I miss the "Orange Bar of Death" notifying me when I had a new talk page message.
I have responsibilities which mean I may have to stop editing Wikipedia at any time, for an undeterminable period of time. Whilst I am usually active, I may not be able to respond promptly to any queries.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjroots.
In the interest of the security of Wikipedia, should this account be inactive for 3 months, I request that administrative privileges be removed without prejudice to their restoration at my request. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments at the bottom of the relevant section if it already exists - e.g. Railways, Places, Ships, Aircraft & Airlines etc. Please add new subjects to the bottom of the relevant section; If you are unsure where to add your contribution, the "New messages" section at the bottom of the page will be fine. I'll move it myself if necessary.
Please note: I do not watch article talk pages. If you wish to raise an issue, please drop me a note here.
If your post is an Admin-related matter, please post it in the Admin section on this page. If you e-mail me, please leave a note in the "New Messages" section of my talk page so that I am aware one has been sent.
Trams, mills, railways ... I think Isambard would have been proud of your approach particulary the French ideas, but he would have barred our veteran editor from further progression for supporting a railway that was merely a metre. But he's not here! So more seriously, thank you on behalf of the wiki. (Let me tell you though that the 100 one s a really cool yellowy gold colour). Good luck with the GA and cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you at 50 ... the 100 DYK medal is a really cool shade of yellow. I hope you are not disappointed, as the wiki is not regretful at all of your efforts. Well done. The wiki gets better due to your contributions and its a pleasure to thank you again on behalf of the wiki. See you at 200? Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thanking me. I actually noticed only one of the typos, but I use Firefox and it apparently spellchecks everything by default. When I went into edit mode, not only was the error I noticed underlined with a wavy line, so were other things. I had to sort out the genuine mistakes from a lot of "false positives"; I hope I didn't change anything that was right.
You are obviously a very active contributor to Wikipedia. I am mostly a consumer -- I benefit from the work you and others like you do. Thank you very much.
I have no idea whether this is the right place for this comment. You replied to my talk page and this is your talk page, so I hope it is. If not, you will move it.
Gms3591 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjroots, you and Haus seem to have good access to merchant marine sources. Want to expand Peace in Africa (ship) for DYK? Djembayz (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I've put in a self nom for Malahat (schooner) at DYK. Perhaps you can spruce it up a bit. Djembayz (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash[edit]
Eckwersheim derailment has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]
Hello, Mjroots. Eckwersheim derailment, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Godmersham Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Godmersham Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
I'm wondering why the above article is permanently edit protected? I understand the need to temporarily protect pages, but especially with auto-confirmed access surely it should be removed after a time period? Should it be unprotected after multiple years? Danners430 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danners430: - I'm happy to see if the issue has gone away now. Article unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I agree, let's hope it has disappeared... it's definitely better to have articles open if they can reasonably be. Again thanks! :-) Danners430 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
I haven't been editing much[1] of late because I'm busy getting my next book ready for publication. So I didn't check in on the ANI till a few minutes ago and I saw you closed it. Sometime in the next few days I will make a few comments here about the ANI and that article. I promise to be polite not like I was on my talk page.
In the meantime, I'm letting you know I'm going to gut as you call it, VASP Flight 210, and I will summarize why right now.
Before I came upon the article, it had just two sources. But one of them is another wiki[2], and per WP:CIRCULAR this is unacceptable as a source. I removed these references from the article.
Now the one reference on the article, its ASN. ASN says very little about the accident and where it is used in the article as a reference it mostly says no such thing.
If I pare down VASP FLight 210 to just what ASN says, there isn't going to be much of an article left and I will probably send it to AFD.
There is another source available here[3] for this accident. But if you read what it says at the bottom of that website, 'Sources: Folha de S.Paulo, Jornal do Brasil, ASN, Wikipedia and FAB.' The reliability is therefore doubtful. It looks like somebody's personal website and these almost always fail WP:RS.
Maybe @Ahunt: and @MilborneOne: can chime in on what I wrote about the Varig article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: - your alternative source mentions the Jornal do Brasil, which presumably meets RS. May be other newspaper coverage available online, such as The Times. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
Hi Mjroots! I noticed this edit which you made: [4], by protecting the page Dominicana DC-9 air disaster from being moved and I'm well aware that this hiatus aligned with the page move controversy in 2021. However, I wanted to raise my concern that this title is highly inconsistent with other aviation accident titles without a flight number (e.g. 1972 Adana Turkish Airlines DC-9 crash or 1969 Aswan Ilyushin Il-18 crash). A quick search too indicates that this name isn't a common name which is used across the media. In that case and noting the controversy over the flight number of the accident:[5], I suggest moving this page to the 1970 Santo Domingo Dominicana de Aviación DC-9 crash. Not certain on whether this should be listed as a technical request or a requested controversial move on the talk page. I await your response.
Thanks! GalacticOrbits (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GalacticOrbits: Any move protection is aimed at preventing page move wars. I'd file a requested controversial move request. If there is consensus that the page should be moved, I've got no objection. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots:, I appreciate your response. I will conduct a requested move on that page. GalacticOrbits (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with your suggestion- which is the reason I haven't done it. There is a discussion forum Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that is discussing the whole thing. The crux is that many people are unhappy if the link goes to one site, no matter how useful, and believes that the link should only go to GeoHack, where the reader can choose the map they want. There are a lot of unhappy people there. I have a problem with the way we are doing the conversion. It looks great, but if we edit either gridref or the location then the other doesn't change. In looking for a solution, I have been looking at the maths and a lot doesn't add up, this coupled with the volatility of forum, I have been hanging back. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, and thanks for the contact. To me this looks good, but (and it is a big but) I'm afraid the issue appears more complex and contentious than I had first anticipated. I'm also not particularly "clued-up" about which system is good and which is bad, which seems to be part of an ongoing debate. All I know is that there should be a standard system, and these should be included as part of the text for settlements in the UK. Have you taken this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox geotags- looks as it will take some time. Its on my list! ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the accuracy of OStoWiki has been corrected (+/- 2m) all previous references may need tweaking.
The GeoHack tool now has a new interface and at the bottom of the GB section, under the dangerously inaccurate grid reference is a fantastic tool called Map of all Coordinates in article.
I tried it on the Loose stream, and because of it I I'm going to make another tweak to OStoWiki.
Thanks for the reminder. Although I use OS maps within multimap to find things, multimap gives DMS output, and the numbering of the OS gridlines in the display tends to be hidden; so I tend to think I'm not ever going to use ((oscoor)). However your intervention did cause me to go back and read the national grid system article, so as to understand the resolution of various lengths of OS coordinate. As I would not have done this without your intervention; thanks! --Tagishsimon(talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, There seems to be a small inaccuracy in the translation of OSGB coords to WGS84. I've mentioned it here and here but haven't found anyone who might be able to fix it. Do you know where it would be best to raise it, please?--Cavrdg (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not like having to display grid refs without spaces. At long last I have got round to asking someone and doing this very simple edit. The php that it calls was already prepared to receive spaces. That means you could do this edit to other articles that call oscoor (which is now a redirect). But certainly, I suggest using ((gbmappingsmall)) in any future case. — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from my user page
Yes indeed! A terrific place for browsing old memories and old haunts as well! Thanks for the reminder. Palmeira (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the FAQ says CC-BY-SA-2.0 but I think that should still usable. We just have to maintain attribution. LeadSongDogcome howl! 03:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your original page, written using ((BS-map)) could be renamed as Template:Medway watermills diagram/src.
by the way, a new option, all could be added (beside upper, middle, lower), to reproduce what happens when <notinclude>1</notinclude> is set.
thereafter, this page could be compiled to a new page Template:Medway watermills diagram, written using ((routemap)). This gives a new template, with far less transclusions, and therefore more efficient when itself transcluded into some other page.
And now, we can have side by side the all map and the upper+middle+lower one. And we can see that the junction middle--lower is correct, while the junction upper--middle is not optimal.
I have reproduced these steps at 2=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/src, 3=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram, 4=User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test. Could you fix, in your template, the point .4. (see the test page), i.e. what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill ? And, moreover, what is your opinion about the whole process ? In fact, I really have no practice of these BS-map templates and I can't figure if people are really working directly with ((routemap)) or are using ((BS-map)) and then compiling. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: - I understand that there is a size issue, but I'm not sure what you mean by "what is happening near Salman's Farm Mill". I see not problem with the diagram at all. It is displaying correctly. I created the diagram line by line using the BS-map system, if that helps you. It is complete and is unlikely to need to be altered, which is a good thing. There has been talk at the Trains WikiProject recently where an alternative system was proposed which gets around the size issue at a cost of needing a degree in computing to be able to edit the diagram. Is the size issue that bad that the diagrams need to be tampered with? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots:. Please open User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test and search for Yalding Mill. On the left, i.e. on the 'all' map, the next object after Yalding Mill is Wateringbury Stream. On the right, i.e. on the middle+lower map, we have Yalding Mill, a to mouth link, a to source link and then Wateringbury Stream. This behavior is what was expected. Let us now compare with the junction between upper and middle. Searching for Salman's Farm, we see that some objects, namely Ensfield Mill, Limit of navigation, Ramhurst Mill, Powder Mills, Town Lock and Town Mill, are on the left, but not on the right. This shouldn't occur, but I have no idea of how to proceed, since I know nothing about the Medway river. Concerning the other points, I will try to find the discussion your are mentioning, at Trains WikiProject. Have a good day. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: It would appear that you are using the new system. Looks like a few lines of code have got missed out somewhere to cause that error which you describe. I see it now I know exactly what to look for.
Can't help with the fix though. Don't understand that system at all. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots:. Oh no, I am not using the new system ! To tell it crudely, there are programmers, you, me, other people. They are using programming languages. Here, ((BS-map)) and the sequel. There are computers. They are using assembly language. Here ((routemap)). Obviously some geeks are writing directly in assembly language, but most of the programmers are using a compiler, to translate from programming language into assembly language. Here, the translation is not too difficult: what should be done on the human side is described at Template:Routemap/doc#Transition_from_legacy_BS_row_template_to_Routemap_markup i.e. some substitutions that are easy to automatize. And all the rest is computer made when the subst are proceeded.
Hello. I have done some work about Template:Medway watermills diagram. I came here from a general concern about overflow. My interest for this specific template comes from its complexity that provides some clues about the problems to solve for compiling ((BS-map)) into ((routemap)). May I recall that I do not consider replacing the former by the later, but organizing the coexistence of both systems, where people can write and test in their favorite language, and compile their sources at any moment of the process.
Once again, I know nothing about the Medway river, and it would be great that you control User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway/full written solution and see if my proposals for the upper, middle, and lower maps are sound. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: If I understand it correctly, the full diagram is now on the left. Looking good although there is some random bolding of names that needs addressing. I'm sure this minor problem can be overcome. As I said earlier, this diagram is very unlikely to need to be amended, apart from the names of a few mills not identified by name which may possibly become identified in the future. I see no benefit in adding roads, railways etc. It would all become far too complicated and cluttered. This is a river and mills diagram, best to keep it that way. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram on the left comes from the actual template i.e. Template:Medway watermills diagram. The only changes were compilation (and bolding four locations near the jointures of the partial maps). On the contrary, the three maps on the right (each one below the other) are the new ones, obtained from assembling the parts and changing the visibility of block14 (at the junction of upper and middle part). This is to be compared with the previous User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway_watermills_diagram/test. What is your opinion about taking back block 18 (Eldridge Lock etc) in the middle part ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "taking back block 18". The only problem I can see with the right hand diagrams is that the continuation arrow on the top diagram is the wrong colour. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: Bold text denotes mill is standing, italics denotes remains only. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick answer. I added a note on the table to be more explicit (and if I find time, I'll probably translate this list on the French Wikipédia). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: Thanks. There are other French windmill lists, all linked from the List of windmills in France. I gave each département a separate list once it reached 20 windmills. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help so far. That list contains only seven places and is far from complete. Wouldn't it be easier to use (sub)categories for this? – Editør (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you maybe have a source for the storeys (total of seven storeys with a stage at the third)? Because I couldn't find anything about it in the windmill database. – Editør (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør: - Look at the photos in the article, at Commons and on the Molendatabase website. As for the list of Rijksmonuments, take a look at the List of Rijksmonuments in Friesland. That is a better laid out list. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think a list with all 2,557rijksmonumenten in the province of Groningen will be very useful. – Editør (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the photos I see windows at different heights, but I cannot tell whether every window indicates a separate floor in the interior. I'm pretty sure it isn't the case for the farm on this photo and that has Veldkamps Meuln in the background. – Editør (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjroots. I have made some sizable additions to the Redbournbury Mill page as it was fairly sparse. I figured as you're an active member of WikiProject Mills it'd be polite to let you know. I would hope that I've done enough to raise it from Start class, however I don't have much in the way of knowledge of the ways Wikipedia works 'behind the scenes' - is there a way in which I can submit it for reassessment? Many thanks Mark49s (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark49s: - good work there! I have fond memories of the mill, having worked on it before the fire when I had ambitions of becoming a millwright. I'll reassess it for you. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Awesome, thank you! If you ever get a chance to visit again it's well worth it. A lot of work has been carried out - and the produce they sell is top notch! Mark49s (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a hand? What needs doing, you can do in half the time it takes me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 April 2018
@Drmies:, Have bashed it into something resembling a shape. You'll need to go through it and correct any translation errors. For future reference, User:Mjroots/sandbox2 is my windmills sandbox, currently set up for Dutch mills. Copy and replace as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man--I was just hoping you'd fill out the infobox. This is awesome. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but realized very quickly that the terms are very specific and I wasn't quite sure about the translation--that's what I meant by saying it would take me much more time: I was thinking of the infobox parameters, which you know better than anyone since you wrote it, haha! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the date of 25 December isn't mentioned in the Thelnetham Windmill article, so it can't be included in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 25. In addition, I don't see a good hook for it. Currently, it's essentially "business began operation on this date" ... the issue is, what is notable about this business? Is it the UK's oldest surviving windmill? Or the most famous one? I just need something that is going to pique the readers' interest. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Howcheng: - "The post mill was replaced by a tower mill, which was built by millwright George Bloomfield for William Button in 1819. The mill was set to work on Christmas Day 1819.[5]" - unless Christmas Day fell other than on 25 December that year then it is covered. Nothing especially notable about the mill other than the manner of its restoration (shared with Wicken Windmill). I thought it would be a nice touch to mark the bicentenary. Not looking for the article to be a regular appearance, just this once. Maybe pencil in another appearance in 2069, but I won't be around for that one. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 16:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Mjroots. I see you created the list of windmills in Schleswig-Holstein. Any particular reason why the one in Grödersby is not included? It's in the german list. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@G-41614: - probably because I was unable to identify it existed at the time I created the list. I also created the de-Wiki lists with assistance from, and at the request of, a de-Wiki editor. Feel free to add any missing mills that can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, might do. It's not that far from me, so I might take a picture at some point as well. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@G-41614: that would be good. No image at Commons currently. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done - although the image isn't all that, but it's what my camera produces. Private property, so no way to get any closer. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given your expertise could you help disambiguate the 103 links to the disambiguation page Mill (factory) shown here?— Rodtalk 11:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Multi-sailed windmills has been nominated for renaming[edit]
Category:Multi-sailed windmills has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments have been resolved but I don't seem able to remove them so it can be approved - and I can't seem to talk directly to the person who made those comments. Is this something you could do? Thanks so much Chopschopschops (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chopschopschops: I'm satisfied that it is in a fit condition, and have moved the draft to Lizzy Rose in mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing, thank you so, so so much - it means the world to me Chopschopschops (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chopschopschops: of course, that means other editors are likely to rip your hard work to pieces work on and improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
haha of course :) I have edits I want to make too so I'm sure I can handle that (I do comms as a job so it goes with the territory) Chopschopschops (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Brian E. Kinsella - Meritorious Public Service medal Recipient[edit]
Hi Mjroots,
I am new on Wikipedia, and joined as I want to write articles about individuals I find notable for their efforts to change the world for the better, but who are often overlooked, due to the massive amounts of bigger biographies to read out there.
I have spent some time now to ensure that my first article was in the review queue as a Class-B prediction. But I am not sure what happens now? I tried to request an assessment from the Military History portal, which is how I received a notification on an edit from you, but it didn't show up on the self-request page at all.
I've ensured my article is well documented with 2nd degree sources of citations/references, and have optimized my writing to the best of my ability to be accurate, factual and unbiased.
You are clearly a veteran on here, any advice as to what I can do to have my first article published?
Thank you so much in advance, and I hope I hear from you.
@Mwikiforce: - the proto-article looks fine. I've removed bolding from a section header per MOS. I don't forsee any problems with it being promoted. You'll just need to wait for a reviewer. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjroots,
Thank you SO much for taking the time to look at it! You can’t imagine how much I appreciate that! Does that usually take the four months that is suggested?
@Thebrakeman2: - that image is not copyright free, it states " All rights reserved " under the date of uploading. It might be possible to use the image under "fair use" rules, but as a standard Liberty ship it could well be argued that any other image on such would also be just as useful. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Could you possibly help me with that? Also, which points?
@Thebrakeman2: - WP:NFCCP - all 10 points have to be met. You're going to struggle to meet point 1 I fear. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Are there that many other photos of Mongomery in-tact? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that as a standard Liberty ship, she looked no different to hundreds of other Liberty ships. This image conveys the same info and is usable. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.48.97.70: unfortunately I'm only an admin on en-Wiki, not at Commons. That said, I've put in a request for the file to be moved to the title you suggested. Should be done in a day or two. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother, but it appears that only one of the two errors was corrected. The file name still says "1982" instead of 1987, when the book in the photo was published. Shouldn't this be corrected too? If we needed a source for that (and I don't think we do), then it could be easily found. 151.188.25.140 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.48.97.70: I've put in another rename request. Sorry I missed it first time round! Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how to propose a page being moved, so, could I ask you, the resident "transportation admin", for help. I want to move Lee Hall station to Lee Hall Depot under WP:CommonName, as "station" is much more rarely used than "Depot", like in articles, the NRHP listing, travel sites, etc. This would be the third step in one of the multiple things I wanna do involving the page, the first and second, being category reform and making descriptions on other pages more accurate, are complete. The next step is massive page revamps, and the page is massively outdated, and undersized.
Thanks for the help, signed - 108.45.170.249 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.45.170.249: I can move the article over the redirect, but is "depot" capitalized or not? You can always file a move request at WP:RM, in this case under "technical requests" as I don't think there will be much controversy with the move. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has depot capitalized, and I'd say that most sources capitalize it, and that most "Bla Bla Station"/"PLACEHOLDER Depot" make the Station part capitalized. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.45.170.249: I've moved the article for you. The lede will need rewriting to cover both titles. BTW, you don't need to use ((Re)) on someones's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.45.170.249: I can't move Commons stuff. You'll have to put in a move request for that over at Commons. As for Wikidata, Tagishsimon and Pigsonthewing are the experts. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of any notability, just a name among many in some lists, and an entry in Lloyd's which doesn't indicate any notability. No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently. Perhaps there is a good redirect target?
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hi again! Could you run a Citation Bot on Lee Hall Depot[edit]
I’ve been expanding the article a lot, but with reciting and all that, the citations are getting messy. So, since I can’t, could you run the Citation Bot on the page for me? Thanks for all the help. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@108.45.170.249: - I don't run any bots. Will take a look at the article for you. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #1 is a deadlink. Refs #3, 10 and 17 not available in UK so I can't tell if its dead or alive. Ref #9 I get an access denied message. Refs #11 and 15 are to Facebook, fails WP:RS. Ref #16 unavailable (in UK) due to legal reasons. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I updated Ref 1, amd Refs 3, 10, 17, 9, and 16 all work fine for me. And, for Refs 11/15, if's their official Facebook page. It's like their official website since the old one was taken down. Also, when I said, run a citation bot, I meant to use this thing: https://citations.toolforge.org/108.48.97.70 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I can't see the Sunday Times article that you cite, as it is behind a pay wall. But I wonder whether you have quoted it accurately in that the current problem is with the *south* abutment, not the north one. The north abutment is solidly built and is causing no problems. Should your second sentence perhaps read "It stated that the south abutment should have been completely rebuilt, but this was not done due to the Great Depression"? TedColes (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TedColes: try this link, which should allow you access to the article and give you access to a 1 month free trial of The Times and The Sunday Times. I might have misread the article, will edit the bridge article. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike I feel quite pleased with myself! I had found the relatively new Geobox|rivers at River Trent and investigated. You will now see the result at this article (I took an easy one first!). There may well be other information - I couldn't work out the coordinates, and in any case a river covers more than one; couldn't find the exact length; and dunno if there is anywhere to be able to get flow rates etc. You may well be able to add more tributaries - I took the ones you had alraedy mentioned under the mills. None of the blanks come out until you give some information. I had also discovered the exact location of the source - a historical document on the Medway; I'm sure you also know more about its course, although perhaps that isn't too important. Peter Peter Shearan (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you see I have put two new symbols into your sandbox article. Just a quick fix. Using mills in this way is quite an extension. Come September we need to define what symbols we need- mills with weirs for example, millponds goits. I have been visiting the Dark Peak and realise how much more important water engineering was in the 1780s and the growth of the Cotton Industry. Still I am taking a break now. ClemRutter (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been talking with guys at WP:RIVERS and trying to work out what icon system to recommend. In a nutshell, the cyan worms are out, rivers are dark blue unless you need to differentiate- then non-navigable are light blue and navigable are darkblue. but I am still working on it. You have source at the top. River Len, Kent seems to be correct. See also Manchester Ship Canal for an upside down example. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Route diagrams gives the discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This takes a little thought. I like diagrams- very useful for showing mill locations- but there is a convention on canals that navigable should be darkblue and non navigable light blue. The tails as steams meet the river seem clunky. I have been concerned about the representation of reservoirs for some time- is a reservoir navigable or not- how do you show the dam bypass channel. In the simple case: a truncated salami would do- but they often are constructed at the confluence of several rivers. A lot of icons need some thought- and that will take a little time- I will put it on the list. (Some mills are on the wrong bank but that is minor). --ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in far too many hours playing with the diagram on my talk page. Please look over- and see if there is anything to add- you will need to proof read the position of the mills relative to the new locks, and the addition of the Beult and the two mouths of the Teise. I have added some new icons to Template:Waterways legend particularly putting curved dams on reservoirs. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be positive: it is getting there. A few of your changes I don"t like. A river is a hydrographical item, as well as cultural one. The first uncollapsed diagram needs to stand in its own right, and give the reader basic infomation about its course. The collapsed bits need to show the twidddly bits, that the Teise at Yalding has bifurcated, and where mills were situated. When the course is a navigation we need info on the locks. Background colour needs to show whether the river is tidal, a navigation, or non-navigable. The section names are taken from the NRA, and are used by the waterways community- I don't think Lower Mid Upper is really informative. The whole diagram (uncollapsed) needs to be complete and informative in itself. I think that we should do another round of rollbacks and improvement then wrap it in a template and ask the WP:RIVERS for comment on any points where policy decisions need to be made. I would like to use it as a model to be attached to their policy page. I then want to code up the River Etherow, Irk, Irwell, Medlock, Goyt can't you just smell the cotton. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, width is critical when using collapsable box- expand all the section to see it isn't broken by the change. Titles a lot better- I took one look and thought- I knew I was about to to do that-- but I can't remember having done it. These wretched dock icons look awful- I am going to redo them- I cant see why a narrow dock should be five times wider than the river. I am more concerned about the length if the diagram, then allowing the diagram to be included in Kent pages that make a mention to the Medway. Then into Infoboxes.I am uploading images along the commons:Portland Basin- Ashton Canal at the moment.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certainly ready to be wrapped in a template- so I have. We can do further editing there ((River Medway map)). I did do one change as the Tidal estuary is downstream from Rochester.
True. There is a limit to the sort of ship you can drive under Rochester Bridge. I think the commissioner of HM Dockyard would agree with me. The London Stone is at Upnor, which is/was the upstream limit of the Port of London- but Rochester is miles from the Swale or Thames. This wrretched river never does things simply!--ClemRutter (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice you have updated the River Waveney map, but was a little surprised to see that it now runs from south to north. One of the problems of the transposition is that several of the adjoining rivers are now shown on the wrong side. Oulton Broad should be on the other side, as should the River Yare, and the Haddiscoe cut is no longer clearly labelled. I was going to try to sort it out but am a bit short of time at the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am back from holiday now, and have moved Oulton Broad, Haddiscoe Cut and the River Bure back to where they should be, corrected the direction of the locks, and produced a windmill symbol for the windmills. However, I have no sources for which side of the river the windmills should be on, and as the river and Haddiscoe Cut have now been transposed, wondered if you could just check them. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, given your interest in France and transport and the fact that it's been sitting weeks, I wondered if you'd care to review this one for GA? If you;re not feeling very well I understand though, sorry to hear about that. Your talk page could do with archiving though its 159 kb! Hope you had a good Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Is it possible to put an indefinite requirement for editors to have autoconfirmed or confirmed access to 2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship article? If you look to the history of edits here is the same persistent vandalism from people who can't understand a racing license concept like in case with Kamui Kobayashi and [6]. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corvus tristis: - I've looked at the article and Marino Sato's article and I can't find a source that says he is racing under a San Marino licence. If you can add a source for that and the disruption continues, I'll be happy to semi-protect. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Despite note and reference the situation remains the same... [7] This season contains many drivers with racing license differs from their actual nationality, so it will always confuse casual reader, can you put semi-protection now? Thanks. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is again problem with IP editors how are not able to understand the racing license concept in Motorsport. Here we have more than a dozen reverts of Mahaveer Raghunathan flag. It happens despite the note and reference for his license, so the semi-protection could really help. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - hope you are well. Incase you didn't get the ping, I mentioned you here. I hope the notification for the AfD was OK - IE netural per your last comment (which I've linked in that thread). If there's anything amiss with that, please let me know. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: - I was just answering there. All is OK with me. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1867, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type.
Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1869, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anchor Line.
Hi Mjroots: This is a request for advice, not an attempt to canvas for support. I am asking you directly for advice given your knowledge as an Admin of WP procedures. I hope doing so removes any issue of canvassing. Currently User:Fram is unilaterally, and at an increasing pace, redirecting articles I have written on 18th & 19th century vessels. I believe that they are doing this to avoid the AfD process, which can take a while and where the outcome is uncertain. (AfDs are more visible and lead to other editors trying to improve the article.) I would like to revert all the redirects but am concerned about triggering retaliation. User:Fram has just proposed for deletion a ship index page where another editor moved articles Fram had redirected. I am a bit at my wit's end. Thoughts? Thanks for considering this.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Acad Ronin: - Had a brief look at Fram's contributions. Agree that it appears that the AfD process is being circumvented. A nomination can lead to article improvement. Suggest you ask him to stop as a first step, then revert the redirects with an edit summary to take to AfD. Should he continue after being asked to stop, then it's off to ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's very helpful. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recently contributed an article of the title of this topic which appeared to be written in a neutral style and is of the public interest. It was quick deleted which I don't believe to be fair. In addition, the article has no backup and took a long time to write. Another article on NPS, a direct comparison also of public interest, is also available on Wikipedia
Could you please help me a) recover the work and b) understand why it was deleted? It is not promotional. I can see that the admin who deleted it is quick to delete articles without following due course.
@Timginger: Firstly you should discuss this with the admin who deleted the article as it would appear that they are currently active. I'm not willing to intervene until this has been done. This may not be the answer you wanted, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but an admin doesn't revert other admins decisions without good reason. You may well have a good case for undeletion, but discuss if with him/her first. Are you sure that the draft didn't come under WP:CSD criteria? I've had a look at the deleted draft (something I can do as an admin) and I will comment that it was woefully under referenced. FYI, when using ((cite web)) a minimum of ((cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |access-date= )) is needed. You were missing the |access-date= parameter. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry I'm new to this and had done my best to write a relevant article with references. I will contact the admin, and revert if I am unsuccessful in moderating the ability to respond. Are you able to provide access to the content from the original article? It took a long time to write and if it's not published here, now, I'd like to retain it for my records. Thanks Timginger (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timginger: I can provide the text of the draft. Do you have e-mails enabled? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @mjroots I do have emails enabled I think. Appreciate your help. Contacting the admin who deleted the article now for their feedback. Timginger (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following your post on the WikiProject Military history talk page about Falklands War, I have had a bash at getting rid of all the "citation needed" tags. There are still some unreferenced paragraphs and somebody who knows how needs to look at the messy citation style, which is beyond my understanding. Please cast an eye to see if I've messed up anywhere. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be a slightly random collection of cite styles - sfn, harvnb (which are identical to the reader), unformatted short citations, rp templates, and long citations for books, with the long citations varying between templated cite xxx and non-templated refs. Perhaps someone needs to decide on a consistant style?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a lot of unused references - which could do with being moved to Further reading.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansplodge and Nigel Ish: the most important thing here is to make sure that everything is referenced, as a lack of referencing will keep the article out of OTD. A mixture of referencing styles etc isn't so bad. Bare urls will need to be addressed, but otherwise these are not concerns that will prevent an OTD apperance. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebrakeman2: - I archive mine manually. Others use a bot to do the job for them. Depends how you want it done as to what would work best. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a subpage of your user talk page (e.g. User talk:Thebrakeman2/Archive 1). Cut from talk and post into archive. Don't forget to place ((archive top)) and top of archive page and ((archive bottom)) at the bottom and add a link from your talk page. Check out any of my archive pages to see how it looks. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Oh, I thought it would be helpful when the discussion closed, as in "Why is there a section named "Lorem Ipsum"? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebrakeman2: it's usually page size that determines whether or not archiving is needed. At only 5kb, it's not necessary in this case. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebrakeman2: With seven short threads going back no earlier than 6 January this year (7 weeks ago), Talk:List of shipwrecks in 2022 is a long way from needing to be archived. But when the time comes, say in about four months time, see either User:ClueBot III/Documentation or User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Of these, ClueBot III can be configured to archive threads based on various criteria including age (elapsed tine since last post), whereas Lowercase sigmabot III is purely age-based. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands 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.
Category:Fishing in Finland has been nominated for deletion[edit]
Category:Fishing in Finland has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do you know how I would get into contact with someone from WP:Architecture who could help me?[edit]
Hi! It’s me again. Know anyone from Architecture who could help with working and researching on an architecture section on a page for a building? Thanks, ∼∼∼∼ 108.48.97.70 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a shot. Let me know what you’d specially like to see. Acroterion(talk) 04:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjroots: I'm working on some lichen articles, and discovered that the article Felipes is a redirect you created more than a decade ago for a renamed ship. Would you be okay if we "commandeered" Felipes for the lichen genus, and added a hatnote for the ship? Far more online links are for the lichen genus than the ship, so most people who enter the word in the search box would probably be looking for the lichen. Otherwise, we can create a dab at Felipes – just let me know what you prefer! MeegsC (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC: Yes, please do hijack the redirect and add a hatnote when the article has been created. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for letting me know. I'll ping you when the new article is done, so that you can check that the hatnote meets with your approval. MeegsC (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the stub is in place. Please feel free to modify the hatnote as you see fit! MeegsC (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC:MV Felipes might be a better link. It redirects to the list as well. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! And that definitely looks "cleaner". MeegsC (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC: nice little article. I'd say it was start class myself, but the relevant WP guidlines might disagree with me. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 8 September 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.
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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠T⋡ 20:31, 1 January 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award[edit]
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Mjroots for collecting more than 1 point during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg){kind=small}
