Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Go for it, no need to be shy. wp:Bold and all that. Ceoil ( talk) 12:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sca Fell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not articles, meant to cover every aspect of a word – they are navigation pages. Their only purpose is to list articles that already exist or are likely to be created, so users can find the article they were looking for. Dictionary-type definitions of the word "shingle", which I think is what you're getting at, should be covered on the wiktionary page wikt:shingle, which is linked from the dab page. — Swpb talk 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hope I didn't tread on your toes, most of the articles I write on are somewhat becalmed. It's a bit of a surprise when someone responds. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Couple of questions; I've read your guide to sources and I have one or two queries;
- How does one summarise a source argument? eg 'German historian Fritz Fischer argues social pressures underpinned Germany's responsibilty for WWI.' How would I reference that when it's not a direct quote.
- Is it ok to use a source that appears in a third party document? eg if an article in History Today has a direct quote from Murray Pittock's book on Culloden (including Page # etc), can I reference that direct or not?
Thanks.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I'm trying to understand general Wikipedia practice and thus interpretation of the guidelines listed in the essay on your page. I've also read Wikipedia's policy of verification. This arises from my discussion with a specific editor (part of which you've seen) and my rewrite of the 1745 Rebellion. I found your intervention useful; I pick areas where I can educate myself and I enjoy digging out long-forgotten dissertations by students on Episcopacy in NE Scotland, so no problem on my side. That's collaboration.
On four separate occasions this editor has threatened me with reverting to the original (which he admitted several months ago was not a good article) and flagging the page as inadequately sourced. He claims every single sentence requires an inline citation and I have failed to include enough sources. When I ask which ones need additional sources or verification, his answer is 'All of them.'
I'm not bothered because a quick look at Wikipedia shows that to be complete nonsense and his issue has nothing to do with sources but while I've got used to editors viewing suggested changes as akin to insulting their mother, I draw the line at allowing personal feelings to actively damage Wikipedia articles. Hence my interest in what constitutes adequate sourcing.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if you've come across this but I found it really interesting (too expensive to buy though :)); fills in the gap before Devine picks up.
Governing Gaeldom: The Scottish Highlands and the Restoration State, 1660-1688 by Allan D. Kennedy
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorn ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Re your edit on End of the clan system; fine by me - it wasn't my edit :).
If you're interested, Devine is an important commentator but not definitive eg Chris Whatley's Scottish society, 1707-1830: beyond Jacobitism, towards industrialisation is worth look and there are also a number of PHD theses looking at specific regions.
This economic transformation is also part of the current Glencoe archaeology study ie three of the six Glencoe settlements that appear in Roy's map are gone by the mid-19th century.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The summit was donated .... the subject of this sentence is "the summit".... and if I remember right it is better known than most war memorials - even ones that have an annual ceremony. If you're happy with how this reads then maybe that's the important thing. Anyone else check out the Sca Fell article. Victuallers ( talk) 19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
A new editor wants to add e-commons to Enclosure. In attempt to avoid an edit war, I've started a discussion at the Talk page. You are welcome to weigh in. David notMD ( talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw an article you might be interested in translating https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pique_de_proa Broichmore ( talk) 15:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am just passing through-- but could I add that I have a little difficulty with the narrowness of your definition. I first came across Gunters in 1965 on the Salcombe estuary, where the gunter was the spar on a working clinker built training dinghy- sometimes the word gaff was used instead. I see on WP that the difference between gaff rig and gunter eventually was the angle of the gaff, and gunter hoops ands sliding bars that original were important had disappeared from the definition by the time of the Mirror (dinghy). Still that was a long time ago.. and the memory is distant. See my image here of the Salcombe Yawl, a ketch. ClemRutter ( talk) 10:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I did drive over today and security explained you were closed- which is not what I had understood from this website. No matter I can try again quite easily. What I wanted to ascertain was whether there was material in collection on these two topics. 1. The origins design and service history of Montagu Whalers. 2. The gaff and gunter rig: it seems if the terms have changed on the last few centuries. There is talk that a gunter, was a sliding gaff on hoops or a rail, but also that when a gaff is at an angle of 15% or less than is becomes a gunter. Is there a source available that discusses this?
Success. I drove over to Gillingham (Chatham Dockyard) and penetrated security. In the library, I met up with two ex mateys, Jim Williamson and Les Holland who work as volunteers. Les had just scanned his own personal photo of five cadets rowing one on the Medway and promised to donate it to commons Jim took me up to the mezzanine of number 2 slip where I got a mobile phone photo of a genuine Montagu whaler, and its bow markings. By googling on 27ft whalers we got a vast number of hits. I have put a lot of links on Talk:Montagu whaler. I think that to do this area justice we need to do a disamb page, Whaler (factory ship) Whaler (whale boat) Whaler (military). It would seem that the true Montagu whaler was a class of open clinker built boats commissioned by Vice Admiral Victor Alexander M, godson to Queen V., operating from warships through WW1 and WW2. A later 1 in 3 whaler was derived from it and sailed with a petrol engine, though widely used replacing the older Montagu 2 in 1 designs, it was a bit of a dog. ClemRutter ( talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I also saw two books Folkard and The Gaff Rig by John Leather I took some snaps but haven't looked at them yet. ClemRutter ( talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you seem to have tartan books around, there's an alleged quote from George V in the second entry at List of tartans, but no citation. I'm wondering whether it's bogus, but maybe you have materials for this on-hand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schooner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topgallant ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Re the hatnote - "clearance" doesn't redirect there, but plural "clearances" does, and has done since 2007. Someone changed that today, without any discussion that I can see, so I tried to restore things to the way they were. Sorry if I did something wrong, but could you please look at this again? Thank you. -- 94.197.89.137 ( talk) 16:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired, you might want to weigh in at Talk:Broach (sailing)#Propose moving to "Broach (nautical)". Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding Broach_(nautical):
I think that your recent additions to the introductory paragraph make it less helpful because they attempt to cover too many concepts. This both makes the introduction more verbose and fails to do justice to those concepts. Remember that an introductory paragraph serves to introduce a concept to people outside a domain. So the explanation must avoid specialized vocabulary.
Please consider restoring the introductory paragraph to its previous, short version.
-- Black Walnut ( talk) 03:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
Thank you! Your latest version is a significant improvement.
I also agree that the article would benefit from expansion. Actually, it was much longer a decade ago. It even included advice on sailing technique. I haven't looked closely into how all that material vanished. Collecting and reintroducing some of it could be worthwhile. I believe it included references.
Some remaining problems in the article's introduction:
-- Black Walnut ( talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
I have taken the liberty of copying the above discussion to Talk:Broach (nautical). I think it is better to discuss content of the article there. Please do not continue any of this discussion on this page. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Point-y edit summary or what? You know exactly why it was removed and it is documented on the talk page. I hope you can get through to the person who wrote it that they should really not usurp an article in that way - build up changes within the article rather than dump an entire rewrite on it. And when using potential dodgy sources - ones that might fall foul of our policies etc - explain why they are not dodgy on the article talk. This is common sense, surely? There is sadly little of it around when it comes to a lot of transport stuff: lots of knowledge, no collaboration. - Sitush ( talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired, question on the leaders list based on days in charge, how would we list the Axis, I'm assuming Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini? -- E-960 ( talk) 09:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I note that you've edited the Yawl article. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at the question I just raised. Something is wrong in the article but I'm not sure how to fix it. Attention from a knowledgeable editor would be great. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice work on Yawl. Thanks. Qwirkle ( talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Just been browsing your front page, I wonder if you have The War at Sea (3 volumes)? Useful for basics like when, where, who and how many though later authors have revised some of these aspects. {{cite book |first1= Jürgen |last1=Rohwer |first2=Gerhard |last2=Hümmelchen |title=Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two |year=1992 |orig-year=1972 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |location=Annapolis, MD |edition=2nd rev. |isbn=978-1-55750-105-9}} can be very useful for matters mundane. I'd be happy to put my library at your disposal. Since you're interested in naval history, perhaps you can help me, I'm looking for details of Red Sea convoys 1940-41 that I can use for East African campaign (World War II) which I've been revising and expanding for ages. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank for your comment on Minor edit. I'm also curios if hunger-typhus is the same thing as Epidemic typhus. Can't find good definition of hunger-typhus. Thanks ! User:Abune ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Totally personal, but I think staysail schooners are the most beautiful boats of all. J S Ayer ( talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello ThoughtIdRetired, Thanks for your recent thanks concerning the Falmouth quay punt article. Something else for you, perhaps: I am suggesting the Falmouth work boat article be moved (renamed) to Falmouth working boat. Please go to the article's Talk page if you wish to discuss this. Cheers, -- Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response re: Highland Clearances edits. I appreciate the justification and reasoning behind the current wording. Regards,
Socksage ( talk) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I noted that the Glossary of nautical terms had no entry for "flotilla," which is a pretty major oversight. To get us all started on developing one, I summarized the discussion of the term at the Flotilla article in a way that provides what I view as pretty good definition of the term in definition (1), which captures the rather wide-ranging scope of the naval definition. That article already is linked to the definition and lists its own set of sources, which you can access there. (If there is any problem with the description at the Flotilla article, then that's an even bigger Wikipedia problem, and I would suggest opening a discussion about it there.) I thunk that native English speakers also will agree that "flotilla" has a more informal meaning as well, as captured at Wiktionary and in other sources, so I added that as definition 2. I don't assume that there is a single, definitive definition out there for us to use, as each general dictionary will define "flotilla" a bit differently and with greater or lesser detail, and specific discussions of individual navies and their flotilla organizations will have to be cited to capture assorted additional definitions. All of that being said, now that I got us started, I encourage you and others to build upon it by adding or parsing additional meanings, providing additional citations, etc. My hope is that the definition(s) — and, indeed, the articles they link to — will in that way improve over time. Mdnavman ( talk) 19:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)mdnavman
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gig (boat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The IP editor who you reverted at German_battleship_Scharnhorst has gone back and done the same thing again. I agree completely with your edit summary. On the whole, I think their edits make the article worse, not better. I can't see what's wrong with shipping water rather than onboarding it, or taking on (I would reserve "taking on" for when a ship decides to take something on, for example a ship that has no drinking water would stop at a port to take on water, but maybe that's just me). And antiaircraft is plain ugly. It needs that hyphen. I didn't revert, because I tend only to revert blatantly wrong stuff, not silly edits whose outcome is readable and okay, but just a bit worse than it was. Nevertheless, I thought you might be less charitable, and I'd support any such reversion! Elemimele ( talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I felt some newer readers might not yet know who the allies and axis were, but it’s ok if you want to keep it. Ffffrr ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steamship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've made a mess of this article. Problem is that in your recent edits you inadvertently removed some of the sources (eg Kammen and the second Admiralty one) and so I was using guesswork to sort out the sfns (which were referring to removed sources). I have no interest in the article other than its sfns so I have returned it to its state of 11 Jan (where the sfns all worked and were presumably correct). I now know more about Kammen (and his son) than I did. Oculi ( talk) 02:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Please READ my edit before you undo it. My edit was a link to a Wikipedia article about the six masted schooner Wyoming. Go read it. FatBear1 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bristol Channel pilot cutter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I notice you changed de to De. If you look at the talk page of the main de Havilland article there's a discussion of this point. I agree with the argument made there that if the word 'de' is used at the beginning of a sentence it should follow the rules of English grammar and, like all other opening words in a sentence, be capitalised. I also think it's best practice to follow the styling of the main article page (where all sentences that begin with 'De' spell it 'De' not 'de'), rather than have numerous variations in other pages. This is standard publishing procedure. Rather than my simply reverting your change, I wonder whether you could persuade me otherwise on both these points? Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
My brother, who has owned/sailed a small catboat "Breezing Up" for 30 years, suggested the article could be improved. I agree. In looking back at its history, it had more content and perhaps read better before editor Cornellier made massive cuts in Nov 2016 and May 2019. Would you consider looking back at earlier versions to see if anything could be salvaged? Also, the addition by IP 109.77.200.201 about catboats in Europe, feels very much out of place (and poorly referenced). Please consider deleting. I have very mixed feelings about a list of manufactuer brand names in the body of the article; an earlier version had these as External links - a bit better, but perhaps deleting completely would be clearly no longer promotional. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a Yellow Pages.
With more reading on the topic, I concur with you that "catboat" has a narrow definition that excludes "cat-rigged" boats (even though a large number of images in Commons conflate the two). Racing classes Lasers, Finns and Tech dinghies all have one sail on an unstayed mast, but are clearly not catboats! David notMD ( talk) 18:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Trying to get this right. Was there something wrong with the Merriam-Webster reference provided earlier for both definitions of this term? Relbats ( talk) 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, re. our recent discussion at Catboat, for full disclosure I built and sail (and row) an 18 foot wooden boat with the lug-rigged mast very far forward. She has a dory-style hull. So my statements are based on personal experience with various boats rather than books. In addition, a friend owns a large modern fibreglass catboat, which is how I came to the article. By the way, if you fancy tackling the dory / Banks dory / Swampscott dory / McKenzie River dory conundrum, let me know. It's something I've wanted to tidy up for a while... -- Cornellier ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired,
Because you moved this page to the wrong title and then it was later moved again without a redirect, there are several dozen redirects to these pages that were deleted as being "broken redirects" (see Special:Log/Explicit and browse through the Deletion Log or User:Explicit/Working). You might want to recreate them or see about getting them restored through WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I get the sense you own this article. Fair enough. It's yours. A loose necktie ( talk) 09:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ThoughdIdRetired, for your well written, scholarly, and helpful additions to Sailing! Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi ThougtIdRetired, please take a look at this edit and take any action you deem appropriate. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I.e., "Watercraft [mass noun] is one of my main interests. My two watercrafts [enumerable noun] are a jetski and a sailboard." It changes the meaning by saying, "Watercrafts [enumerable] are my main interests." And it doesn't make sense to say either, "My watercraft are a jetski and a sailboard" or "My watercraft is a jetski and a sailboard". Linguistically, the mass noun watercraft and enumerable noun watercrafts have separate meanings. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit by mistake. I restored it immediately afterward. Mea culpa. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired, Thank you for your patient and scholarly work in the field of sailing craft. I sense that we both agree that the Sail plan article is ungainly. You may wish to weigh in at a discussion that I've started at Talk:Sail plan#Excess baggage. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! Thank you for your valuable insights about studding sails at Talk:Point of sail#Inferences on studding sails. I agree with your concern about the previous wording that implied that studding sails are specialized downwind sails. Accordingly, I proposed some revised text that I thought addressed the point, but your subsequent remarks seemed to address the edit by Top5, rather than my proposed revision. Top5 explained that he wasn't defending the existing text, but wishing to engender the very discussion that you have initiated. Thank you!
Would you take a second look at what I proposed and address any defects that it may have?
BTW, I don't see studding sails set on the mainmast of the Monongahela, only on the foremast. So, it appears to be a legitimate approach to navigating downwind with all sails drawing as it ghosts along.
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vergulde Draeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cog and Carvel.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you have some good points regarding galleys and I appreciate that you scrutinize both content and sources. However, you are also very quick to declare this and that flat-out wrong, tagging them and only then engaging in discussion. The thing you've pointed out overall seem to have more to do with wording, interpretation and intent, not outright errors.
I'll reply about the content issue in article talk, but I would very much like you to tone down the harshness of your approach. Not implying that you shouldn't be critical to content overall, but a tad less confrontational.
Peter Isotalo 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
...consider at least asking more questions...If you look at my involvement on the article talk page, you will see that I did start by asking questions. This did not seem very productive. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bombing of Dresden in World War II, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired Hello, can you help improve the article. When you have time. Товболатов ( talk) 11:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you've already noted that it's on, but I still wanted to give you a heads up. You've raised some points regarding rowing and how to define galleys before. If you're interested in discussing them (or some other pointers) as part of the PR, feel free to join in. Peter Isotalo 08:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent tags at HMS Endeavour, and for edits like this. Seems like several of the refs have been removed over time, so the article could do with your thorough read-through! -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carvel.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired. Your comments at Talk:Ships of ancient Rome were really helpful, and I thought you'd be a good person to ask about the following. When developing that article, I was looking around for a Nav box about the topic that would help me find related articles so I could explore and learn more, and maybe steal their references to use elsewhere, but I couldn't find any such template. I was pretty surprised about that, and I still thought it would be a good stepping-stone, as well as helping to bootstrap my familiarity about the topic, so I decided to write one. Im probably not the best-placed one to do that, but since no one else had stepped up yet, I thought, why not. If you have a few minutes, can you have a look at {{ Ancient seafaring}} and lmk what you think? My main worry is not so much the list of links, which has plenty of gaps that other editors will find and fill in over time as needed, but rather the overall structure of the Nav template, i.e, the way I've organized the major groups and subgroups, and whether I've missed anything major, or if the order should be done otherwise. Feel free to make comments at the Talk page (or here, if you prefer), or just jump in and change whatever needs changing. One of the interesting things about constructing such a template, is you have to really read widely to figure out what's needed and even harder, what might still be missing. That's where I could really use some advice, but if you want to approach it completely differently, be my guest: we can also tear it up and start over; now that we have the links, it's not so hard to rebuild a template from scratch, and place them in a different order. Look forward to your comments. (P.S. I'm subscribed; no ping needed.) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop campaigning for ref standard switches in individual articles. All of the arguments you've brought up so far as mostly subjective and the format you prefer has plenty of its own drawbacks. I know you refer to what you believe is best for readers, but all of it is just purely anecdotal. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the efn standard completely. But I'm not going to wast my time on that because it's not something that I believe is actually ruining Wikipedia or anything like that.
Your approach to this is as far as I can tell not in line with the variation in standards that exists on English Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
you need to end the discussion. We have reached the point where the statement (on the talk page discussion)
You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance herecan no longer be supported. The position in resisting the efn template seems to be based simply on a personal dislike. This is set against a step-by-step demonstration of the extra functionality of the template, together with usage of this template by four other editors.
Thank you for undoing the added category at Yawl. The same editor has reverted my deletion of inappropriate categories at Ketch with this edit. You might see what you think. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you good with creating the RfC query for the Appendix section layout/location of informational footnotes? Need/want any help? I do suggest a focus on the layout rather than the templates used under the hood. VQuakr ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you please not make reverts like this? I made a genuine attempt to improve the facts you added and bolster them with a copyedit and focusing on what I thought was WP:SS.
If you don't agree with a specific wording of phrase, please make the effort of fixing the parts that you disagree with rather than just reverting wholesale.
I'd also appreciate if you focused on more neutral descriptions of your edits in your edit comments. I think they come off as unnecessarily snarky. Peter Isotalo 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
a mizzen mast towards the aft. "Aft" is an adverb. Leaving out the words "towards the" would be a quick fix, as it would then be clearer that it was modifying the verb "had". On consideration, the most effective way of explaining what is meant is with a link to mizzen – but the definition there does not fit this situation, so that needs rewriting. Mast (sailing)#Mizzen mast is not a perfect solution, either. There should be (perhaps there is, but I haven't found it) a good explanation of "a square rigged mast". That is to say the lower, topmast and topgallant, which altogether has the this technical name. Mast (sailing) nearly explains this, but it really needs something base on a combination of Underhill and Anderson.
The fore- and mainmasts were built in three sections: a lower mast that was stepped on the keel at the bottom...is not correct.
topmizzen? I presume this is a typo, but if it isn't, where did it come from? What were you trying to say?
time to write a detailed explanationdemonstrates that you are unaware of the time necessary to make the discussed longer term fix.
fairly minor objections, immediately above. Everyone makes mistakes now and again, but wilfully replacing them in the article after an explanation is perverse. These actions may be OK in a newbie, but not in an experienced editor. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Go for it, no need to be shy. wp:Bold and all that. Ceoil ( talk) 12:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sca Fell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not articles, meant to cover every aspect of a word – they are navigation pages. Their only purpose is to list articles that already exist or are likely to be created, so users can find the article they were looking for. Dictionary-type definitions of the word "shingle", which I think is what you're getting at, should be covered on the wiktionary page wikt:shingle, which is linked from the dab page. — Swpb talk 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hope I didn't tread on your toes, most of the articles I write on are somewhat becalmed. It's a bit of a surprise when someone responds. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Couple of questions; I've read your guide to sources and I have one or two queries;
- How does one summarise a source argument? eg 'German historian Fritz Fischer argues social pressures underpinned Germany's responsibilty for WWI.' How would I reference that when it's not a direct quote.
- Is it ok to use a source that appears in a third party document? eg if an article in History Today has a direct quote from Murray Pittock's book on Culloden (including Page # etc), can I reference that direct or not?
Thanks.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I'm trying to understand general Wikipedia practice and thus interpretation of the guidelines listed in the essay on your page. I've also read Wikipedia's policy of verification. This arises from my discussion with a specific editor (part of which you've seen) and my rewrite of the 1745 Rebellion. I found your intervention useful; I pick areas where I can educate myself and I enjoy digging out long-forgotten dissertations by students on Episcopacy in NE Scotland, so no problem on my side. That's collaboration.
On four separate occasions this editor has threatened me with reverting to the original (which he admitted several months ago was not a good article) and flagging the page as inadequately sourced. He claims every single sentence requires an inline citation and I have failed to include enough sources. When I ask which ones need additional sources or verification, his answer is 'All of them.'
I'm not bothered because a quick look at Wikipedia shows that to be complete nonsense and his issue has nothing to do with sources but while I've got used to editors viewing suggested changes as akin to insulting their mother, I draw the line at allowing personal feelings to actively damage Wikipedia articles. Hence my interest in what constitutes adequate sourcing.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if you've come across this but I found it really interesting (too expensive to buy though :)); fills in the gap before Devine picks up.
Governing Gaeldom: The Scottish Highlands and the Restoration State, 1660-1688 by Allan D. Kennedy
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorn ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Re your edit on End of the clan system; fine by me - it wasn't my edit :).
If you're interested, Devine is an important commentator but not definitive eg Chris Whatley's Scottish society, 1707-1830: beyond Jacobitism, towards industrialisation is worth look and there are also a number of PHD theses looking at specific regions.
This economic transformation is also part of the current Glencoe archaeology study ie three of the six Glencoe settlements that appear in Roy's map are gone by the mid-19th century.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The summit was donated .... the subject of this sentence is "the summit".... and if I remember right it is better known than most war memorials - even ones that have an annual ceremony. If you're happy with how this reads then maybe that's the important thing. Anyone else check out the Sca Fell article. Victuallers ( talk) 19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
A new editor wants to add e-commons to Enclosure. In attempt to avoid an edit war, I've started a discussion at the Talk page. You are welcome to weigh in. David notMD ( talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw an article you might be interested in translating https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pique_de_proa Broichmore ( talk) 15:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am just passing through-- but could I add that I have a little difficulty with the narrowness of your definition. I first came across Gunters in 1965 on the Salcombe estuary, where the gunter was the spar on a working clinker built training dinghy- sometimes the word gaff was used instead. I see on WP that the difference between gaff rig and gunter eventually was the angle of the gaff, and gunter hoops ands sliding bars that original were important had disappeared from the definition by the time of the Mirror (dinghy). Still that was a long time ago.. and the memory is distant. See my image here of the Salcombe Yawl, a ketch. ClemRutter ( talk) 10:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I did drive over today and security explained you were closed- which is not what I had understood from this website. No matter I can try again quite easily. What I wanted to ascertain was whether there was material in collection on these two topics. 1. The origins design and service history of Montagu Whalers. 2. The gaff and gunter rig: it seems if the terms have changed on the last few centuries. There is talk that a gunter, was a sliding gaff on hoops or a rail, but also that when a gaff is at an angle of 15% or less than is becomes a gunter. Is there a source available that discusses this?
Success. I drove over to Gillingham (Chatham Dockyard) and penetrated security. In the library, I met up with two ex mateys, Jim Williamson and Les Holland who work as volunteers. Les had just scanned his own personal photo of five cadets rowing one on the Medway and promised to donate it to commons Jim took me up to the mezzanine of number 2 slip where I got a mobile phone photo of a genuine Montagu whaler, and its bow markings. By googling on 27ft whalers we got a vast number of hits. I have put a lot of links on Talk:Montagu whaler. I think that to do this area justice we need to do a disamb page, Whaler (factory ship) Whaler (whale boat) Whaler (military). It would seem that the true Montagu whaler was a class of open clinker built boats commissioned by Vice Admiral Victor Alexander M, godson to Queen V., operating from warships through WW1 and WW2. A later 1 in 3 whaler was derived from it and sailed with a petrol engine, though widely used replacing the older Montagu 2 in 1 designs, it was a bit of a dog. ClemRutter ( talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I also saw two books Folkard and The Gaff Rig by John Leather I took some snaps but haven't looked at them yet. ClemRutter ( talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you seem to have tartan books around, there's an alleged quote from George V in the second entry at List of tartans, but no citation. I'm wondering whether it's bogus, but maybe you have materials for this on-hand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schooner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topgallant ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Re the hatnote - "clearance" doesn't redirect there, but plural "clearances" does, and has done since 2007. Someone changed that today, without any discussion that I can see, so I tried to restore things to the way they were. Sorry if I did something wrong, but could you please look at this again? Thank you. -- 94.197.89.137 ( talk) 16:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired, you might want to weigh in at Talk:Broach (sailing)#Propose moving to "Broach (nautical)". Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding Broach_(nautical):
I think that your recent additions to the introductory paragraph make it less helpful because they attempt to cover too many concepts. This both makes the introduction more verbose and fails to do justice to those concepts. Remember that an introductory paragraph serves to introduce a concept to people outside a domain. So the explanation must avoid specialized vocabulary.
Please consider restoring the introductory paragraph to its previous, short version.
-- Black Walnut ( talk) 03:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
Thank you! Your latest version is a significant improvement.
I also agree that the article would benefit from expansion. Actually, it was much longer a decade ago. It even included advice on sailing technique. I haven't looked closely into how all that material vanished. Collecting and reintroducing some of it could be worthwhile. I believe it included references.
Some remaining problems in the article's introduction:
-- Black Walnut ( talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
I have taken the liberty of copying the above discussion to Talk:Broach (nautical). I think it is better to discuss content of the article there. Please do not continue any of this discussion on this page. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Point-y edit summary or what? You know exactly why it was removed and it is documented on the talk page. I hope you can get through to the person who wrote it that they should really not usurp an article in that way - build up changes within the article rather than dump an entire rewrite on it. And when using potential dodgy sources - ones that might fall foul of our policies etc - explain why they are not dodgy on the article talk. This is common sense, surely? There is sadly little of it around when it comes to a lot of transport stuff: lots of knowledge, no collaboration. - Sitush ( talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired, question on the leaders list based on days in charge, how would we list the Axis, I'm assuming Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini? -- E-960 ( talk) 09:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I note that you've edited the Yawl article. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at the question I just raised. Something is wrong in the article but I'm not sure how to fix it. Attention from a knowledgeable editor would be great. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice work on Yawl. Thanks. Qwirkle ( talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Just been browsing your front page, I wonder if you have The War at Sea (3 volumes)? Useful for basics like when, where, who and how many though later authors have revised some of these aspects. {{cite book |first1= Jürgen |last1=Rohwer |first2=Gerhard |last2=Hümmelchen |title=Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two |year=1992 |orig-year=1972 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |location=Annapolis, MD |edition=2nd rev. |isbn=978-1-55750-105-9}} can be very useful for matters mundane. I'd be happy to put my library at your disposal. Since you're interested in naval history, perhaps you can help me, I'm looking for details of Red Sea convoys 1940-41 that I can use for East African campaign (World War II) which I've been revising and expanding for ages. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank for your comment on Minor edit. I'm also curios if hunger-typhus is the same thing as Epidemic typhus. Can't find good definition of hunger-typhus. Thanks ! User:Abune ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Totally personal, but I think staysail schooners are the most beautiful boats of all. J S Ayer ( talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello ThoughtIdRetired, Thanks for your recent thanks concerning the Falmouth quay punt article. Something else for you, perhaps: I am suggesting the Falmouth work boat article be moved (renamed) to Falmouth working boat. Please go to the article's Talk page if you wish to discuss this. Cheers, -- Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response re: Highland Clearances edits. I appreciate the justification and reasoning behind the current wording. Regards,
Socksage ( talk) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I noted that the Glossary of nautical terms had no entry for "flotilla," which is a pretty major oversight. To get us all started on developing one, I summarized the discussion of the term at the Flotilla article in a way that provides what I view as pretty good definition of the term in definition (1), which captures the rather wide-ranging scope of the naval definition. That article already is linked to the definition and lists its own set of sources, which you can access there. (If there is any problem with the description at the Flotilla article, then that's an even bigger Wikipedia problem, and I would suggest opening a discussion about it there.) I thunk that native English speakers also will agree that "flotilla" has a more informal meaning as well, as captured at Wiktionary and in other sources, so I added that as definition 2. I don't assume that there is a single, definitive definition out there for us to use, as each general dictionary will define "flotilla" a bit differently and with greater or lesser detail, and specific discussions of individual navies and their flotilla organizations will have to be cited to capture assorted additional definitions. All of that being said, now that I got us started, I encourage you and others to build upon it by adding or parsing additional meanings, providing additional citations, etc. My hope is that the definition(s) — and, indeed, the articles they link to — will in that way improve over time. Mdnavman ( talk) 19:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)mdnavman
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gig (boat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The IP editor who you reverted at German_battleship_Scharnhorst has gone back and done the same thing again. I agree completely with your edit summary. On the whole, I think their edits make the article worse, not better. I can't see what's wrong with shipping water rather than onboarding it, or taking on (I would reserve "taking on" for when a ship decides to take something on, for example a ship that has no drinking water would stop at a port to take on water, but maybe that's just me). And antiaircraft is plain ugly. It needs that hyphen. I didn't revert, because I tend only to revert blatantly wrong stuff, not silly edits whose outcome is readable and okay, but just a bit worse than it was. Nevertheless, I thought you might be less charitable, and I'd support any such reversion! Elemimele ( talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I felt some newer readers might not yet know who the allies and axis were, but it’s ok if you want to keep it. Ffffrr ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steamship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've made a mess of this article. Problem is that in your recent edits you inadvertently removed some of the sources (eg Kammen and the second Admiralty one) and so I was using guesswork to sort out the sfns (which were referring to removed sources). I have no interest in the article other than its sfns so I have returned it to its state of 11 Jan (where the sfns all worked and were presumably correct). I now know more about Kammen (and his son) than I did. Oculi ( talk) 02:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Please READ my edit before you undo it. My edit was a link to a Wikipedia article about the six masted schooner Wyoming. Go read it. FatBear1 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bristol Channel pilot cutter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I notice you changed de to De. If you look at the talk page of the main de Havilland article there's a discussion of this point. I agree with the argument made there that if the word 'de' is used at the beginning of a sentence it should follow the rules of English grammar and, like all other opening words in a sentence, be capitalised. I also think it's best practice to follow the styling of the main article page (where all sentences that begin with 'De' spell it 'De' not 'de'), rather than have numerous variations in other pages. This is standard publishing procedure. Rather than my simply reverting your change, I wonder whether you could persuade me otherwise on both these points? Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
My brother, who has owned/sailed a small catboat "Breezing Up" for 30 years, suggested the article could be improved. I agree. In looking back at its history, it had more content and perhaps read better before editor Cornellier made massive cuts in Nov 2016 and May 2019. Would you consider looking back at earlier versions to see if anything could be salvaged? Also, the addition by IP 109.77.200.201 about catboats in Europe, feels very much out of place (and poorly referenced). Please consider deleting. I have very mixed feelings about a list of manufactuer brand names in the body of the article; an earlier version had these as External links - a bit better, but perhaps deleting completely would be clearly no longer promotional. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a Yellow Pages.
With more reading on the topic, I concur with you that "catboat" has a narrow definition that excludes "cat-rigged" boats (even though a large number of images in Commons conflate the two). Racing classes Lasers, Finns and Tech dinghies all have one sail on an unstayed mast, but are clearly not catboats! David notMD ( talk) 18:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Trying to get this right. Was there something wrong with the Merriam-Webster reference provided earlier for both definitions of this term? Relbats ( talk) 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, re. our recent discussion at Catboat, for full disclosure I built and sail (and row) an 18 foot wooden boat with the lug-rigged mast very far forward. She has a dory-style hull. So my statements are based on personal experience with various boats rather than books. In addition, a friend owns a large modern fibreglass catboat, which is how I came to the article. By the way, if you fancy tackling the dory / Banks dory / Swampscott dory / McKenzie River dory conundrum, let me know. It's something I've wanted to tidy up for a while... -- Cornellier ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired,
Because you moved this page to the wrong title and then it was later moved again without a redirect, there are several dozen redirects to these pages that were deleted as being "broken redirects" (see Special:Log/Explicit and browse through the Deletion Log or User:Explicit/Working). You might want to recreate them or see about getting them restored through WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I get the sense you own this article. Fair enough. It's yours. A loose necktie ( talk) 09:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ThoughdIdRetired, for your well written, scholarly, and helpful additions to Sailing! Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi ThougtIdRetired, please take a look at this edit and take any action you deem appropriate. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I.e., "Watercraft [mass noun] is one of my main interests. My two watercrafts [enumerable noun] are a jetski and a sailboard." It changes the meaning by saying, "Watercrafts [enumerable] are my main interests." And it doesn't make sense to say either, "My watercraft are a jetski and a sailboard" or "My watercraft is a jetski and a sailboard". Linguistically, the mass noun watercraft and enumerable noun watercrafts have separate meanings. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit by mistake. I restored it immediately afterward. Mea culpa. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired, Thank you for your patient and scholarly work in the field of sailing craft. I sense that we both agree that the Sail plan article is ungainly. You may wish to weigh in at a discussion that I've started at Talk:Sail plan#Excess baggage. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! Thank you for your valuable insights about studding sails at Talk:Point of sail#Inferences on studding sails. I agree with your concern about the previous wording that implied that studding sails are specialized downwind sails. Accordingly, I proposed some revised text that I thought addressed the point, but your subsequent remarks seemed to address the edit by Top5, rather than my proposed revision. Top5 explained that he wasn't defending the existing text, but wishing to engender the very discussion that you have initiated. Thank you!
Would you take a second look at what I proposed and address any defects that it may have?
BTW, I don't see studding sails set on the mainmast of the Monongahela, only on the foremast. So, it appears to be a legitimate approach to navigating downwind with all sails drawing as it ghosts along.
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vergulde Draeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cog and Carvel.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you have some good points regarding galleys and I appreciate that you scrutinize both content and sources. However, you are also very quick to declare this and that flat-out wrong, tagging them and only then engaging in discussion. The thing you've pointed out overall seem to have more to do with wording, interpretation and intent, not outright errors.
I'll reply about the content issue in article talk, but I would very much like you to tone down the harshness of your approach. Not implying that you shouldn't be critical to content overall, but a tad less confrontational.
Peter Isotalo 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
...consider at least asking more questions...If you look at my involvement on the article talk page, you will see that I did start by asking questions. This did not seem very productive. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bombing of Dresden in World War II, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired Hello, can you help improve the article. When you have time. Товболатов ( talk) 11:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you've already noted that it's on, but I still wanted to give you a heads up. You've raised some points regarding rowing and how to define galleys before. If you're interested in discussing them (or some other pointers) as part of the PR, feel free to join in. Peter Isotalo 08:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent tags at HMS Endeavour, and for edits like this. Seems like several of the refs have been removed over time, so the article could do with your thorough read-through! -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carvel.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired. Your comments at Talk:Ships of ancient Rome were really helpful, and I thought you'd be a good person to ask about the following. When developing that article, I was looking around for a Nav box about the topic that would help me find related articles so I could explore and learn more, and maybe steal their references to use elsewhere, but I couldn't find any such template. I was pretty surprised about that, and I still thought it would be a good stepping-stone, as well as helping to bootstrap my familiarity about the topic, so I decided to write one. Im probably not the best-placed one to do that, but since no one else had stepped up yet, I thought, why not. If you have a few minutes, can you have a look at {{ Ancient seafaring}} and lmk what you think? My main worry is not so much the list of links, which has plenty of gaps that other editors will find and fill in over time as needed, but rather the overall structure of the Nav template, i.e, the way I've organized the major groups and subgroups, and whether I've missed anything major, or if the order should be done otherwise. Feel free to make comments at the Talk page (or here, if you prefer), or just jump in and change whatever needs changing. One of the interesting things about constructing such a template, is you have to really read widely to figure out what's needed and even harder, what might still be missing. That's where I could really use some advice, but if you want to approach it completely differently, be my guest: we can also tear it up and start over; now that we have the links, it's not so hard to rebuild a template from scratch, and place them in a different order. Look forward to your comments. (P.S. I'm subscribed; no ping needed.) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop campaigning for ref standard switches in individual articles. All of the arguments you've brought up so far as mostly subjective and the format you prefer has plenty of its own drawbacks. I know you refer to what you believe is best for readers, but all of it is just purely anecdotal. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the efn standard completely. But I'm not going to wast my time on that because it's not something that I believe is actually ruining Wikipedia or anything like that.
Your approach to this is as far as I can tell not in line with the variation in standards that exists on English Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
you need to end the discussion. We have reached the point where the statement (on the talk page discussion)
You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance herecan no longer be supported. The position in resisting the efn template seems to be based simply on a personal dislike. This is set against a step-by-step demonstration of the extra functionality of the template, together with usage of this template by four other editors.
Thank you for undoing the added category at Yawl. The same editor has reverted my deletion of inappropriate categories at Ketch with this edit. You might see what you think. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you good with creating the RfC query for the Appendix section layout/location of informational footnotes? Need/want any help? I do suggest a focus on the layout rather than the templates used under the hood. VQuakr ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you please not make reverts like this? I made a genuine attempt to improve the facts you added and bolster them with a copyedit and focusing on what I thought was WP:SS.
If you don't agree with a specific wording of phrase, please make the effort of fixing the parts that you disagree with rather than just reverting wholesale.
I'd also appreciate if you focused on more neutral descriptions of your edits in your edit comments. I think they come off as unnecessarily snarky. Peter Isotalo 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
a mizzen mast towards the aft. "Aft" is an adverb. Leaving out the words "towards the" would be a quick fix, as it would then be clearer that it was modifying the verb "had". On consideration, the most effective way of explaining what is meant is with a link to mizzen – but the definition there does not fit this situation, so that needs rewriting. Mast (sailing)#Mizzen mast is not a perfect solution, either. There should be (perhaps there is, but I haven't found it) a good explanation of "a square rigged mast". That is to say the lower, topmast and topgallant, which altogether has the this technical name. Mast (sailing) nearly explains this, but it really needs something base on a combination of Underhill and Anderson.
The fore- and mainmasts were built in three sections: a lower mast that was stepped on the keel at the bottom...is not correct.
topmizzen? I presume this is a typo, but if it isn't, where did it come from? What were you trying to say?
time to write a detailed explanationdemonstrates that you are unaware of the time necessary to make the discussed longer term fix.
fairly minor objections, immediately above. Everyone makes mistakes now and again, but wilfully replacing them in the article after an explanation is perverse. These actions may be OK in a newbie, but not in an experienced editor. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)