See Archive 2014 for discussions from 2009 through 2014.

Hi Dcs002, let me be the first to post a message on your Talk page, and allow me to award you the Bright Idea Barnstar for your clever idea regarding using a .gif file to show two different views of the Beyond cover art. Thankyou, also, for your support at the FfD, including the text linking our thoughts on the subject to the relevant criteria. I have made a temporary arrangement with a simple drawing to take the place of the deleted image, which you can see here. Thanks, once again. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2015_Mina_stampede#Requested_move_29_September_2015 Hi there, Apologies if this is entirely the wrong way to do this but I am still learning the ways.... Just thought you might like to know - if you don't already - that the disaster vs stampede question has now gone onto the Requested Moves page. Given your earlier (excellent, persuasive) posts, I thought I'd alert you, so you could contribute...if you wanted to, that is, of course. Best wishes. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, and for your kind words. I have posted my comments now. Dcs002 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, First with apologies if this is bothering/harassing you but I just thought I'd let you know that the Requested moves discussion on this article title remains open. I think your contribution would be really helpful, if you have time, feel so inclined etc. Best wishes whether you do or not. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have weighed in now. I hope something comes of it, but unfortunately (IMO) it seems now there's a knee-jerk reaction to apply "stampede" to all the Western articles as well. Usually WP settles down after a while and things fall into balance, but this is so emotional for so many people. I think maybe this is a dispute that would be better settled in the public media, by confronting them directly. I think that as long as RS use the word, WP will too, and people feel very righteous in adhering to that standard, even if it is harmful. Dcs002 (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see now that you have and, I very much hope, to good effect. I agree 100% re definitions, which is where I started, and which you have explained so much more fully. TBH I didn't think I would need to! No bad faith imputed but, as a newcomer, I've been surprised how some, including long-standing editors, contribute in a categorical and robust way, without seeming to attend to the arguments put or the detail of the case under discussion. Oh, and is it common that editors -again, including those of long-standing and high repute - try to hang their argument on WP policies, even where those policies barely relate, if at all? It seems a pretty lazy approach, at best; bullying, at worst. I don't mean that I'm giving up - far from it - but I have found it a little disappointing, I have to say. Not sure why I'm bending you digital ear with this but done now and I hope you won't mind.

As for the other strand - i.e. the racial bias - it was there somewhere in my mind, unformed, but you have made a compelling case. My fear is that some of those who oppose do so because they generally reject anything they see as political correctness, over-sensitivity and the like - as I think some of the comments indicate - so will not change their view no matter what the case made.

Power to your typing fingers though!

--Stratfordjohns (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again for your kind and encouraging words. My unfortunate experience is that editors seem to cling rigidly to WP guidelines as if they were inviolable laws, or they will sometimes point out that we are free to ignore or modify policies to make a better encyclopedia, per WP:BURO and WP:Ignore, but they will often cite one or the other to buttress their own pre-existing opinions.

There are a LOT of good, experienced editors out there with a great deal of integrity, and they don't game the system like that. (See WP:Game.) But new articles concerning such emotional subjects as us vs. them, Shia vs. Sunni, racial justice, and West vs. everybody else tend to attract extremes in editing philosophy and tactics to get an individual's point across, such as "The House of Saud is evil," or "Iran is a nation of liars and troublemakers." (If you want to see craziness, look at the talk page for any new article about Israel. They have been so bad that there is a specific set of rules that govern only articles about Arab/Israeli issues.)

What gets lost is the unbearable sadness that this article describes - the loss of more than 1,000 pilgrims who went on a peaceful journey to worship God, the children who will grow up (as I did) without a father, the surrealism of their lives at this moment, and the stupid bickering over words that are so meaningless to them right now. I think the more experienced and patient editors are likely waiting for emotions to calm before jumping in. Regardless of your opinion or mine, whatever that opinion is, we will find vehement and often illogical opposition to it because this issue is so emotional. (And I bet the most emotional editors in that discussion have not lost loved ones in this tragedy.) People are people, and when so many people die in such a tragedy, many of us want to blame someone, regardless of what actually caused the tragedy. (Look what the US did to Iraq after 9/11. Completely unrelated, but they were a convenient target for our blame.)

Please do not let this article's talk page put you off editing in the future. There are a lot of less controversial and less emotional topics that also need help editing and expanding. It can be a rewarding experience to build an article from nothing, or from a stub, into a full, well-written article. You just jumped into a hornet's nest as a newcomer. Usually discussions are much more reasoned. We don't always get what we want, or what we feel is right, but we are ALWAYS heard, and that means something. Dcs002 (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, again and thanks. I won't...let it put me off. I have been reading Talk pages on and off for a while now, so did have a sense of the way some users argue their case; it was just a little disconcerting to be involved this time though I did ask for it, I suppose, and ought to be realized that it would be an emotive subject. When I saw "stampede" in the page title it just jumped out at me as something worth commenting on and I'm glad that I did. I think you're right though that there is more satisfaction to be had in developing an article, which I will try some time soon. All the very best to you. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dcs002, thanks for drawing attention to this. I agree, it's an issue which ultimately needs to be taken up by the headline writers, because there's a deep and perhaps unconscious bias at work. I've included contextual copy within the Mina article and on stampede, the links are there. Let's hope there's follow-up and future journalists take notice. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, I wrote an email to New York Times journalist Ben Carey drawing attention to the problem. He said he was aware of it, and had asked the headline writer of his Sept 24th article not to use the word "stampede". Alas. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Vesuvius Dogg, for all you've done on this issue too. I have been the emotional one in the discussion, and you have been the calm, reasoned one who just puts the facts on the table. My emotionality during discussions at conferences was a real problem when I was a research scientist. (My own work was never challenged as biased, and I found it easy to accept criticism of my work in front of audiences. I just got worked up when people drew unfounded conclusions from their own work, or flagrantly ignored the scientific method, and others didn't seem to recognize the problem. What really got me going was when researchers reported their work directly to consumer media via press release, bypassing peer review. Others made note of such things. I made impassioned criticism. Scientists are supposed to be dispassionate.)

I think it's great that you were able to contact the reporter, but seriously disappointing that the headline writer ignored his wishes. I'm pretty confident that our own biased usage is coming from our sources, not our own editors. I'm not so sure about the reason the namespace change was locked immediately after it was changed back to stampede. That does not seem like a neutral, dispassionate decision to me. It has serious ramifications. Now people who want to use the word "stampede" can (and have) refer to it as the "status quo," giving it the inertia of time while this RfM is worked out. It also means that the (IMO) likely "no consensus" ruling will mean we're stuck with "stampede" instead of anything else. This exchange concerns me:

Q: "So, how can we make is the main page and this the redirect?"

A: "Don't worry about that sort of technical detail. If you now decide you want to move the page, take it to WP:RM. We'll do the rest."

Don't worry. You don't need to know. It's locked. We'll handle it. (The royal we?) The arrogant condescension of ignorant authority. (See what I mean about emotionality? But am I wrong?) At least Sheriff followed through and started the RfM. At least the discussion has also started among some of the major print media. Maybe in time they will get their act together and change their own usage. They (print media) have stuck their necks out by reporting on the problems with their usage. Maybe next time. Dcs002 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I can be rather fanatical, but I've played a lower-key role here and I'll take the compliment. Without your comments and initial observations, particularly about the use of "stampede" in a developing world context (almost always when describing crowd crushes in religious contexts, BTW, the presumed religious extremism implicitly implicated) I'm not sure I would have dug in on this issue. But it's very clear "stampede" is an unhelpful and misleading word all around, and its continued use makes it unlikely we'll find good answers, explanations, and solutions to future crowd crush problems. I'm not done writing to headline writers; I've not exhausted my little NYTimes Rolodex... And while I've thrown a few punches at Saudi mismanagement, it is also remarkable that the last seven years of hajj have produced no such crowd crushes, so there have been improvements, though maybe just a bottleneck moved upstream... Anyway, my heart goes out to all involved. It's not just an awful way to die, it's an awful thing to survive, too, as the countless traumatized Liverpool fans can tell you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For leading the fight to remove "stampede" from article titles at Talk:2015 Mina stampede and WT:W2W, your arguments were impressive. Sheriff (report) 16:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded! --Stratfordjohns (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dcs002. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Of course the BBC (and a number of other outlets) immediately called it a 'stampede' because, you know, it took place in Afghanistan. But the truth of these 12 schoolgirls who died, with some 30+ others injured, appears to be a crowd crush implicating design deficiencies in a school with a single exit, initially triggered by the panicked attempt to flee a shaking building during and after the 7.5 earthquake. Not, perhaps, the clearest-cut case, because 'panic' did precipitate the event. But it perhaps illustrates how this 'stampede' stereotype persists: it is often associated with calamitous triggering factors, fires, earthquakes, etc., very often in places where journalists don't have firsthand access. So they fill in the blanks, very often (it seems to me) in the heat of a deadline.

Anymore, more food for thought. Please know I'm reading your measured statistical analyses with interest and I've a hunch that our collective contributions to Wikipedia, mainly in article space—do journalists read Talk pages? I doubt it, but please don't think your work is in vain—will in time change the journalistic culture. (Not every outlet took the 'stampede' bait with the Afghan quake, and I was heartened by that. I'd like to think some fruit of our work is trickling out there, and I do think Wikipedia from now on will much more sensitive to this issue. We do have a trickle effect on usage and language. Editing under a previous UserID, I've watched it in action now for more than a decade.) Cheers Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for telling me, Vesuvius Dogg. I don't own a television, so I get my news rather more slowly than most people. Sounds like another terrible tragedy. But if it's precipitated by a panic-inducing event, and if the crowd is fleeing urgently and maybe chaotically, there's a good case to be made for describing it as a stampede. I do wish people would take responsibility for their failures of design and crowd management in predictable situations though. Even when a crowd of humans do develop into a frenzied, panicked rush, engineering can account for that kind of behavior, and has been doing so for at least a century, when the first panic bars were installed on emergency exit doors in the UK.

Thanks for reading my analysis! I have been working on it assuming no one would read it. No one likes the "wall of words" stuff, and a wall of numbers is even worse. BTW, I am adding to that page daily. I found a bunch of small errors in my data, and that's all fixed. Also, I forgot to move one of the three US events involving primarily African Americans to the non-white column. Fixing these errors has made the correlations even tighter. Not one single predominantly white event out of the seventeen with WP articles or sections was referred to as a stampede on September 28, 2015. (There are three of them as of today, thanks to one editor.) Finding those errors has confused me a bit, because I was very careful with the data. Unfortunately, finding an error feels just the same as making an error, and it can be hard to tell which I've just done. Either way, the numbers hold very solidly. My goal is to write the entire thing up like a research manuscript. Even if the RfC on W2W doesn't close the way I'd like it to, this will still be a meaningful bit of work. Whatever we do from now on, we do it knowingly. Dcs002 (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vesuvius Dogg, I don't know if you are keeping track, but there have been two more since. The first was at Nangarhar University in Afghanistan on October 27, right after the major earthquake. Social media warned of an impending aftershock at 3:00 AM. It was a hoax, but students staying in a hostel rushed for the door, injuring 27. Fortunately no one was killed. The second one was during the Colectiv nightclub fire on October 30. I haven't looked too carefully at that one, but AFP describes "stampede" and trample injuries (apparently minor - "leg injuries") but does not quantify anything, like how many were killed by crush, or in a PCC pile blocking the exit. As is always the case with fire-related crushes and collapses, the fire itself is the main focus of the press coverage. Thought you might be interested. Dcs002 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did see "stampede" mentioned in coverage of the Colectiv nightclub fire, but not the Afghan story. I wondered (as I'm sure you did) if it might be a "true stampede" in the sense that people were fleeing, in panic, after a precipitating event. Which is not to deny it's still a slippery word even in that context. Thanks for keeping up with this. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vesuvius Dogg, it does sound like a true stampede by English dictionary definitions, but I have decided to avoid using that word at all and to avoid edits of non-egregious material until I finish a much larger research project I'm doing on the subject, outside WP. I am collecting data on all crowd disasters that I can find (I have about 200 so far, and I know there are many more), and then I will look at the reporting in the English language consumer media and medical literature for all of them. (That's a few thousand sources by my estimate.) Then I plan to write up a nice comprehensive analysis for publication, maybe in a public health journal or a medical journal.

This all started from the statistical analysis I did for that RfC in W2W. After I did that I realized I had a ton of data - why not keep going? There isn't anything published on this topic in the medical literature. There are plenty of descriptions of the phenomena, safety advice, and injury and ER impact summaries, but nothing on the language. I'm a retired neuroscientist, and I have published my research many times, so I know how to do this, and it will go somewhere if I stick with it. But I want to get a real feel for how the word is used in the real world right now, how it has been used historically, what, if any, impact there might be on public safety, whether current usage has evolved to the point that the English dictionary definitions need to be revised or medical dictionaries need to be standardized, and whether public health and medical professionals should use the term or possibly discourage its use. Mass gathering security experts already seem to use more specific language, like collapse, crush, rush, and trample because their response to a crush is quite different from their response to a collapse, and trample injuries can be quite different from crush injuries (e.g., might need to immobilize the patient in place on a backboard as opposed to just carrying them out to a safe location). But the medical literature seems completely inconsistent (as it often is - American MD's are notoriously bad scientists and writers).

It is possible that rush might be a preferable to stampede from a public health standpoint. Not only does it remove some of the negative connotations (I think), but it separates the rush from the trampling. I think when people are said to have been hurt or killed in a stampede, trampling is implied (at least to the average person), which is usually inaccurate. There is also the question of whether the people in the crowd are trying to get away from something or move toward something desirable. Retail events, for example, involve customers rushing toward desired merchandise, whereas release of tear gas causes people to run away, in any direction, just away from the undesirable condition. Under different definitions, both could be called stampedes. But for WP, I think the RfC is all over, and I highly doubt the outcome will be anything but No Consensus. The opposition does have a few valid points. They do reflect how average editors think, and changing the average editors is a tall order.

Anyway, that's why I'm avoiding the word right now. I don't know if it's damaging from a public health perspective to use it at all, even if its use strictly follows the dictionary definition. None of this will have any impact on WP of course. Dcs002 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needless to say, this is commendable and something I'd be extremely pleased to see realized in published form. You have my strongest encouragement for it. I'll keep my eye out for other events or instances that could help your project, and while we may not have changed Wikipedia (yet or soon) it's fascinating how Wikipedia has changed us, created "activists" in a seemingly semantic cause but with big implications. If this does come to fruition, I hope you'll mention your study's genesis here, with editors from all over the world who discovered common cause in the wake of the Mina tragedy, in the way the story was inadequately told. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Vesuvius Dogg, Wikipedia will have to be part of any publication for that very reason. However, NPOV is about 100 times more critical in the academic literature as it is here. If I write this manuscript, it has to be little more than a description and a conservative interpretation of the evidence, and I can't go into it assuming there is a problem needing to be solved. In fact, I'm just a little less sure of the case now than I was before. Someone pointed out to me recently that nearness might account for this bias, and that might be seen across other borders in the non-Western world as well. Most of our English language sources come from US and UK media - I think - and events near to them will be more closely followed by viewers and readers in their own country, and with more emotional attachment. For example, if a paper in England calld the Hillsborough disaster a stampede, there would be a public backlash. But we wouldn't look to a Nigerian English language source for the Hillsborough disaster. Did they call it a stampede? Does that affect usage? I really don't know. I retired from research 7 years ago, and I have never published a paper in public health. This is a big project. I hope I'm up to it. Thanks for the encouragement! Dcs002 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some sources to the AfD. Please take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith, I had a look, and I think Sar Jalal is known as Wah Cantonment, or Wah Cantt today. I also had a look at those two sources, and I think they say the same thing verbatim, so they are really one source, but I think merging with Wah Cantonment is what is needed. Sar Jalal is important as the historical name of what is called Wah Cantt today - I think. I would like someone who knows about the region to verify that though. Dcs002 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BrAirt28M AAIB App8fig5.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added tag for OGL v3.0 - should be fine now. Dcs002 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, nice job on British Airtours Flight 28M. A big improvement, thank you.

I only spotted one non-British spelling (bean->been), and I assume that was a typo not U.S. spelling. You even got manoeuvre right! I don't know whether "fire engine" (which is normal British usage) would be understood in America, so I've left "fire truck" alone. Thanks to Youtube the latter term is understood on both sides of the pond.

I've suggested a couple of copyedits, but they in no way detract from the work you've done.

Cheers. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks 80.2.106.75. Yes, "bean" was a typo :P "Fire engine" is just fine. Everyone here knows what a fire engine is, but specifically, among firefighters, "engine" refers to a specific type of truck (the most common type), and I don't know whether the first two "rapid intervention vehicles" fit that technical description, or whether it's even important. Americans would certainly struggle with the word "appliance" though, but that's the word used in the AAIB report. I suppose we can leave it as-is. (Thanks for the YT link - ouch!)

Your edits look great, and they all make sense to me. And thanks to Her Majesty for opening the crown copyrights for us! That will release a lot of illustrations and photos for aircraft accidents in the UK. This is one that I am particularly interested in because of the crowd behavior and its impact on evacuation. There are so many factors that resulted in the high death toll, and crowd behavior is just one factor, but that's my personal thing. Anyway, thanks for the comments and for the helpful edits! Dcs002 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I responded to your (very good) questions at [[1]]. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enjoyed both of your comments. Though I'm too shy to reply there, I wanted you to see this discussion in case you missed it. (Checking the checkers is now indefinitely blocked.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heya! Good to hear from you again, and thanks for the comments!

Hmm... Not sure how I feel about that. Yes, I definitely missed that discussion. (The guy sounds like a real pro.) I like to encourage people to keep their heads when they get worked up, and that's what I saw happening there. But sometimes I step in without knowing the whole story (or without checking the time stamps), and then I look like someone trying to preach after everyone's gone home. Oh well. People should remember that what they say is public, and some random guy like me might come across their posts and have a reaction to what they had said. If that were an active discussion, what I said might have meant a little more though.

I hope the comments about that "study" were a little more well-placed. I don't know if you read it, but it was somewhat laughable as research, though it looked quite pretty as a sales brochure for the consulting firm.

Jimbo is just some guy. I heard his talk page was usually active, so I decided to check it out and leave my mark. I wonder what he thinks of my first impression? :P Dcs002 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing quite like a User and Talk page with thousands of active followers... If it makes you feel better, I think I (or someone) should win the embarrassment prize for this recent edit, my first in that forum, which was reverted by an Admin (and ArbCom candidate), who even came to my Talk page to question my GA review capabilities. All because I fell for what really does look like an open invitation to edit/improve Wales' page itself. Live and learn.

Following your comment, I did read the Lundquist "study" with the skeptical/wry eye you helped provide. I was nonplussed by their opaque rubrics and criteria, to the say the least. So strange that negative/controversial Talk page discussion on a company's page measures twice as negatively as a flagged section in the article itself. Also odd that they made no effort to check accuracy, but penalized if numbers and profit statements weren't current. That the scandal-ridden UBS came out on top of their "study" should be no surprise, given that article's obvious (to me) full-body PR massage. It doesn't quite bury their controversy, but bores the reader to death first. (Also Kazakhstan's PR strategy, across many articles.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading this PR brochure/"study" has really opened my eyes to the reality that powerful forces, like corporations and governments actually are actively trying to influence WP, that it's not just fear mongering among a few candidates and a few editors. The Koch PR team used tactics that look so normal - tag-team and grind people down with selective and absolutist interpretation of guidelines and policies. I didn't read the Kazakhstan piece, but I'm assuming it's a similar story? I wonder if there's a way to give readers a blanket warning about for-profit corporation and maybe even national government articles being vulnerable as a result of ourfree editing policies (which I STRONGLY support). I dunno. I'm just finding out how real this problem is, and I don't have a sense of how widespread it actually is yet. I think maybe remedies might be found in identifying SPAs and limiting their ability to edit articles about for-profit enterprises.

Yesterday I came so close to editing Jimbo's page in a manner like you did too! He gives the impression that noobs and first-time visitors are welcome to make edits. I think the revert summary was a bit less kind than it should have been in your case. Oh well. Nice to know I'm not the only one. BTW, someone thanked me for that edit I'm so embarrassed about. I don't know them, and I hope it's not someone with an agenda, but it made me feel better1 Take care :) Dcs002 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I got a very funny Barnstar (now on my home page) after my Jimbo/Admin escapade, so it was all worth it! Even so, someone should slip "See also: Venus flytrap" onto Jimbo's page, as a courtesy Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like that Barnstar! And I like your Venus flytrap idea, but I'm not gonna do it... I don't like the way that admin is inserting her/himself into your life. Kind explanations or reminders are usually all that are needed if an edit is inappropriate, not hostility with a follow-up challenge to your competence. As an ArbCom candidate, that admin was forthcoming and responsive to my questions, but it seems once they find a problem, they tend to investigate the person more than the problem. This is the third time I have seen this pattern in this admin of investigating the person instead of sticking to the germane issues, and I never heard of this admin before November 24, when I got the notice of the elections. It's like, hostility first, then investigate the person, then check whether hostility was warranted, then at some point try to work the problem - if the previous provocative posts haven't generated a new problem when the recipient gives an angry reply. I don't like it when people in authority work like that. We need more hugs :) Dcs002 (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with deletions of pages within my own userspace. If I have created and named pages within my own userspace for purposes of trying different edits before bringing them into articles, and I named the pages for the articles they were related to, can I delete those pages myself when I am finished with them, or do I have to request speedy deletion and bother an admin to do it for me? When I created these pages I assumed that deleting them would be just as simple. Thanks!

Dcs002 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You can't delete them yourself but you can place a speedy on them. To delete a page within your own userspace place ((db-u1)) on the top. That will mark it for deletion and an admin will get to it when they are going through the other speedies. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks Stabila711, and thanks for such a quick response! I'll be more judicious when creating new pages and use more generic names. Admins have enough work to do, I think. Dcs002 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For a brilliant article on the 2005 Loganair Islander accident Moksh Juneja (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concorde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Warner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dcs002. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dcs002. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Talk:British Airtours Flight 28M#If you're not part of the solution... and comment on which link ought to be used for the investigations term "solution heat treatment". Reading the article in today's front page "On This Day" section just bothered me about that word 'solution'. Shenme (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dcs002. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Hello, Dcs002. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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!

Sorry If I am disturbing you. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hate to say this, but–this comment was placed in a archived ANI discussion, and is no longer open, unfortunately. Tails Wx 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh crud. It still had a white background, so I thought it was open. Thanks for letting me know. What should I have done? I really don't know my way around these AN/I procedures, though I'm trying to learn. Should I have sent that to Bbb23's user talk page instead? What's the procedure if an ip user is blocked but finds a way around the block? -Thanks Dcs002 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP will likely be blocked for block evasion. And I see you've sent a message to Bbb23–good idea! Tails Wx 03:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I could take credit for that file, but I am not its creator. The only reason the file exists is that I tried to edit the original, and Commons wouldn't let me overwrite the old version because it was not a file that I had created. So, I made a new file with a slightly different name. My file is on the right, below, and the original one, created by somebody who calls himself "MediaGuy768", is on the left. My edit was a spelling correction. Do you see it? Look at the very bottom of each image. Anyway, since a number of places are marked on the map, I just might be able to derive a scale from them. I'll see. This might take a while, though.............

Kelisi (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks. You've got a sharp eye to spot a spelling error that small! Obviously the scale is a nice-to-have item, not a need-to-have item. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it did not take nearly as long as I feared it might. If you don't see the change yet, hit ⟨Ctrl⟩⟨F5⟩ and you'll see it. Voilà! The scales are based on a GoogleMaps reading indicating that the distance directly east of that highway junction in Beaverton to the river in south Portland is almost exactly 10 km. I've included a five-mile scale as well since it is a US article.Kelisi (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! That really looks nice. Thanks much! Dcs002 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're quite welcome.Kelisi (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]