I note you dealt with the citation needed in Flying Cloud (clipper). Do you happen to know the origin of the amount of deadrise as a defining feature of an extreme clipper? The reason for asking is that it appears to be a completely useless rule - based on an examination of Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail, Cutler's Greyhounds of the Sea and numerous books and articles by David MacGregor. These experts produce the view that if there is significant deadrise in the mid-ship section, then a sailing vessel cannot be driven hard in strong winds. This is particularly dealt with by MacGregor in his British and American Clippers, pg 17 onwards. He discusses there the possible use of the block coefficient to assess fineness. Chapelle goes for prismatic coefficient. However, given the absence of lines or full information on many ships, MacGregor's solution of his "coefficient of under-deck tonnage" seems to have merit (as discussed in The Tea Clippers).

There is, unfortunately, a lot of nonsense written about clippers (Eric Kentley's book on the Cutty Sark seems one of the worst) - even Lubbock can be shown to make errors (for instance listing 25 clippers built in 1869 as extreme clippers when many in his list can clearly be demonstrated as nothing of the kind - see Fast Sailing Ships pg253). Hence the question above, in an effort to sort out which sources are reliable and which are not.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At ThoughtIdRetired (talk) Yeah, I looked through old American newspapers of 1840s and 1850s and couldn't find any references to "extreme clippers" just "clippers" much less about the deadrise definition. I will take another look...but it seems to me that the definition came out later from MacGregor and made its way into the literature. As a note, I always thought about the deadrise as an angle, not something measured in inches. Thank you for the interest in the subject. I will let you know if I'll find something./k8 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the writers on clippers who is focused on the amount of dead-rise is Arthur H Clark in the Clipper Ship era (which was written in 1911). Clark was the captain of various sailing ships and therefore we could perhaps look to him for details of the management of a ship under sail and the commercial aspects of operation. By comparison, Chapelle was trained as a naval architect, and David MacGregor was a Marine Historian who understood enough of ship design to be able to draw a set of lines from the builder's offsets (among other things). These are people to whom I would look for the implications of slight nuances of hull shape. If, as you suggest, definition of an extreme clipper in terms of dead-rise came later, then that might be due to a misreading of Clark making comparisons between various clippers.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	for your tireless work at WP:AfD. Helping to make Wikipedia the best encyclopaedia. Spiderone 14:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the AfDs and PRODs. B.Bhargava Teja has created a bunch of articles violating WP:NFILM, so you could AfD them and notify me or Ab207 on every AfD. I've already started with Joo Laka Taka. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Kolma8 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know--- You can check your AFD statistics here. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792/Ab207, Niajm is another one. I have nominated some of his one sentence WP articles about Malayalam films for PROD.Kolma8 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are doing a good job by weeding out non notable thrash outta the encyclopedia and do not let anyone discourage you. Even the best of us make unimaginable errors, no one is perfect, so don’t you ever be discouraged. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what a lot of others have said. Wikipedia is built on notability and verifiability. We shouldn't be hosting non-notable or unverifiable info. Full stop. Spiderone 22:39, 4 January 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. 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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately a number of your contributions at film afds this week have been perfunctory three word votes using a rapid vote script. I've nominated the script for deletion, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a section for discussion on the talk page. I truly think parts of your edits may have some merit, so please discuss there. -- Valjean (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kolma8

Thank you for creating Ticonderoga (ketch).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through WP:MEDRS as the source quality needed for medical content. 'Peer-review' isn't the only qualifier, as explained in WP:MEDASSESS. The journal 'Nutrients' is highly disregarded as likely predatory - see the MDPI article - the publisher of many open-access journals which are not peer-reviewed, and in many cases, the authors actually pay to have the article published in support of building their CVs. Also, do not edit war, WP:WAR, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vitamin D, you may be blocked from editing. Note about WP:3RR as well. Your edit makes the sentence unclear. Zefr (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting like a child, stop reverting my edits. Kolma8 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafr, the current information about the insufficiency and deficiency in the article is not complete and you know it, yet you are continuing reverting my edits on the second topic now. Stop your abusive behavior! Kolma8 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vitamin D 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. Zefr (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. [1] MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 25 August 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.

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]