User talk:WatcherZero

Welcome!

Hello, WatcherZero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Jza84 |  Talk  01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Cable is Business Secretary, that would make him Secretary of State for Business and Whatsit, not a junior minister at Treasury. Anyway, where is the source? -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source. -Rrius (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, really value your corrections and positive comments. The last bit was too opinionated. I wondered, does the BRT section still need further neutralising? Regards Nostalgic34 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate you making any changes you feel that are appropriate. This is my first non-music album article so lots to learn (I really hate BRT systems!). Cheers Nostalgic34 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces and add any comments you might have. Thanks :) Raywil (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your new ref re the Starr Gate depot doesn't seem to work, as www.blackpooltrams.info seems to be inaccessible. David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have the reference that I used in the above article (Colin Speakeman (1985). Public Transport in West Yorkshire, Ten Years of Achievement. Metro–West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. ISBN 0951020102. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)) and it is quite clear about the formation of the Executive, as an Executive in 1974. Nowhere in the book does it mention the entity "West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority". It was written by the Director General of the WYPTE. Could you provide a reference that the WYPTE was formed as the WYPTA? Scillystuff (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I've found the proof in another wiki article - Passenger Transport Executive which quotes "The 1974 reorganisation also abolished the PTAs, and their role was taken over by the Metropolitan county councils (MCCs). However when the MCCs were abolished in 1986, the PTAs were re-created." So it had to have been an executive in 1974 and did not become an authority again until 1986, one year after my reference was written. Scillystuff (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the line Altrincham -Bury off the diagram as all it seems to do is disrupt the formatting: I can't see what information it provides is not given anyway. Now, however, there is no disruption on the template but it does not display properly on the article. Any idea why? Britmax (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Deansgate-Castlefield and Piccadilly Gardens long names, that Altrincham-Bury but you removed (which I support you on, was irritating to me too) was causing the template to autosize so that it wasnt an issue now its gone the infobox is 300px wide but those names require the box to be 335px wide, to solve it we really need to make Deansgate-Castlefield a multi line name or to narrow the route map in some other way. WatcherZero (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Can you "check Hammonds speech to the commons" yourself - eg by providing a reference to it. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - readers should be able to find and read the source of the information. Thank you. There is no mention of 2016 in this statement from Philip Hammond either [2] - what is the source ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some particular disability which prevents you from adding formatted references yourself, including the full details without being prompted to do it? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that we're free to come up with our own system. I emailed the National Rail Museum with this:

Since British Rail was privatized are the locomotive TOPS classes (ie: Class 60) still referred to as "British Rail Class: 60" or has it changed to something else (ie: 'Class 60', 'TOPS: Class 60', etc.)

There's a slight dispute over this on Wikipedia, and I'd like to help by securing a final, reliable answer, (Plus I'm a little curious myself.)

I got this response:

Thank you for your enquiry. Oddly enough, I can’t find a definitive answer to your question. Most publications I’ve seen produced by railway companies seem to just use “Class 60” etc. Whether there is an official terminology for it I have no idea!

Sorry for the lack of a conclusive answer.

Not sure if this helps, but I figured I'd pass along the information. Good luck with it. --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion are you refrring to? If you read the discussion on the template talk page, it was agreed they could be removed. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years

I did not create {{Britishmetros}}. That was Duncharris (talk · contribs). Having London Underground and Glasgow Subway on the light rail template implies they are light rail, whiich they are not. Light rail does not necessarily mean metro system, although the Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway fall into both categories. In fact Welshleprechaun readded the national rail links. Do you think we should reopen this to a wider audience? Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in to the details relating to the Manchester Metrolink passenger numbers reference you added a while back, which is a very good reference. However, there are two quite important issues that have been overlooked. The exact wording currently used in the article is:

"In their defence GMPTE pointed to the more than doubling of passenger numbers over a period of fifteen years compared to their previous status as proof that the conversions are popular and increase usage, passenger numbers have risen 160% since opening in 1992 and 2008"

Your reference shows that 8.1 million passengers used the service in the 1992/3 financial year. However, only the Victoria-Bury section was open in April 1992 which means we would expect the 1993/4 year figures to be higher as the Altrincham line was open for the full year.

There is a further issue in that starting in 1999 a new, non-converted Eccles line opened and passenger numbers increased significantly soon after this. The Eccles line figures are obviously included in the spreadsheet you've referenced to but they are certainly can't be used as "proof that the conversions are popular and increase usage"

I'll attempt to rewrite this section later on today to be more transparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstudent (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You added the comment saying "By 2002/3 passenger numbers were 5% in excess of expected maturity ridership, which makes it the only new tram system to exceed targets." For it to exceed targets phase 1 needed over 12 million passengers at maturity - which it got. However, phase 2 needed over 6 million at maturity to exceed targets. There isn't anything to say phase 2 exceeded 6.0 million passengers before 2005, only that the combined usage for the two phases reached just under 20 million. If phase 1 had, for example, 16 million passengers at that stage it would mean that Metrolink phase 1 exceeded expected maturity ridership but Metrolink phase 2 under achieved, so there isn't enough evidence at present to say overall Metrolink exceeded expected maturity ridership, unless you can find detailed figures for Metrolink phase 2. Sheliaval (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In response to your corrections made to the Greater Manchester Statutory City Region, I would like to explain why I felt it was so necessary to change the name on the page. If you look at the sufficient details, you will notice that the city region covers not only the City of Manchester, but the whole Greater Manchester county; and indeed some other external areas - so as it covers more than just Manchester, you'll find that the proper name is 'Greater Manchester Statutory City Region', not only because of the area it covers, but because 'Manchester City Region' is only an alternative name for the city region because it's based mainly around Manchester. Hope this could shed some light on the matter. Thanks. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the city region included the Cheshire district of Warrington as part of it and the districts of Congleton, Macclesfield and Vale Royal before their abolition in the local government reshuffle in 2009; it also included the Derbyshire district of High Peak. Further reading, it says that the city region now covers just the Greater Manchester county and comes under the governance of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), so as you can see that the city region still covers more than just the City of Manchester. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With both the GMCA and the AGMA being set up to provide the top tier authority throughout Greater Manchester, the statutory city region has been left very much redundant when it comes to strategic governance then. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining that to me in further detail. I didn't know about that. :) JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems you said "for a change of this magnitude a page should be prepared in namespace at a complete or near complete stage before change process is begun". This appears to suggest that it is possible to prepare a new page or set of interlinked pages separately and not make them visible until they are ready. This is something that I have previously wanted to do, but I could not find an explanation of how to do it. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Neil Strickland (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my user page. Neil Strickland (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed this edit you made on the talk page of Midland Metro. Just thought I'd let you know that me and a few other editors have given the article a massive makeover, and deleted most of the bloated crap that was there previously, and made it far more concise and neutral. G-13114 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your changes in maps of Blackpool tramway network. I was basing on SVG over PNG Wikipedia principle and more informative map vs less informative map principle. I removed old PNG schema because it has multiple flaws - it showed wrong scale (compare loop size to system length), it does not have background and it does not show old dismantled part of system. Please do not revert my changes but first of all add entry on article discussion page Talk:Blackpool tramway and let community discuss which map is more informative. Now article has 3 maps - route schema, modern coastal line and dismantled city lines which I think is ok (please compare to for example Warsaw Tramway --Jkan997 (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Template:Orders_for_and_deliveries_of_Airbus_and_Boeing_aircraft, especially simplifying the citations. Ex nihil (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Amistad (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Merseyrail. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting on this article and seek consensus on the article's talk page. Tiderolls 15:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is two editors following existing consensual practise (When it last came up several years ago) for the page and one anonymous editor trying to edit it. WatcherZero (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute regarding the content of the article; that is a lack of consensus. If you revert to your version of the article again without determining consensus you will be jeopardizing your editing privilege. Tiderolls 21:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus had been previously reached the last time the issue arose (when Boeing were claiming AWAC orders as commercial passenger jets) and I wasn't the only one reverting this changes. I also provided the evidence used to support the previous consensus that as Airbus didn't include military jets and the page is focused on civil aviation competition that it was not comparable, a complete history of Airbus orders with no A330 tanker orders included http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=231951 .

You are making a case here for your content when you should be attempting to persuade your fellow editors on the article's talk page. You need to understand that as an admin I am, for the most part, not interested in content. Please take your reasoning to the article's talk page and determine what consensus may exist for your version of the article. Tiderolls 12:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists there as there has been no changes or talk requests since the change which is why I was confused as to your interest. WatcherZero (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Powerless (TV series)#Adam West. -- Alex^TW 03:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.[reply]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Your latest comment on this article is as interesting as it is unexpected ... do you have a source for the claim the the current Orion can perform two way missions to low lunar orbit? If the delta-V capability is close to 1900 m/s rather than 1300 m/s as you say, then there would be no need for the near rectilinear halo orbit! This would imply a much greater internal propellant tankage as per the Rocket Equation, dV=Isp*LN(1+PropellantMass / DryMass). This does not seem right to me as the current lunar lander proposals for Artemis apparently assume the Orion/Gateway would _not_ be located in a low lunar orbit. Mlindroo (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have been trying to add sources to the article for all weight, size, volume etc. figures. To me, it seems safer to merely compare the propellant volume of the Apollo CSM and Orion SM for now as I cannot find a reliable recent source for the 1,800 m/s estimate. The 1,800 m/s figure would imply a payload of 6 metric tons only, instead of 10 MT. The official ESA EM-1 sources claim the SM weighs 13,500 kg although e.g. Gunter's Space Page quotes a different figure (15,461 kg).

I can indeed find multiple references to delta-V=6000 fps / 1800 meters per second in the literature if I go back ten years, though! According to my sources, the Constellation version of Orion needed a higher dV since (a) it was to be separately launched on an Ares I so it needed enough propellant to rendezvous and dock in Earth orbit with the unmanned Ares V-launched Altair lander+translunar injection stack, (b) lunar orbit margins & contingency orbital plane change to rendezvous with Altair again. Also, the command module capsule was assumed to weight 8t instead of 10t+ today. The end result of all this is a _de facto_ reduction from 1.8km/s to 1.3 km/s as per multiple sources. Mlindroo (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally on their front page. --mfb (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it, after the story had been around nearly a week they published just after I made the page edit and their story Accuses Walmart of just trying to renege on a financial deal.WatcherZero (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sixth-generation jet fighter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republic of Taiwan. 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) 06:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WatcherZero

I am really really confused by your edit. Your saying Salford is a city and has been since since 1924. Yet Salford page is just district and a city. Yet the wider borough is a city. If that's the case shouldn't Salford say city or main city district as just saying district makes zero sense. Especially given it is a city as you say. How can it be a district and city? You don't see Wakefield or Leeds the main pages saying district they say city. Salford being called district but not a city makes zero sense. RailwayJG (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First I made a typo, was 1926 not 1924, but anyway Salford is a district of the City of Salford, its not that confusing. The County Borough of Salford was granted city status in 1926^[1] in 1961 a part of Eccles was added to the city, when the Metropolitan counties were created in 1974 the former County Borough of Salford was expanded to take in many other towns and the city status was expanded to cover the whole City of Salford borough of Greater Manchester^[2]. If your confused your probably best looking at the city of Stoke-On-Trent, the city if made up of six towns: Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton and the City Centre is actually in Hanley not Stoke.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I shouldn't have made the second revert to Sixth generation fighter and have now restored your version. I have been editing so many of these "jet generations" articles I got mixed up over which one this was. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the wording "often". Didn't realize it would be included. You do good in providing an edit summary most of the time. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wigan. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this revert. I am someone who mainly works on music-related articles, and all "The"'s are lowercase on music-related articles so you reverting this was wrong. Look at other articles to this my point. Like this one for example. Thanks Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles is a unique case and a long running dispute, see [3]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444657804578048534112811590 the band itself preferred lower case 'the' while the record label preferred upper case 'The'. The consensus per wiki manual of style for music articles is a band should have 'The' capitalised when first used and when referring to album names and thereafter lower case should be used, but that the word 'the' should be omitted entirely when possible when referring to The Beatles as it was a contentious issue. WatcherZero (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military Barnstar
		Thank you for your contribution to the list of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rosbif73. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sukhoi Superjet 100, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WatcherZero, you seems to know A LOT about BvS10 and Canadian Defence. We are developpers of a large revolutionary shelter that install in 15min by one operator. This shelter on his tracked trailer will be towed by a BV206 ot BvS10 and we want to get information from Hagglunds to design our trailer to the best to fit. You seems to know very much about the Canadian purchase, more than what I tried to find until now on the net. CAN YOU HELP US ... and help Hagglunds to increase the Arctic Mobility PaulAndreBouchard (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am unable to help, I am not connected to or in contact with the company. WatcherZero (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]