Hello Bazza 7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Hey there, Bazza. Thought I'd give you and a few other regulars a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and I suppose I should add this: when I see "repeats infinitely many times" changed to "repeats infinitely", then earlier experience causes me to fear things like "infinitely many prime numbers" changed to "infinite prime numbers", which, of course, is really horribly wrong, since no prime number is infinite. I've actually seen this happen, so maybe I'm a bit touchy after that. Michael Hardy18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as if you read "repeats infinitely, many times", whereas it was intended as "repeats infinitely-many times". I wouldn't normally use a hyphen for such a thing, but in view of the potential misunderstanding you raise, I'm considering it. Michael Hardy23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:British Isles are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you! Waggers15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk07:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I shamelessly cribbed your plan for Windsor and Eton Central (with goods yard etc) to make a new diagram for the line I thought I would invite your comments on the work in progress which can be found here Talk:Slough to Windsor & Eton Line. Thanks and sorry for the presumption! Britmax (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on that! I was thinking of making a list of all the possible zip codes from 00000 to 99999 and the corresponding municipalities they belong to if they're being used. Is that worth it or just a waste of time? Spinach Monster (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you put your governors hat on and have a long discussion with whoever maintains the school's web site. If an organisation cannot be bothered to maintain its own branding properly, it cannot be too upset if third parties get it wrong. If the schools name really does encompass the article, then I suggest you revert. Unfortunately there are far too many WP articles which wrongly include the article.
Incidentally, my unilateral move was entirely in line with WP's policy of being bold. There wasn't any reason, from the information I had to hand, to think this would be a contentious move, as opposed to just rectifying the consequences of an article named by an inexperienced editor. Given that, I saw no reason for me to try and build a consensus. -- Starbois (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bazza 7. When you edited Caleys the other day, were you reacting to what I had done a couple of days earlier, or was this pure coincidence? I have been talking to Pamela Marson, a Windsor local historian who worked at Caleys and has studied the Caley family, and she tells me she is very unhappy with the article on the John Lewis website. I have added a note to Sources, but would you be happy for me to remove your source, and my note of course?
LynwoodF (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bazza. Thank you for your reply. Caleys was part of my childhood and when I first saw the WP article, it was very disappointing, just some text and two tags. I recently found time to add a picture and some section headings, to give it some structure, and since then I have added some sources and expanded the lead section a little. Referencing will take a lot longer.
I, too, am very unhappy with the piece on the JL website. The early history is so inaccurate that I am loath to trust the bits I know less about. The author has jumped to naïve conclusions which are inconsistent with verifiable facts. For example, John Caley did not join the business in 1826; he was already heading it when, in 1823, it moved from Castle Street (now Castle Hill) to High Street. This is clear from an advert he placed in the Windsor Express.
There is an argument for leaving the JL website in the sources, along with the caveat. JL ought to be a prestigious source and sadly it isn't. Perhaps WP users ought to be warned! Frank. LynwoodF (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have me at a disadvantage as I am some years and a few thousand miles distant from London, but from what I recall the Bakerloo/Circle/District station was a little to the southeast of Paddington mainline (hence not a cross-platform interchange) while the H&C trains stopped at the furthermost (northern) reaches of the trainshed. And one of the sources I looked at said that the Crossrail line (will) run(s) under Eastbourne (?) Place, which appears to put it about a block away from the other platforms. Perhaps you could clarify this for me? Useddenim (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw your computer credentials on your User page and realised that you could probably help me. Bility wrote this .js script for me almost two years ago (and hasn't made any contributions since), but then all of a sudden it stopped working correctly. I posted a {{Helpme|JavaScript}} request and Rillke wrote Commons:User scripts/BSIcon (launch directly) which had a promising start—it worked fine until the recent mucking around with Mediawiki, and now it only finds deletions, not uploads—but was never finished and now he's also incommunicado.
Care to take a stab at fixing it? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style explicitly states "Do not use images to express textual information in place of real text.". Using road number images in place of text showing those numbers contravenes this, which is why I reverted all edits made by 86.130.177.49 to change text road numbers to images. Bazza (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are talking about icons in infoboxes, which is a specific sub-case of MOS:IMAGES. MOS:ICONdoes state "Do not use icons in general article prose", but indicates "Icons may be helpful ... in a table or infobox". In the case of RDTs, space is often at a premium, and {{UK road}} does provide a quick visual indication that it is a road rather than some railway-related feature. Having said that, I have no objection if the template is re-written to use formatted text instead of images, but the problem arises that whilst most A roads are yellow on green, some are signed black on white. How would these exceptions be handled? Useddenim (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are railway diagrams, not specifications of the signage on roads which may pass over or under railways. The fact that it is a road rather than railway, canal or other feature is indicated in the actual diagram itself. Additionally, I found those icons at the size used less than legible for some road numbers; the properties of the images themselves suggests that most usage is at a larger size. As the MoS states, using icons in place of text in the accompanying diagram text frustrates Wikipedia's indexing tools used for searching. For your information, most A roads in the UK are signed black on white; yellow on green is reserved for primary routes which are a minority of A roads. Out of interest, do you know what 86.130.177.49's motive was for using these icons on such a large number of articles at once (and was the edit which inserted them automated)? Bazza (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point of indexing an RDT is. The diagrammes are an adjunct to the article. I guess in my travels I've stuck to the major A roads. And I have no idea about 86.130.177.49. Useddenim (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't see the point of roads on RDTs anyway, unless they are somehow relevant to the line itself. Merely crossing one is not notable generally. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found your name at Category:User js (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), in the level-unspecified list of JavaScript programmers.
I was wondering how experienced you are at JavaScript, and whether you might be interested in getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.
The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library. If you know of any good ones, please add them.
If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.
Regarding the "snazzy road signs" - sorry, my bad.
I wonder if you can help update the template (or know someone who can)?
It currently shows the Oil Terminal as a non-passenger stop on the line into Staines West. In actual fact, it was on a branch off the main line to the station (see the old OS maps on this page: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/staines_west/index.shtml. The oil terminal was built on the site of the goods area).
I've been able to update the template with bridges by copying and pasting but inserting a new branch is a bit beyond my capabilities!
The change would also have to be reflected in the template for the Staines to Windsor Line.
@Barry Wom: Done. Also, please note that dates are generally not included on route diagrams when that information is in the (linked) article. And, unl;ess a station has been re-sited, the name shown is that used at closing. Useddenim (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is that he misrepresents your stance, by claiming you said anything about "defunct restaurant" while you were responding on "former restaurant". The Bannertalk02:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:The Banner I can't see anything above about what I may or may not have said, nor any representation about any stand I may or may not have had. I can offer support to you by suggesting that calming down and reading what people write before responding is often a good way of working. Bazza (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By now, the block attempt of Akld guy has failed. By and large, he got explained that my understanding of "defunct restaurant" was correct and his not. So I have put a polite request on the Language page to restore the "defunct restaurant"-phrase but I am afraid Akld guy and Marrakech will ignore that. The Bannertalk10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:The Banner I have seen that. My view is that "defunct" does not fulfil the Wikipedia requirement for using common terms. Nobody I know would say that "Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant in...", or "I see that Peacock Alley is defunct." They would say "Peacock Alley was a restaurant in...", or "Peacock Alley was/is a former restaurant in..." ("was" if the building of that name no longer exists, otherwise "is"); or "I see that Peacock Alley has closed/shut/ceased trading." I know you claim to be an excellent speaker of English, but the introduction on your User Page has a number of English grammar errors in it. I recommend you quietly and gracefully allow others, including me, to make changes to articles where the wording is less than optimal. Bazza (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I my English is not excellent but not half as rotten as A and M claim. And why should you "correct" something that is not wrong? Spoken language is often different from written language. The Bannertalk12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, since you ask Bazza 7 the rhetorical question "why should you "correct" something that is not wrong?" I would like to point out that the broadly supported 'was a restaurant' version actually preceded your contested 'is a defunct restaurant' phrasing. So by your own logic, why did you correct something that wasn't wrong? Marrakech (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how on earth can rectifying something that was indeed incorrect (everybody agrees that 'X is a former restaurant' is incorrect insofar as it doesn't convey the intended meaning) be wrong? Marrakech (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Marrakech @User:The Banner Fascinating though this continuing argument is, here is not the place to have it. If you want to retain (or add to) the above then copy it to the Language Reference desk, where it started; or, better still, the article's talk page. I will remove the paragraphs above relating to the discussion in a couple of days.
As you can see from this table that superimposes standard BSicon colors onto LUL colours, your choice of fuchsia is too light compared with maroon that I used (although it was probably hard to tell on a white background, and there is variation from monitor to monitor depending upon how they are calibrated). Admittedly, some combinations are much closer than others. Cheers. Useddenim (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: I had looked at those, albeit in the source for LUL colour. Given a choice between maroon and Fuchsia I picked the latter as it shows up significantly different from the standard BSicon STR colour to be clear as to its meaning. My logic was that the LUL colour is mid-red + quarter-blue + zero-green, or thereabouts: maroon lacks blue, whilst fuchsia has a smidgen of green but retains the correct proportion for red:blue, albeit too much of both (and ex-maroon is too close to H&City for comfort). And, as you say, perception is also dependant surrounding colours. I suppose there's an argument for producing an LUL set of icons, but it's certainly not a task I'd consider without some sort of automation; and, on reflection, it could result in exponential icon proliferation. It's a shame that the BSicon utililties can't set a colour on-the-fly; the SVG image files are just text, after all, and some sort of notation to indicate a base colour change wouldn't be too hard (e.g. "STR >#840b55"); not really my area of expertise, though. Nice table (which I've fiddled with slightly), by the way: are you going to place it somewhere safe? Bazza (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the appropriate place would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, but I would prefer to nail everything down first to avoid endless discussions that ‘chartreuse is better than cranberry’ or whatnot. I'm surprised that you added ochre for the Bakerloo, as ex maroon is spot-on on all (four) of my monitors. I could go either way on the Met (Watford or the City?), but DLR and the ‘Drain’ are probably the least satisfactory.
Dynamically assigning colours is an interesting idea, but the RDT tables are actually filled with .png thumbnails, not rendered on-the-fly from the svg code. (Tuvalkin, any thoughts?) Useddenim (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: Bakerloo: I see (on both my Toshiba laptop and Samsung tablet) brown for the background colour (Red≈Green*2, Blue=0); a purply line for ex maroon (R=G*2, B=G); and a lighter and slightly orangier version of the background colour for ochre (R=G*2, B=0). W&C+DLR: a pain, indeed. Having the BSicons with the LUL colours as a background may not be ideal. I've added a second table to give a different view. Feel free to fiddle! Bazza (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: Not particularly. You are right, of course. As for dynamically generated RDTs, well, it could be done and maybe all the BSicon work is a step in that direction, but lets not hold our breaths. As for ascertaining which RGB color of a given set is closer to some other reference RGB color, the eyeballmeter is a dull instrument: Better measure the tridimensional distance of those values, thinking of RGB in terms of XYZ. Tuvalkin (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore above, there's confusion over road names on the template, the road marked Hampstead Road on the template is Chalk Farm Road, and the lock marked Hampstead Road is Camden Lock. Sorry about that! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: No problem. I had to have a good look at the individual locks' articles (getting a bit confused in the process) and used their coordinates links (top right) to check maps of the area. Bazza (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I realize my warning about edit warring was too hasty, and I should have been more cautious with my edit summaries. I hope you will forgive my trespasses. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are in complete agreement over this, although it would be very surprising if we could get an admin to override the (poorly-phrased) source over "in" vs "of". So I suggest you remove the "not fixed" template, which makes you look like an admin refusing to make the change. Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC) . . . given that admins are also loath to override each other. Awien (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is going with this "The Rambling Man" person?? I mean, with all due respect, but Wikipedia isn't the place to vent their personal frustrations on unsuspecting good-faith editors. If anything they are currently disrupting the FAC of 2018 World Snooker Championship rather than the well-meaning editors of WP:SNOOKER.Tvx1 12:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as I noted there, I've done more to provide good advice at both the FAC and beforehand, than every other contributor at that FAC put together. And I'm not a person, I'm a dog. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza. At the Language Reference Desk on 30 May you wrote “... I’m not aware of any rules stating that information other than a direct answer must not be given.” Wikipedia doesn’t have rules but it does have guidelines. All Users who volunteer to respond to Reference Desk questions are encouraged to respect these guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Content and tone. In particular, please read the third paragraph, the one beginning “Questions usually attract more than one answer ...” Happy editing. Dolphin(t)12:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolphin51: I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. I'm well aware of the guidelines, and as far as I know respect them. You agreed on the Language Reference Desk with CodeTalker's statement that "The question is not how to rewrite the sentence to make it flow better. The question is which one of two words is correct in the original sentence. Answers which are proposing rewrites are not responsive to the question." I was pointing out that three users had already answered the question as asked; that I was, in effect, agreeing with paragraph three which you mentioned, and that I thought CodeTalker's instruction that responders should stick tightly to the original question (so not in the spirit of paragraph three) was a bit ironic as s/he had not answered it at all. If I've missed or misunderstood your comment above, please do enlighten me. Regards Bazza (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply. I think I misunderstood your intention in your 30 May posting.
A User responded to User:CodeTalker, saying “Can you define pedantic dogmatism? You seem good at it.” This response was facetious and likely to be embarrassing or humiliating to CodeTalker (a relatively inexperienced User.) Any attempt to embarrass or humiliate others on the Ref Desks is unacceptable. I then responded, expressing support for CodeTalker, to counter the facetious response to which he had been subjected.
Next, you responded, saying “I’m not aware of any rules stating that information other than a direct answer must not be given.” I interpreted your response as a defence of Cullen’s facetious remark to CodeTalker. I now see that your response was unrelated to Cullen’s remark, and was not an attempt to defend facetious or embarrassing remarks on the Ref Desks, so I apologise for my error.
I alerted Cullen that I thought his response to CodeTalker was incompatible with the Guidelines. Cullen responded most appropriately so I thanked him for that. Dolphin(t)13:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand that a much trafficked featured article such as India requires balancing a wide variety of lexical, syntactical, and semantic interpretations, not to mention prescriptions and POVs. "Officially" had been in the lead sentence for some 12 years. But last December, in my absence, some people found "officially" troubling, in part because they read it as "officially named," i.e. named by an official process etc. They had an RfC, and changed it to, "also known as the Republic of India." I've managed to change it back but on condition that "officially" not be used. That is what I am dealing with. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a reply on ERRORS, you said that the common English name for Rossini's opera is The Barber of Seville. That may be true for some, still. Only, our sentence on the MP mentions the world premiere, which was given in Italian, not English. As in my comment in the morning: the featured article Rossini does not proclaim that he composed The Barber. Why don't we educate Main page readers a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your thoughts. My own two-penn'orth: ironically, the article on Rossini you linked to does state that he composed The Barber: During this period he produced his most popular works including the comic operas L'italiana in Algeri, Il barbiere di Siviglia (known in English as The Barber of Seville) and La Cenerentola...; so, in English the common name is The Barber of Seville. The link itself takes me to an article titled The Barber of Seville, which informs me the work has another English name, and that in Italian it is called Il barbiere di Siviglia. English Wikipedia should use English names where they are common in that language (as in this case, stated specifically in the article), and inform readers where appropriate of other names where appropriate (as it does in this case). In cases where space is at a premium (as on the English main page), then clear communication should take precedence in obtaining readers' attention so they may be directed to more detailed information. Bazza (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thought. I see a BIG difference between "He composed The Barber of Seville." and "He composed Il barbiere di Siviglia (known in English as The Barber of Seville)". The latter is correct, and the former is not. The featured article is precise, the article on the opera itself is unfortunately not up to par, but that should be no reason to not have the MP precise, imho, especially since the work is no longer performed in English under an English title at major opera houses of which I linked four, in New York, Berlin, Vienna, Zürich. The English title is not common any more. Did you know that all other operas by Rossini are here under their real title? ... and the list of his operas doesn't even feature the English name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vchimpanzee: If you are using a Windows PC (laptop or desktop), I'd recommend installing Irfanview and giving it a go. You can get the software at [1] and you can always ask for help. I have uploaded a cropped version of the picture . I produced this by checking the copyright on the original to check I was allowed to proceed, then:
Hi, saw your revert. The Oxford English Dictionary states that variety meaning several different sorts of the same thing is a singular noun. It gives the following example: There is a wide variety of patterns to choose from. So the original was correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Denisarona:. Did you see my previous revert as well? I thought the same as you after another user had changed "is" to "are". But subsequently checking [2] (powered by Oxford Dictionaries), I found section 1.1 states "a variety of: A number or range of things of the same general class that are distinct in character or quality.", and gives ‘Instead, there are a variety of different genes which appear to be linked to the disease.’ as an example of usage. It appears, at first glance, that the construction "a variety of" is being treated the same way as "many", or a specific number such as "seven". I was slightly disappointed to see that my original correction was questionable at least, but felt unable to retain it in light of the evidence I'd found. I've asked a question at the Language reference desk. Regards, Bazza (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your interest and seeming knowledge of related topics, would you be interested in the WP:Template editor user right? You can review the usual criteria for granting, but I'm willing to grant without meeting all of them. (The one consideration I was wavy on was your edit summary use actually; you might consider turning on the preference that requires an edit summary.) Let me know. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Hello. If you think me having template editor permissions would be helpful for WP, then I'm happy with that. I've read the criteria, and they're mostly about common sense stuff used for any software release. I've enabled mandatory edit summaries on my account: thanks for pointing me to it. Bazza (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza 7! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at United Kingdom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. AussieWikiDan(talk)13:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieWikiDan: Thanks for noticing my error. The edit started as a rearrangement of text which I almost saved with the "minor" box ticked. But I noticed at the last minute that the info needed to move elsewhere or be removed, so did that then saved again. Unlike source editing (which I usually use), the visual editor (which I used this time) remembers the setting between almost saving and a later save; it's a pain and I wish it didn't do that. Bazza (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment, "Agreed. The article has a strong (if not exclusive) US slant to it, including the terminology used ("elementary", "middle school", "PTA", "grade", "affiliate station", etc.) Claiming it to be the first such film in the US might be ok, but the article doesn't explicitly say that." I based the hook on a reliable source. The article doesn't say the first in the US because that would be original research. The article has a US slant because the film was produced in the US and the reaction to it was in the US. I'm not going to add original research to the article. SL93 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the major plainlist edit, that's something I'd not seen before and certainly meets the middle ground between the presented page looking awful and the edit page being huiman readable.
What's your thoughts on the Russo-Japanese War edit made by Mr IP Address? I am disinclined to put a show in before the title and details are on the BBC website. I agree that the picture would be consistent with R-JW as a title, but could be the Battle of Port Arthur or something about the Japanese modernisation and arms race of the late 19th/early 20th century. Nickpheas (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickpheas: The plainlist template (there are others as well) has the benefit of ensuring the article meets WP:ACCESSIBILTY. I've got in the habit of replacing any lists with manual line breaks with templates, although the IOT list was a bit of a bigger bite than initially appreciated! I was intending to go back through the titles and remove some of the more esoteric linking, but have run out of steam for the time being.
"An" halibut is said with a deft tongue in cheek, if I recall correctly. Fowler, in Modern English usage, decried the affectation, but I don't have my copy (nor Birchfield) with me at present, so please take that as "unreferenced"! Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at 09:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bazza. I was looking at your correction concerning the first commercially successful locomotive (Steam locomotive paragraph 2), which leads me to ask a question: does Ellis, Hamilton (1968), The pictorial encyclopedia of railways, pp. 24-30, cover the Salamanca and state that it was the first "commercially successful steam locomotive"? I wonder what "commercially successful" means? I have no means of checking any of this, nor of checking whether it even covers the original contention; the fact that the ref supports several purported facts just makes me wonder. This is just an innocent question; asking it now could conceivably save your crafted words from the attentions of the odd swivel-eyed loon. :-)
Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at 09:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SCHolar44: Not my crafted words, I'm afraid, but a shortened sentence from Salamanca's lead. I changed the original wording because it said that John Blenkinsop built the loco; this contradicted both the infobox and the Salamanca article itself (JB designed it, not built it, it says). As to "commercially successful", that was there before my edit. I tend towards a "less is more" or "keep it simple" approach to articles which have links to other detailed ones, such as in this case. Feel free to clarify or improve more, especially to iron out any other inconsistencies. Bazza (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, where exactly is the point in Spain that is the closest to Africa. Without this information the statement that it is x miles from Africa is utter nonsense and completely unsupported by actual measurement. All statements that do not provide this info are baseless and illegitimate. Zengalileo (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zengalileo: You haven't done me the courtesy of stating (and linking to) the article you are referring to in your complaint. It can't be Strait of Gibraltar because that article states very clearly The two continents are separated by 13 kilometres (8.1 miles; 7.0 nautical miles) of ocean at the Strait's narrowest point between Point Marroquí in Spain and Point Cires in Morocco. I'm not sure why you think I will fix such an issue for you: you can do some research yourself to find a reliable source for the information you want and add it to whichever article it is. Failing that, add your request in more respectful terms to the article's talk page and some kind editor may be able to supply the information you require. Bazza (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Hello, thanks for the elaboration. That makes sense now, but I don't see how referencing that can be taken as evidence that one or both of 378 and 710 are used on the service in question (Watford Junction to London Euston). If I'm missing something, let me know and I'll put the full reference you gave back in the article. Bazza (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either: but when I see the letters "BS" I automatically think of British Standard (my father was once a consultant for the British Standards Institute, from which I got several free trips to London); particularly when I see a series of figures soon after - so I popped the whole ref into the search feature on their website, which turned up the two links above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit by IMPNFHU Looks okay to me. The Punjabi Wikipedia page pa:ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਵਰਣਮਾਲਾ does not look like vandalism; it looks like a stub.
Interwikis are handled by Wikidata these days, but the easiest way to effect that, especially for someone not familiar with the somewhat arcaneness of Wikidata, is to just add the interwiki as IMPNFHU did; a bot will detect it, update Wikidata correctly, and then delete the interwiki. I've been known to take this lazy way out myself: adding the interwiki, which then triggers the bot to update Wikidata and remove the triggering interwiki link. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC: Thanks. My mistake about pa:ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਵਰਣਮਾਲਾ: I'd got Google Chrome to translate and forgot I was reading the letters' names as an imperfect translation. And thanks for the information about updating interwiki data: I've learnt something new! Bazza (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I know that this is a very quick reply, but I just happened to be on Wikipedia when I noticed that you reversed my edits on United Kingdom. This was the consensus that I was talking about. In my view, Wikipedia:Consensus is easily met here as all legitimate concerns of editors were incorporated, with the added bonus that no editors dissented from my suggested edits. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit stands. That is I do not dispute it. There is not doubt English, especially in the public arena is becoming simplified. There is a Basic English version of wikipedia, in an easier language. The word prefixed is, I will grant you (concede), not "accessible" in that context. I think the word which being a poet, or wordsmith, you were seeking or I was seeking is "beginning with". I don't think we are all so bad at language to not grasp the detail being offered. I see you have trimmed a lot of rot per WP:TLDR and WP:GEO which strongly states "located" is a piece of garbage. Well done. And try not to call me nonsensical. It is not impossible to follow at all.- Adam37Talk17:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Refers to [3]) @Adam37: I know about simple.wikipedia, and I understand sarcasm and irony. I also know about WP:BRD: the article's talk page would have been the better place to agree the wording for this article. I did not call you nonsensical: that would be rude. "no sense" was a reference to the words written: "It operates in the Heathrow Terminal 5 complex and conveys air passengers between the main airport terminal and departure and arrival gates which are prefixed B and C, in the terminal's two satellite buildings." I'm pretty sure I know what was meant, but some speaking English as a second language may not be able to work it out at the first attempt: lots of "ands", and what is meant by saying a gate is prefixed with (or worse begins with) a letter? As for "which are located some distance", I fail to understand what extra the L-word adds. Probably all a result of too many years making technical specifications precise as well as concise and understandable by people who have ESL: feel as free to restore and improve the information you wanted to impart. Bazza (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry for bad English. You have deleted a phrase from the voice in object, in effect I was rewriting it as: It must be remembered that this values it's valid for the medium value of semi-major axe, it change a little if the planet it's at its perihelion or aphelion. Do it's correct now? Best greetings. --84.253.136.14 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to be rigorous we should speak of data of three Hill spheres, one for medium value of semi-major axe, one for perihelion and one for aphelion, in the reality the real Hill sphere change a very little each second between the value of that at perihelion and the value of that at aphelion, three discussions was wrote on the talk of the voice. I want a flame war then for me the matter it's finish now. Best greetings. --84.253.136.14 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For amusement only: your version is exactly what I did first but decided that writing the fraction using a slash was too ugly. The output of {{math}} is ugly too so I will let it stand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my rudeness towards you on the Reference Desk today. You did nothing to deserve it, and your answer was spot on correct. I offer no excuse, merely that I apologize and that I am sorry for what I did. --Jayron3217:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you recently tried to engage with Robin75aw over his excessive and often misleading overlinking of various articles. I've also tried to get him to moderate his approach and got a rude reply to the effect he had no intention of changing regardless of what anyone else said. I see he has subsequently deleted yours and my messages on his talk page. Much as I hate to propose banning an enthusiastic editor I feel his current behaviour amounts to calculate vandalism. As a more experienced editor than me, how do you think this should be tackled? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: Hello, thanks for your note. You're right, Robin75aw looks to be a pain: not particularly harmful but happy to make work for others. They have been a user only since September 2021, so may need a bit of a jolt to remind them it's not a free-for-all. I may have been editing on and off for a while, but I'm not experienced in reporting this sort of thing, but the guidelines for such occasions suggest a first step is to engage (which we've both unsuccessfully done), including using standard templates for disruptive conduct. Following the most recent example at Leckhampstead, Berkshire, I've just done that, so we'll see what happens next. Bazza (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: Yes. (Though their editing of Lambourn this morning did not contain any of the characteristic blatant breeches of MOS:OVERLINK we've noticed elsewhere; it took me quite a bit of work, though, to check each of the @@ edits to ascertain this. I subsequently withdrew the new {{subst:Uw-linking}} notice I'd already added.) Bazza (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your edits, but, just FYI and for the sake of future copy edits, "differences from" is proper English usage when one of the two things being compared can be implied by the reader (as in the topic of a Wikipedia article referenced by a section header). An example: "Grass is green. Differences from the sky include color." Cheers! RiverCityRelay (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi there! I see my edit was reverted on English orthography and thought I'd touch base to see how Invisible Letters and the examples given could fit into another article. I see the reason is "confusing letters with sound", but as Invisible Letters are the direct opposite of Silent Letters and technically involve the absence of letters I felt it was still suitable in this article. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. CineBrick315 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JalenFolf: Yes, that would make sense. Afterwards, the Crossrail category could be recreated to include those stations on the constructed Crossrail line (Paddington to Abbey Wood), but I'll leave that to experts such as yourself: I'm not a category user or editor, hence my rather blunt reversion for which I apologise. (P.S. It's Elizabeth line, with two small "l"s.) Bazza (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi. Concerning the editing on the List of Black Mirror episodes page, I edited to include the "é" as the word "Pokémon" is spelt, without observing the source. You corrected this and I reverted your correction, which was hence reverted. I would rather keep the correct spelling than use the source's spelling but that is not the guideline I suppose? Thus you were correct and I shalt contemplate reality more. Thanks for editing. ButterCashier (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ButterCashier: Hello, thanks for the acknowledgement. If the spelling in question had been in plain text in an article, I wouldn't have given your change a second thought, but as it's essentially quoting another publication I think it ought to remain as The Independent published it, without the accent. The {{Cite web}} template simply says that its title parameter should be "The title of the source page on the website; will display with quotation marks added. Usually found at the top of your web browser. Not the name of the website."; I can't find any more useful guidance. I'd have said the same if the text had been quoted from the source, perhaps adding a [sic]. Regards, Bazza (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza, you recently contributed helpfully to the Talk discussion on the 'Ireland' page - specifically in the 'Second-largest island in the British Isles' section. Discussion here has rather picked up in recent days (since I have come across it). You might like to view this and put in additional comment...and invite like-minded users to do so also. Best regards, Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman It's miserable weather and I needed a challenge! I read yesterday about the work going on around Bletchley and have it as something to add. Thanks for your suggestion and encouragement. Would adding the new high-level station also be appropriate, do you think? Bazza (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, that would be going too far. Bletchley High-level is part of East West Rail and not MVL. I guess that when the route becomes part of EWR in a couple of year's time, the MVL article will become an historic record, as per the Varsity Line article: I don't think it is appropriate to show infrastructure that was never a part of it. But maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways may take a different view?
Looking at google maps again, the BF is generally used to refer to the crossing south of BLE. The MVL goes under a spur (to MKC) of that elevated segment but I know of no recognised name for that bridge (at 51.998802, -0.735513).
Finally, if you have an interest in the nitty-gritty of track construction, the "Newsletters" listed at East West Rail#External links have hours of entertainment for a grotty Sunday afternoon. The drone aerial survey alone is well worth a visit. The most recent edition gives some details the high-level station (in the "Central Bletchley" section). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen your edit to the RDT. Definitely 6.0 for artistic impression as well as for technical merit. Displays the main lines much more clearly. Applause. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza7, btw I added the edit warring it to the talk page because I wanted to see what everything thinks. Hope that's ok. Like you, I personally think it is maroon, but want to see what the community says... Roads4117 (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a software expert and vector image editor (from your user page) so i request you to fix the image as you suggested me to ask any technical expert. so i am asking you. please take a look. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make unnecessary reverts like this. I made this edit per Help:Dummy edit. It was not necessary to revert that edit if you wished to discuss the issue, since it did not change what was displayed on the page.
In any case, I fail to see how "Metro station in New York, United States" is better than "New York City Subway station in Brooklyn". This made the short description less specific, from specifying a more exact location to just mentioning the state and country. "New York City" is pretty well-known, and there is no doubt that even non-Americans would recognize it; "New York, United States" can mean anywhere in the state. Furthermore, changing "subway" to "metro" may violate WP:ENGVAR, as "subway" is commonly used in the US. Since "subway" is also part of the New York City Subway system's common name, "New York City Subway" is descriptive enough that I feel a change to the short description is not necessary. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius As described in WP:DUMMYEDIT, you should not be making dummy edits for the sole purpose of making a comment or expressing your opinion. I did not wish to discuss any issue, but revert an edit made for an invalid reason.
You may fail to see how one short description is better than another; in other parts of the world, subway has a different meaning. My edit was to apply WP:COMMONALITY. The Wikipedia app, which I use to improve short descriptions, does not give the opportunity to explain such changes. Your persistent and long argument against my edit has been unnecessary: I am at ease with most reversions of changes I make to short descriptions, including this one. Regards, Bazza (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding dummy edits, I understand; thanks for your reply. Next time, I will take it up on the user's talk page. I apologize for my brusque reaction earlier; I thought your revert was a little strange given that it itself reverted a WP:COSMETIC edit.Regarding the short descriptions, I also can see why you made the edit. However, the short description on "NYC Subway station in X" already is used on about 600 pages; as such, it was already following WP:COMMONALITY with respect to these other pages. I agree that the Wikipedia app is very difficult to deal with when editing short descriptions, since you can't give a summary at all; when I'm using the app, I usually just edit the lead section so I can leave an edit summary when changing a short description.The reason I gave such a long explanation in my dummy edit, and on your talk page, is that I noticed that Kew Gardens 613 did not leave any explanation when reverting your edit. I merely wanted to explain my position in case you were wondering why your edit was reverted seemingly without explanation, but if you have no objection to the revert, I will drop the issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sectional Appendix reference was not just for length it was also for the electrification. Also it is a reference for GWR TOC it is just that it requires adding up of all of the mileage and chainage. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bazza, I see you have reverted an edit of mine to the Strait of Gibraltar article, explaining that "the Strait" is an abbreviation of a proper name, similar to "the States".
It seems to me that any strait can be called "the strait" in context, because that's what it is, a strait. For example, the Strait of Magellan article repeatedly refers to "the strait". But "strait" isn't capitalized in that article when used alone because "the strait" is just a common noun phrase.
I have also seen this kind of capitalization applied to "the Bay" in the Chesapeake Bay article, but again, it seems to me that any bay can be called "the bay" in context and that this is just a common noun phrase; see Hudson Bay, for example.
So I am wondering if you can share a good guideline or rule of thumb that you follow to determine when a phrase like "the Strait" is a proper nickname and should be capitalized, as opposed to being simply the common noun phrase "the strait". —Bkell (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkell: Hello Bkell, Thanks for taking the trouble to discuss our edits. I've found no rules or guidance on this: WP:PLACE gives no guidance for what we're looking for, and neither does MOS:CAPS. I've taken "the Strait" as an abbreviation of "the Strait of Gibraltar" and therefore kept it's capital "S". I'd do the same with "the States" for "the United States", "the Strait" for Strait of Hormuz, as well as your pertinent examples above. That may be an influence of my location on an island, separated from the mainland by the Channel. The authors of Strait of Magellan and Straits of Mackinac obviously didn't have the same thought as me. Do you think a question at WP:HD, WP:RD/Language or WT:MOS might be in order? Bazza (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think "the States" is a particularly good example of this phenomenon, because "the States" means something different from "the states". As a common noun phrase, "the states" is plural—it refers to two or more states (in the context of the United States specifically, perhaps all 50 states). But "the States" refers to a single entity, the United States. They mean different things even in the context of the United States. For example, in a sentence like "The U.S. Constitution reserves certain powers to the states," it is necessary to use "the states" and would be wrong to write "the States" (unless you're writing in the 18th century when it was usual to capitalize common nouns), because the sentence is referring to the individual states and not the country. On the other hand, if I am abroad and introduce myself by saying "I'm from the States", that has to be capitalized, because I mean the United States; I'm not claiming I am from multiple individual states. I wouldn't use "the States" as shorthand for the United States in an encyclopedic setting because it's too informal, but I would freely use "the states" if referring to several individual states. (Similarly for "the Emirates" referring to the UAE.)
The main question here is what objective phenomenon makes the Strait of Gibraltar so special that it gets to be "the Strait" while the Strait of Magellan is only "the strait", or what gives Chesapeake Bay the privilege of being "the Bay" while Hudson Bay is just "the bay". I think it would be good for Wikipedia to have some explicit guidance here. Currently we are not consistent even within a single article: the Strait of Gibraltar article contains several instances of "the strait", and San Francisco Bay is almost equally divided between "the Bay" and "the bay" (similarly for the Strait of Hormuz). Even if you personally would capitalize all of these, I expect that you'd draw a line somewhere: I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to any particular ocean as "the Ocean", for example. And what about the Bosporus? It would seem strange to say that any strait that happens to have "Strait" in its name gets to be "the Strait", but the Bosporus has to be "the strait".
Your recent editing history at Black Mirror shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
@Bilorv: "Reoccur" is a word. A person (even if they are an actor) cannot reoccur (unless you subscribe to reincarnation). I hadn't understood that you and I have been reverting each other (nor, I had assumed, been engaged in an edit war), but coming to an agreed form of words for what was a bit of a mess. (My last edit summary suggested we ought to do this via the article's talk page, and that's probably what we each should have done.) I agree with you that there are too many instances of "episode(s)": if you have better wording for that, then please go ahead and accept my apologies for not taking time to do the same myself. Bazza (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted to reinstate the exact phrase "Actors rarely re-occur between episodes". Then you reverted to remove the exact phrase "... if it did not bar [Paul] from reoccurring". I've no idea what your belief about the word is or where it comes from. Whatever—there are other words. One is "reappearing".Your latest edit summary says "reappearing" where? It is clear what an "appearance" of an actor in a series is. The topic of the paragraph is actors appearing in unrelated roles in the series. It is clear from context that "reappearing" means "Paul appearing in another role in the series". But you reverted to introduce something I highlighted as poor wording.So if you believe "reoccur" is wrong and "reappear" is wrong then pick whatever you like so long as it doesn't directly reintroduce something another editor has removed with a reasonable rationale. — Bilorv (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: Yes, "ragù" is fine without being marked as an Italian word, although it is more often written "ragu" in English: see English dictionary entries for ragu and ragù.
Hi, I saw that you removed the italics from "tortellini", but on "Emilia-Romagna" section you didn't. So does it go in italics or not? I would like to ask you if "tortelloni" "tortelli", "pecorino sardo" and "maccheroni" also go in italics. Thank you. Please answer me, because I am following your changes and if you remove the italics from a food I will also remove them in parts of the page where you have forgotten. JackkBrown (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know tortelli, but some of those dictionaries seem to. I know percorino, but not with "sardo" attached, although I think you've had discussions with other editors about that. What Italians call maccheroni has been known for many years as "macaroni" in English and, IMHO, is what it should be called on the English Wikipedia, even on pages about Italian food; macaroni ([undefined] <span style="color:#d33">Error: {{Langx}}: no text ([[:Category:Lang and lang-xx template errors|help]])</span>) giving "macaroni (Italian: maccheroni)" would be acceptable in such cases.
There are likely many other similar words which have found their way from Italian into English enough to be considered "adopted"
I will give you, again, the same advice as before which others have also recommended: do not get absorbed by the need for perfection: the world is not black-and-white, especially when it comes to things like culture and language, and pursuing perfection can lead to disappointment and frustration. Bazza (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7: it doesn't matter, but since you took care of the italics on this page, it seemed right to finish the job, also and especially because another user (me, for example) might have a different idea and put "tortelli" (example) in italics when you would like to put it not in italics, which would ruin the coherence of the whole page. JackkBrown (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, you are probably right. Commonality takes away a lot from the English (both British and American versions) language. Allision comes up occasionally on Wikipedia discussions but it has been a while since I has seen it mentioned, so I thought I would throw it out again tho see how it would float. There is a distinct legal difference between allision and collision. Thank you for bothering to look up the definition of allision and reverting my edit. You did it with uncommon style! Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
It is actually the price of a pound in US dollars. The value is its purchasing power. But I'm afraid that to argue the distinction would qualify as a WP:RGW and a wp:common name vio. Sigh. I won't pursue. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF: I am with you on this confusion; and have just logged on again to revisit my previous edit after doing something else for a while. It doesn't help that the diagram is not very good. I'll give it another tweak; if others don't like it, they can suggest other clear wording. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet you've opened a hornets' nest with that edit. Quoted exchange rate is the mid-point between 'buy' and 'sell' rates. For ex., if today's rate is $1.25, if you want to buy a £1,000,000, it'll cost you say $1,260,000. But if you want to sell a £1,000,000, you will be offered $1,240,000. More or less. Well, less of course, the house always wins. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF: Your request has sat here unanswered for far longer than it should have — apologies. I have updated the caption at Black Wednesday. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. The diagram is pretty rubbish as it has no legend or values for the Y axis, but it's a PNG and would require redrawing, which I'm not about to do. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Done. Also, please note that dates are generally not included on route diagrams when that information is in the (linked) article. And, unl;ess a station has been re-sited, the name shown is that used at closing. Useddenim (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Italian cuisineMoved to Talk:List of Italian dishes
