance the country is the UK, not England. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I just wondered why you'd reverted the addition of the category "Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester", as Manchester is also part of Greater Manchester and its entries were missing from the category of II* listed buildings for the rest of the county? I'm not sure what "supercat" refers to in the edit description. Happy to learn more for future editing. Thanks. Mmberney (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmberney: Hi, If you look at the sub-categories of Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester, you will find one is Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Manchester, which Brownsfield Mill is already in. (Supercat is shorthand for super-category) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still slightly confused, sorry - are you saying because it's already in the Manchester category then it can't also be in the Greater Manchester category? If I was looking at the listing for the latter, I'd think it odd that the city of Manchester's entries weren't alongside all of the other nine boroughs' entries (which currently includes the city of Salford's). I assumed supercat was short for that, but what does it mean in this instance? Appreciate your help. Mmberney (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the Manchester category, it is already in the Greater Manchester category as the former is a sub-section of the latter. Greater Manchester is the super-category, Manchester is the sub-category. Confused the hell out of me when I first started editing! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to support my Wikipedia Library request...
Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.
Hi Murgatroyd49, Thank you for your interest in my clarification of the term "Turkish" bath. You are quite correct, of course, chronologically the bath was built in the Edwardian period, but the type of bath was a "Victorian-style Turkish bath", which is the term I should have used, and have been using elsewhere on wiki in such cases. The article referred to in the wikilink, which has also been lost, explains that "Hot-air baths of the same type, built after Queen Victoria’s reign, are known as Victorian-style Turkish baths, and are also covered in this article."
While I'm not prepared to go to the stake over your revert, I am interested to know your thinking. There is increasing unhappiness in the Islamic world about the use of the phrase "Turkish baths" as it implies that this originated in Turkey whereas it is an intrinsic part of Islamic culture worldwide, including Turkey, of course. Furthermore, today's casual use of "Turkish baths" in The West can include anything from Russian steam baths to gay saunas and day spas. This is one of the reasons why—following a discussion in 2020 between R Prazeres and myself on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hammam a couple of years ago—it was decided to split the article on Turkish baths into two: 1. "Hammam" and 2. "Victorian Turkish baths", the hot dry air bath. I was merely bringing a specific phrase into synchronisation with current wiki practice. If you've searched wiki recently for "Turkish baths" you will probably have found a redirect to "Hammam". Clearly, the bath on the Adriatic was not a hammam. I thought it important to ensure that the type of bath is clear. However, perhaps I should have taken even this small change to a talk page first. I did not do so since similar changes, with updating the wikilinks accordingly, has raised few objections in other articles.
Many thanks. I've changed to Victorian-style but not added the wikilink as I'd forgotten that this already appears earlier in the article. Best Ishpoloni (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Jim Pope, not because I think it necessarily shouldn't be deleted, but because it doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. You may like to try one of the other deletion methods; my own first choice to try would be WP:PRODBLP, second WP:PROD, and WP:AFD as a last resort, but obviously your choice may be different. JBW (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Silly me. PRODBLP = PROposed Deletion of a Biography of a Living Person, but Jim Pope has been dead for almost 22 years. 😕 However, I have now posted an ordinary PROD on the article. JBW (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I changed the main image description on Westminster Abbey for the capture date, I didn’t know that wasn’t needed in big articles for iconic buildings like this.
What I’m only trying to do is improve Wikipedia articles for better experience for different users, I’m not trying to vandalise pages.
But I thanked you for your edit on reverting my edit I made.
@PEPSI697: Hi, there are many occasions when the date of an image is useful information but in this case there have been no major changes to the West Front in many years, the most recent being the post-war cleaning of the building. If you look at Canaletto's paintings from 300 years ago, apart from the traffic in foreground there are few visible differences. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49: Hope all is well with you. I thought you might be interested in this BBC article about the installation of a new road bridge at Ash. There'll be an opportunity next weekend to watch the works from a special viewing platform that's being built. Unfortunately I'm fully booked on 4 and 5 May so won't be able to go, but I thought I'd let you know in case you were able/interested in going along. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reversed my edit in Antwerpen-Centraal_railway_station. However, rather than wishing to be a pedant I do think it is important to emphasize that the conversion to a through station was partial; it is still a terminus for the most part. While the situation is made clear further below in the article, just reading this section one might easily gain the impression that the entire station was converted. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, my hatnote changes are loading perfectly fine for me. I've done these edits on many other pages, and none of the others have been reverted. So presumably it's also loading correctly for other people?
But if yours is not an isolated case, we better bring up the issue with the template makers (?). Could be an issue that only shows up in specific cases. Wish you could link a screenshot of what you're seeing! — TARDIS builder✉ ★ 09:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, but I have seen it multiple times in other ship article hatnotes. Guess it was a substitute for italicizing (or reverse-italicizing, in this case) the ship name.
Are you okay with me restoring my edit?
Have you tried other browsers / being logged out / another skin to see if it loads differently?
SNCF Class BB 1500, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
To this point, I'm failing to find a few images that I think would benefit the article. First, the close, as discussed. But, despite there being many, many images on Commons, I also can't find:
A good image of the interior of the Chapter House - we have one, but it's stuffed with people;
Any image at all of Magna Carta - perhaps you can't photograph it?
The Magna Carta would be difficut to photograph, for obvious reasons it is in relatively dim light and protected with two layers of glass. Certainly can't use flash which would just bounce of the glass anyway. What might be possible is to photograph the interactive visual display in the chapter house, if allowed. I have a photo of the interior of the chapter house taken in 1979, long before the Magna Carta display was placed there. I'll upload it to commons and you can have a look at it.
That would be very helpful. You don't also happen to have a detailed exterior shot of the Chapter House? That's another one that I can't find. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert a recent series of edits to the article Ash Manor School? Articles about schools are frequently vandalised but these edits are clearly in good faith and positive apart from the odd slip. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually check you will see I reverted edits by a vandal who was trying to assert that Ash, and Ash Manor School were actually part of Aldershot and in Hampshire. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw that but it could have been an honest mistake in what were otherwise mostly good edits which I happen to know are factually correct. The warnings were not for repeated offences - just the same error made twice - and the entire warning to blocking process lasted less that 90 minutes. It wasn't you that blocked this editor but I see that the block is indefinite. This seems harsh and not the best way to treat a new contributor. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the issue of era use in the above article on the talk page. When reverting, it's usually a good idea to check the whole edit. In addition to the restoration of the original era notation, I made an uncontentious edit to the paragraph formatting in the lead, but you reversed that as well. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the very least you should have mentioned the removal in the edit summary. Also, it is sourced. There was a link in the sentence to a Wikipedia article about the subject in question: Aldermaston Pottery, the article itself being well sourced. Since there's an article about the subject it is hardly "trivial", although perhaps it should be moved lower down in the article. MidnightBlue(Talk)09:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Was hoping you could explain why you entirely removed Name and Etymology section? I'm relatively new to Wiki and thought I had added a historically relevant, well cited and informative section, not to mention corrected a false and uncited part.
I've added some sources now (a total of 5). Whether you agree or disagree with the theory is a different story. I have added a sub-section which agrees with the works of three other place-name researchers.
Not only is the previous theory incorrect it also only cites only one source which itself does not mention page number. May I also add that the book doesn't even mention the river name nor its etymology!
For clarification:
The river's name is derived from alor an Old English word for the alder tree. The name Alresford dates from at least the start of the 8th century and means 'alder tree ford', presumably an important ford of the river near a prominent alder tree, and so by extension the whole river became known by the same name, with the river named after the town rather than the other way round. [1]
I'd appreciate you stop deleting the entry which is better sourced and more informative than the previous entry.
THANK YOU! Only taken a few weeks!! Been itching to update it myself, given I was the first guard to work her on a loaded test run and literally wrote the roster for her launch… but being a conflict of interest and there not being sources I didn’t want to change anything :D Danners430 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might take a while - she's back in the shed and 512 is doing the work... my theory is the shed are waiting until 512 is due a washout then they'll replace her with 464 Danners430 (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The data for 2023/24 (which is April 23 to March 24) is now final. It may be unintuitive but that is how the UK government does years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! :) I saw you reverted my edit on Wrexham notable people, with the note "No article". Despite giving a source is an article in Wikipedia a requirement for someone to be added to the notable list? The Space Stout (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yes, as it provides a link for anyone who wants more information about the person/entity. Also cuts down on the number of spurious additions.
Please stop undoing revisions to NCLs updated gross tonnage. They announced in their earnings call that the tonnage has increased so you undoing the changes is keeping inaccurate information Rhenry0815 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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.
Done. I have fixed it. For future reference, you can do it with the "Move" tab at the top of the page. That leaves a "redirect" from the old title; consider whether it's useful, and if not (as here) put {{db-r3}} at the to to ask for it to be deleted. There can be complications: see WP:Moving a page for details. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. In a recent edit to the page British Museum, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Hello, I'm ChrisMCau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. template may be placed on their talk page.
; see Talk:Shrewsbury for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
