Mjroots en This user is a native speaker of the English language. nl-2 Deze gebruiker heeft een middelmatige kennis van het Nederlands. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français. Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

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.

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

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

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

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

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Trams, mills, railways ... I think Isambard would have been proud of your approach particulary the French ideas, but he would have barred our veteran editor from further progression for supporting a railway that was merely a metre. But he's not here! So more seriously, thank you on behalf of the wiki. (Let me tell you though that the 100 one s a really cool yellowy gold colour). Good luck with the GA and cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The 100 DYK Medal
		As I told you at 50 ... the 100 DYK medal is a really cool shade of yellow. I hope you are not disappointed, as the wiki is not regretful at all of your efforts. Well done. The wiki gets better due to your contributions and its a pleasure to thank you again on behalf of the wiki. See you at 200? Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your tireless contributions. The Interior (Talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hello! Your submission of 1912 Brooklands Flanders Monoplane crash at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/QSMV Dominion Monarch at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Wendhausen Windmill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Old discussions are archived here.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Hello, Mjroots. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

@Sayanpdd: isn't the LEAP engine a development of the CFM56? Which particular reference in the Comac C919 article do you mean? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i send you references articles which are attached with the misleading part, I read the full article ,no where the article mentions that Comac c919 use rebadged CFM-56 engines. Sayanpdd (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the LEAP engine is the successor to the CFM56,but the text mentioned that CFM supplied Comac with rebadged CFM-56 is misleading. yes, leap-c version is more heavy ,but components are identical with other leap engines and it's more matched with leap-A.Also the reference does not match the misleading text.

Reference that is used:-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2022/09/20/china-comac-c919-boeing-airbus/

https://web.archive.org/web/20181013014334/https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20E110%20TCDS%20Issue%207%20LEAP-1A-1C.pdf

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

@Sayanpdd: - I claim no "ownership" of the article. If you think that a correction needs to be made, be bold and make it, using your source to reference the correction. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section, which I am taking about need to be deleted , what reference I should add when it is misleading.

Lastly, you should undo the revision you did on my edit on Comac 919 article. Sayanpdd (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayanpdd: Apologies, I've just realised what this is about. I'll copy this conversation over to the talk page of the aircraft article, and ping others involved. Hopefully we can get consensus on this. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Lolzer3k 15:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long is that proposal going to keep pending? Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagito Komaeda the Second: - I'd like to let it run another week or so. It's still linked from WT:AV, so people can still find the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for answering. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for continuing this topic but as you see, not many people have voiced their opinions regarding your proposal and all but one of those who partook were against the split. Maybe we should terminate this proposal or at least postpone it and maybe try again later when the frequency on the page is higher. Don't take this as an insult, I simply feel it drags longer than it needs to. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagito Komaeda the Second: - I'd already closed the proposal as "no consensus". Three votes against and two for. The issue may be looked at again at some point in the future. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Northrop N-9M crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Northrop N-9M crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Etihad Toulouse accident.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2025 (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.

ClemRutter (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

I have now implemented oscoor elimination as a tool - see Template talk:oscoor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 11 February 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. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

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

Hi,hope you had a good Christmas. Back in 2008 you moved Oldland Mill to Oldland Mill, Keymer for consistency with other windmill articles.[1] Does this still apply? As far as I can tell, no disambiguation is required and I'm inclined to move it back, but I'll leave it where it is if necessary. — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voice of Clam: - My personal preference is mill name, location. But if you want to move it back, I won't object. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a move request, rather than acting unilaterally. — Voice of Clam (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

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

@Chopschopschops: I'm satisfied that it is in a fit condition, and have moved the draft to Lizzy Rose in mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing, thank you so, so so much - it means the world to me Chopschopschops (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chopschopschops: of course, that means other editors are likely to rip your hard work to pieces work on and improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha of course :) I have edits I want to make too so I'm sure I can handle that (I do comms as a job so it goes with the territory) Chopschopschops (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Mwikiforce

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

@Mwikiforce: - the proto-article looks fine. I've removed bolding from a section header per MOS. I don't forsee any problems with it being promoted. You'll just need to wait for a reviewer. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots,

Thank you SO much for taking the time to look at it! You can’t imagine how much I appreciate that! Does that usually take the four months that is suggested?

Bedankt!

MWikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

@Thebrakeman2: - that image is not copyright free, it states " All rights reserved " under the date of uploading. It might be possible to use the image under "fair use" rules, but as a standard Liberty ship it could well be argued that any other image on such would also be just as useful. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Ok, how would I go about doing that? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebrakeman2: - You need to read WP:FAIRUSE and WP:FUR. All 10 points of NFCCP need to be met. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Could you possibly help me with that? Also, which points?

@Thebrakeman2: - WP:NFCCP - all 10 points have to be met. You're going to struggle to meet point 1 I fear. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Are there that many other photos of Mongomery in-tact? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that as a standard Liberty ship, she looked no different to hundreds of other Liberty ships. This image conveys the same info and is usable. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@108.48.97.70: unfortunately I'm only an admin on en-Wiki, not at Commons. That said, I've put in a request for the file to be moved to the title you suggested. Should be done in a day or two. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rename to c:File:Christopher Awdry at the National Railway Museum, York, 1982.jpg went through at 06:16 today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but it appears that only one of the two errors was corrected. The file name still says "1982" instead of 1987, when the book in the photo was published. Shouldn't this be corrected too? If we needed a source for that (and I don't think we do), then it could be easily found. 151.188.25.140 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.48.97.70: I've put in another rename request. Sorry I missed it first time round! Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Thanks - if you could just remind me which article I did that on I can change it?— Rod ^talk 18:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you changed the dab on List of shipwrecks in April 1851. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did it that way because Queenstown, County Cork doesn't appear at Queenstown.— Rod ^talk 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

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

@108.45.170.249: I can move the article over the redirect, but is "depot" capitalized or not? You can always file a move request at WP:RM, in this case under "technical requests" as I don't think there will be much controversy with the move. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has depot capitalized, and I'd say that most sources capitalize it, and that most "Bla Bla Station"/"PLACEHOLDER Depot" make the Station part capitalized. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.45.170.249: I've moved the article for you. The lede will need rewriting to cover both titles. BTW, you don't need to use {{Re}} on someones's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the tip, and the help. Would you mind moving https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lee_Hall_station and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16894038 for me? Thanks - 108.45.170.249 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@108.45.170.249: I can't move Commons stuff. You'll have to put in a move request for that over at Commons. As for Wikidata, Tagishsimon and Pigsonthewing are the experts. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.45.170.249 Wikidata done. Will do commons once I'm not on my mobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::Thank you so much @Pigsonthewing:! 108.45.170.249 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

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

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]

Thanks. TedColes (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Sources that you have Country Railway Routes: Croydon (Woodside) to East Grinstead - are you able to add content to Riddlesdown railway station? See also Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Notability and British Rail stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Currently creating the last missing Kent station, Margate East. I'll see if I can add anything before the Grand Prix starts at 12:00 BST, otherwise it will have to wait until after the race. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much I could add. Gave the article a slightly better structure though. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Phachi collision is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Phachi collision until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dien Sanh train crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dien Sanh train crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rafz train crash, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafz train crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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]

fr:Fichier:LeteaMill.jpg is heel mooi! --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]

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

River Medway
Legend
00.0 Source TQ 334 359 51°06′25″N 0°05′37″W / 51.10694°N 0.09361°W / 51.10694; -0.09361 00.0 Upper Reaches  B2028  Fen Place Mill  B2110  Bluebell Railway West Hoathly Stream Weir Wood Reservoir Mill Place Foundry East Grinstead Stream Brambletye Mill  A22  Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central Line Tablehurst Mill Parrock Forge Hartfield Iron Mill  B2026  Hartfield Stream Warren Brook Waterdown Forest Stream Groombridge Stream Ashurst Mill  A264  Oxted Line Kent Water Ashurst Furnace Chafford Mills  B2188  Poundbridge Stream Barden Mill Stream Pound Mill 00.0 River Eden to Leigh River Eden  B2176  Ensfield Mill Ensfield Road Limit of navigation Redhill to Tonbridge Line  A21  Ramhurst Mill Powder Mills 00.0 Leigh to Yalding South Eastern Main Line Tonbridge Tonbridge High Street  B2260  28 Town Lock Town Mill Cannon Lane  A26  Southborough Bourne 25.6 Eldridge Lock 24 Porters Lock Hartlake Road 22 East Lock Tudeley Brook Pen Stream 20.8 Oak Weir Lock River Bourne Sluice Weir Lock Branbridges Mill Branbridges  A228  Medway Valley Line 00.0 Yalding to Allington Lock Site of Stoneham Lock River Teise Greater Teise Sluice Twyford Bridge  B2162  Lesser Teise River Beult Hampstead Mill Hamptons Bridge  B2162  15.3 Hampstead Lock Breden's Boatyard Hampstead Marina Hampstead Lane Canal Wateringbury Stream Wateringbury Bridge West Farleigh Stream 10.4 Teston Lock Teston Bridge  B2163  Barming Bridge East Farleigh Bridge 7.5 Farleigh Lock Line to Tovil Goods station Loose Stream River Len  A20   A20  Maidstone Maidstone East Line Boxley Stream Allington Castle 00.0 Allington Lock to Rochester Allington Lock  M20  Cossington Stream Aylesford Bridge East Malling Stream Friars Mill Addington Brook Holborough Brook Borstal Mill Cuxton Mill High Speed 1  M2  Priory Mill Strood Tide Mill Rochester Rochester Bridge  A2  Chatham Main Line Strood, Thames and Medway Canal Chatham Chatham Tide Mill Chatham Dockyard Medway Tunnel  A289  Gillingham The Swale Isle of Sheppey Thames Estuary   TQ 903 758

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]

I have been putting a bit of input into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers‎; that may interest you. Later tonight I will be posting some of the changes. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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

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

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

If you're interested in creating an article on the ship based on the pages you found, you can use information about her from my sandbox. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I've started an article at User:Mjroots/Beta (1864 barque). The situation is slightly complicated by a 1,000 ton full-rigged ship of the same name built in 1859 by Thomas Royden & Sons, Liverpool which was later re-rigged as a barque. Our ship had Captain Fernie as its master at the beginning of its career. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. If you’re interested in getting credit for a double, triple, or quadruple DYK, you could submit the article about the Beta and my sandbox article (in whatever form, perhaps shortened or not) about Scandinavian migration to Hawaii. The Beta is known as the first ship that started the migration. But you could take it a step further by creating additional articles on the German ships Musca and Cedar, as those three ships represent the entirety of the Scandinavian migration to Hawaii from 1880 to 1881. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: - Scandinavian migration to Hawaii is way outside my area of expertise. Why don't you add to the article, and I'll move it to mainspace when you've done. Not sure about the other two ships. Cedar is going to be difficult to research due to her name. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why don’t we coordinate a double hook between the two articles? I will move my sandbox article (in a shortened form) to main space while also coordinating the hook between the two with a minor update. We can use the image of the Beta to lead the hook in the first position. Viriditas (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: If you want to nominate the ship article for a DYK feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to find out what you think is best. That’s my proposal up above. If it doesn’t interest you, I won’t do anything. I think the two articles would work well together as a double hook since the Beta is considered the first ship to have started the Scandinavian arrival in Hawaii and the image would look great on the main page. If you have other ideas, that’s fine too. Viriditas (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open query here. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the excellent ships launched pages which you created back in 2019 primarily doing linkage on the French ships. On 1677 you had duplicated the list for 1667. Thought I would let you know in case you still have your original work and/or wanted to ensure completeness of the series of lists Lyndaship (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: - oops, must have had a brainfart. Have expanded with ships launched in 1677 from Threedecks. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to fix up a sub-article in my sandbox related to Jules Tavernier and his Hawaii series of paintings. I found out that he first arrived in Hawaii on the SS Alameda (1883). I notice that article is a bit of a mess. Then I noticed there's a nice list of all of the ships that ran from the West Coast to Hawaii in the late 19th century for the Oceanic Steamship Company (OSC) but many of the ships don't have articles or are poorly written. There were 17 ships all told under the OSC before it was bought out by Matson in 1926. I'm thinking we should have a separate article on the Oceanic Steamship Company that lists these ships? Thought you might like to see the list:

Let me know your thoughts. Could make for an interesting DYK on your part... Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: - you missed that Mariposa also has an article. One possibility is a List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company, giving a brief history of each ship. As for researching the ships and company, it looks like there are likely to be sources available - California Digital Newspaper Collection 1849–1920, Library of Congress — American newspapers 1836–1922 and Historic Oregon Newspapers 1846–2020. The Pacific Marine Review is available for 1917-50, all linked from WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific resources. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Peter G Werner expressed interest in taking lead in terms of splitting the info out into a new article, so I hope he shows up here to participate. I have no real opinion as to whether there should be one article on the Oceanic Steamship Company, a separate list, or both, and I suppose one could argue all three positions. I assume the ships project has their way of doing things and I won't stand in anyone's way. Werner has mentioned additional sources we can draw upon. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, are you up for User:Peter G Werner/Oceanic Steamship Company? It would give us ample time to work on it without having to worry about DYK deadlines, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we can't also work on User:Mjroots/List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company. If necessary, we can merge the two, or even keep them separate and just summarize in the OSC article. Many ways to do it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can help, but right now, I'm a busy student with a full load of technical classes, so my time to take on extracurricular projects is limited.

I can suggest some sources about the overall company (not so much the individual ships):

• Adler, Jacob (1960). "The Oceanic Steamship Company: A link in Claus Spreckels' Hawaiian sugar empire". Pacific Historical Review. 29 (3): 257–269. doi:10.2307/3636164. Later revised as a chapter of:
  • Adler, Jacob (1966). Claus Spreckels: The Sugar King in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-87022-007-4.
• Bonura, Sandra E. (2020). Empire Builder: John D. Spreckels and the Making of San Diego. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-1-4962-2291-6.
• Spiekermann, Uwe (2022). "Expanding the frontier(s): The Spreckels family and the German- American penetration of the Pacific, 1870–1920". In Berghoff, Hartmut; Biess, Frank; Strasser, Ulrike (eds.). Explorations and Entanglements: Germans in Pacific Worlds from the Early Modern Period to World War I. Berghahn Books. pp. 169–194. doi:10.1515/9781789200294-010. ISBN 978-1-78920-029-4.</ref>

Peter G Werner (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both! Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some new content over at User:Viriditas/sandbox48, but it's nowhere near ready and needs work. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can turn this into another double DYK nom. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have your blessing to submit these two as a double nom tomorrow? I will of course do a review and update first. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, are you ready to move your list into mainspace? Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: - yes, it is ready to be moved. I'll do that now. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I’ve moved my content to the former redirect. It needs a bit of tightening and I need to remove the cite needed tag from yours before I can submit the DYK, but we are almost there. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: working on all the issues now. It might take me another day to fix everything to spec. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Flûte (ship) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 16 § Flûte (ship) until a consensus is reached. Paradoctor (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In List_of_shipwrecks_in_August_1878, I believe you added the last one for the tricolor. the ship it colided with is shown as the Jospehina. Is that the correct spelling or should it be the Josephina?Naraht (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: it was Josephina. Well spotted! Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going through wikipedia looking for Joseph mispelling, that just happened to be a hit on the way that I searched.Naraht (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MV Danny F II.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image restored to article. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Frenchs ship Révolutionnaire (1794) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21 § Frenchs ship Révolutionnaire (1794) until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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 [2]. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvus tristis: - I've looked at the article and Marino Sato's article and I can't find a source that says he is racing under a San Marino licence. If you can add a source for that and the disruption continues, I'll be happy to semi-protect. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_3_European_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=861115039 Corvus tristis (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Despite note and reference the situation remains the same... [3] This season contains many drivers with racing license differs from their actual nationality, so it will always confuse casual reader, can you put semi-protection now? Thanks. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 8 § Category:1850s in hockey on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Liberty ships (G–Je), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mihara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, List of shipwrecks in 1953, List of shipwrecks in January 1945, and List of shipwrecks in December 1944 all have Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors caused by your edits. You may find it helpful to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, as this will highlight the errors, making it easier for you to fix them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in List of Liberty ships (Je–L) you have multiple uses of "Sawyer & Mitchell 1943" which need fixing. I fixed a couple of refname errors. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Fixed Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we're talking about you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Level 1 headings. Somebody asked for an example of a user talk page with level 1 headings, and I immediately thought of you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, I was only making the use of 11 consistent with multiple similar instances in the article. We have both the numeral and the word spelled out throughout, so we should choose one. Let me know if you want to fix or I can jump back in. Cheers. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreameditsbrooklyn: Apologies, I missed that. My personal preference is to spell out numbers up to twenty. Either revert my reversion or alter all the others. Your choice. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1889, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devonport Dockyard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

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]

Hi there

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

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

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

@Timginger: Firstly you should discuss this with the admin who deleted the article as it would appear that they are currently active. I'm not willing to intervene until this has been done. This may not be the answer you wanted, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but an admin doesn't revert other admins decisions without good reason. You may well have a good case for undeletion, but discuss if with him/her first. Are you sure that the draft didn't come under WP:CSD criteria? I've had a look at the deleted draft (something I can do as an admin) and I will comment that it was woefully under referenced. FYI, when using {{cite web}} a minimum of {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |access-date= }} is needed. You were missing the |access-date= parameter. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry I'm new to this and had done my best to write a relevant article with references. I will contact the admin, and revert if I am unsuccessful in moderating the ability to respond. Are you able to provide access to the content from the original article? It took a long time to write and if it's not published here, now, I'd like to retain it for my records. Thanks Timginger (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timginger: I can provide the text of the draft. Do you have e-mails enabled? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @mjroots I do have emails enabled I think. Appreciate your help. Contacting the admin who deleted the article now for their feedback. Timginger (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are archived here

Template:Editnotices/Page/Neil Parish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for signing my guestbook!

~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hambro' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29 § Hambro' until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Infinite Possibilities
	Is this real life? Yes! Is this going to be forever? No! Elvis is getting ready to leave the building and 2026 is about to be born, kicking and screaming. They say nothing gold can stay, but I say, don't listen to them, stay golden all the same. Here's to a new year of infinite diversity and beautiful combinations! Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Mjroots, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. GGOTCC 00:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

GGOTCC 00:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 1889, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paisley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of shipwrecks in 1890, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 1890, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maiden voyage was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]