User talk:Crook1/Archive 1

A page you started (Italian submarine Dagabur) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Italian submarine Dagabur, Crook1!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I've linked to the Italian article on the same topic."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Italian submarine Malachite) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Italian submarine Malachite, Crook1!

Wikipedia editor Anoptimistix just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Appreciate your contributions ,but please do add more citations ,if possible web citations as it is quick to verify ,Thanks for your contributions once again, keep on contributing"

To reply, leave a comment on Anoptimistix's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Anoptimistix (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Irish Pine / West Hematite
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you.


 * I've restore the article and redirect to their previous states. Convention for ship articles is that ships are housed at a title which is most relevant for the ship in question, with redirects from alternative names. In this case, it is Irish Pine. Please do not make cut and paste moves, as it means that article history is lost, and WP:ATTRIBUTION is violated. If you feel really strongly that the article should be moved, please post a request at WP:RM and give your reasons there as to why you think the article should be moved. Any other questions, please ask. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Italian submarine articles
I appreciate your recent work on Italian submarines, but you should know that image sizes for ship article are 300px, not 330px like you've been adding. And there's no need for two shipboxflags; the one for the Kingdom of Italy suffices unless the boat was still in service after the end of the Kingdom of Italy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tembien
...may I ask where did you take this information for Italian submarine Tembien from?

"On June 26, 1941 she left the base to patrol off Cyrenaica. On June 29, 1941 at 20:41, Tembien sighted a formation of British ships off Ras Azzaz, a hundred miles east of Tobruk. The group was composed of destroyers HMS Defender and HMAS Waterhen sailing from Tobruk (besieged by the Axis forces) to Alexandria evacuating troops from the 6th Australian Division. The two destroyers were then attacked off Sollum by 19 Ju-87 "Stuka" bombers: twelve German from StG 1 of the Luftwaffe and seven Italian from the 239 Bomber Squadron. One of these, piloted by Ennio Tarantola, hit HMAS Waterhen on the stern with a 500 kg bomb causing flooding in engine rooms and forcing the crew to abandon the ship. Tembien approached to within 600 meters and tried to deliver coup de grâce to the immobilized destroyer, but HMS Defender detected the submarine, turned toward it and opened fire at it, forcing Tembien to hastily launch two torpedoes from the aft tubes and then quickly dive."

"HMS Hermione sustained only minor damage during collision. On her arrival in Malta, three hours later, a "piece" of Tembien was found crumpled around the cruiser's bow. Some of the scrap of the submarine was recovered and transformed into "souvenirs"."

--RegiaMarina (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Howdy, you can find this right here http://www.lavocedelmarinaio.com/2014/08/il-regio-sommergibile-Tembien/ Merry Christmas! Crook1 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You should cite it as a source in the related page, then. As you should do with any webpages that you use as sources. Additionally, the page on "La voce del marinaio" that you linked does not contain many details that appear in your wiki page on Tembien, including the attack by the StG 1 and 239 Squadron aircraft, the distance of 600 meters, Ennio Tarantola, Defender's reaction (Defender is, in fact, not mentioned at all). As it happens, I know another page on the net that goes as follows: "Alle 20.41 il Tembien avvista una formazione di navi britanniche al largo di Ras Azzaz, un centinaio di miglia a levante di Tobruk: si tratta dei cacciatorpediniere Defender (capitano di corvetta Gilbert Lescombie Farnfield) e Waterhen (capitano di corvetta James Hamilton Swain), in navigazione da Tobruk (assediata dalle forze dell’Asse) ad Alessandria d’Egitto con truppe della 6a Divisione Australiana. Proprio mentre il Tembien li sta osservando, i due cacciatorpediniere vengono attaccati, al largo di Sollum, da 19 bombardieri in picchiata Junkers Ju 87 “Stuka”: dodici tedeschi (Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 della Luftwaffe) e sette italiani (239a Squadriglia da Bombardamento in picchiata della Regia Aeronautica, capitano Giuseppe Cenni). Uno di questi ultimi, pilotato dal maresciallo Ennio Tarantola, colpisce il Waterhen a poppa con una bomba da 500 kg. Il danno risulta subito gravissimo; le sale macchine e caldaie sono immediatamente allagate, e l’equipaggio inizia ad abbandonare la nave. Il Tembien tenta di avvicinarsi per impartire il colpo di grazia al cacciatorpediniere danneggiato, ma il Defender – che si sta anch’esso avvicinando, per prendere a rimorchio il Waterhen – lo avvista (poco lontano, a proravia) ed apre il fuoco contro di esso, costringendolo a lanciare alla cieca (due siluri, dai tubi poppieri, da meno di 600 metri) per poi immergersi rapidamente.
 * Per altra fonte, invece, il Tembien giunge avvista un cacciatorpediniere che sembra procedere a bassa velocità, distante 600 metri (il Waterhen, già danneggiato dall’attacco), lancia i siluri contro di esso e solo dopo il lancio viene avvistato e costretto a disimpegnarsi da un secondo cacciatorpediniere (il Defender), che tenta infruttuosamente di speronarlo. In ogni caso, i siluri non vanno a segno; il Tembien si disimpegna in immersione, eludendo la caccia con bombe di profondità senza subire danni. Il Waterhen, irrimediabilmente danneggiato dalla bomba, affonderà per conto proprio all’1.50 del giorno seguente, capovolgendosi in posizione 32°15’ N e 25°20’ E (sette miglia a nord di Sidi el Barrani), dopo un vano tentativo di rimorchio da parte del Defender." To me, it seems that it looks a lot like what is written there in the Tembien wiki page, even the wording is basically the same. Doesn't it? --Olonia (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Durbo
Or, where did you take this from?

"In the afternoon of October 17, 1940 Durbo sighted a British destroyer, but captain Acanfora decided that the sea was too rough for an attack and decided to stay submerged for most of the following night to avoid detection. At 9:30 am on October 18, 1940 a Saunders Roe A. 27 "London" of the No. 202 Squadron RAF, piloted by Captain Percy R. Hatfield, sighted air bubbles and a small patch of oil while flying off the island of Alboran, 65 miles East of the Strait of Gibraltar. At this time, the crew of Durbo was trying to fix a leak in the compressed air system, which had always been a problem. Together with another seaplane Saunders Roe A. 27 "London" of the No. 202 Squadron RAF, piloted by Captain NF Eagleton, Hatfield dropped bombs at the location of the bubbles and the oil, then called in two British destroyers, HMS Firedrake and HMS Wrestler.

The bombs dropped by the aircraft exploded while the submarine was sailing at the periscope depth, and had not damaged Durbo, the submarine then dove down to 35 meters to avoid further attacks by the aircraft. However, with the arrival of British destroyers situation changed for the worse. At 10:00 the submarine went through the first heavy depth charge attack which damaged her torpedo room and fuel tanks thus making Durbo even more visible to her attackers. Durbo dove down to 58 meters and tried to get away at very low speed. At 13:30 the boat was hit by a second deep charge attack. At 16:30 Durbo went through a third depth charge attack, this time with devastating effect: all the instruments went out, the pumps were damaged. In addition, main propeller shafts were deformed, which made it difficult to maintain propulsion. The consequent flooding through the aft room sunk the stern, until the submarine reached an angle of 20 degrees and Durbo dropped down to 110 meters, thirty meters below her test depth. In addition, the coolant lines were damaged and chloromethane gas started leaking and poisoning the air. At 21:00, after eleven hours of hammering, with the badly damaged boat, continuously rising water, low air reserves and leaking chloromethane gas captain Acanfora ordered the boat to surface. At 21:30 Durbo appeared on the surface and captain Acanfora ordered to abandon the ship, destroy all secret documentation and codes, and scuttle the ship.

Durbo sank stern first at 21:50 on October 18, 1940 at the point 35°57′N 04°00′W with all 46 men of her crew (5 officers and 41 non-officers and sailors) rescued by HMS Firedrake."

--Olonia (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC). I am the same guy, in case you are wondering.


 * No, my friend, you did not use "Pitchfork".
 * "In the afternoon of October 17, 1940 Durbo sighted a British destroyer, but captain Acanfora decided that the sea was too rough for an attack and decided to stay submerged for most of the following night to avoid detection. At 9:30 am on October 18, 1940 a Saunders Roe A. 27 "London" of the No. 202 Squadron RAF, piloted by Captain Percy R. Hatfield, sighted air bubbles and a small patch of oil while flying off the island of Alboran, 65 miles East of the Strait of Gibraltar. At this time, the crew of Durbo was trying to fix a leak in the compressed air system, which had always been a problem. Together with another seaplane Saunders Roe A. 27 "London" of the No. 202 Squadron RAF, piloted by Captain NF Eagleton, Hatfield dropped bombs at the location of the bubbles and the oil, then called in two British destroyers, HMS Firedrake and HMS Wrestler."
 * "Nel pomeriggio del 17 ottobre il Durbo avvistò un cacciatorpediniere britannico, ma il comandante Acanfora ritenne che il mare fosse troppo mosso per poter tentare un attacco. L’incontro con la nave da guerra nemica, tuttavia, mise Acanfora sul chi va là, così che questi decise di restare immerso anche per la maggior parte della notte seguente, contrariamente a quanto fatto nei giorni precedenti. Alle 9.30 (o dieci) del mattino del 18 ottobre, però, l’idrovolante Saunders Roe A. 27 “London” K 5913 del 202nd Squadron della Royal Air Force, pilotato dal capitano Percy R. Hatfield (in seguito protagonista della ricerca ed individuazione in Atlantico della corazzata tedesca Bismarck), avvistò delle bolle d’aria ed una piccola chiazza di carburante mentre volava al largo dell’isola di Alboran, 65 miglia ad est dello stretto di Gibilterra: erano le tracce del Durbo. A bordo del sommergibile, infatti, l’equipaggio stava cercando di riparare una perdita al sistema dell’aria compressa, che aveva sempre dato problemi. Insieme ad un altro idrovolante “London” del 202nd Squadron, pilotato dal capitano N. F. Eagleton, Hatfield sganciò le proprie bombe sopra il punto da cui provenivano le bolle ed il carburante, poi richiamò sul posto due cacciatorpediniere britannici, il Firedrake (capitano di corvetta Stephen Hugh Norris, che per l’azione avrebbe ricevuto il Distinguished Service Order), distaccato dalla scorta del convoglio «HG 45», ed il Wrestler (tenente di vascello Eric Lister Jones). Uno dei due giunse il mattino stesso, seguito nel pomeriggio dal secondo; avvistata una vasta chiazza di carburante, le due navi ottennero presto un contatto al sonar."
 * Do you recognize it? You didn't even bother changing the words. --Olonia (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen, if you are accusing me of something then state it. Also if you own any specific website, please state it and provide proof, it will also help us to see if you quote your own website anywhere. Most Italian websites I found cannot be referenced because their info is unreferenced and hence it's unknown where the info had come from. Therefore any info that was put here is subject to independent corroboration through books or official government websites, or through renowned historians. I don't even quote Uboat.net because it is a secondary source. That's why info on submarines is unreferenced in many places. I will keep this info here only to the extent that I can confirm it from the reliable sources. If you have Italian sources then please contribute by inserting references (books, not websites). If you want the unreferenced info to be removed, or modified, then again state so and give your reasoning, and stop playing your stupid riddles! Crook1 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I accuse you of copy-pasting-translating information from this website, as clearly shown by the two passages that I have quoted above (which are just two examples), without referencing it. And, yes, I happen to be the author of said site, and with all the time that I've spent searching through books and websites and writing those pages, it irritates me a lot that some guy comes and copies what I have written into Wikipedia, without giving any credit. The site cannot be referenced? Very well: then, since it is not reliable enough to be referenced, you do not use it at all. Instead, you have abundantly used (better: copied, fair and square) information from this (unreliable) site, and then you omitted referencing it as it would look bad if it appeared that you are using an unreliable source for your articles. If you don't want to reference it, then remove all the detail that comes from there and only use the information that comes from sources that you deem reliable enough and are ready to reference. If a site is not reliable enough to be referenced, then it's not reliable enough to be used at all. That's my reasoning. Feel better now? --Olonia (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1.I translated and edited information from several sites your site including - that's not the same as copy pasting

2. Since you admitted you're the owner of that site, I think you should openly disclose it in your profile. It's a conflict of interests. I noticed you used/copied my page on Ostro to create your own page Nembo using your own website as a reference. I think you were warned in the past and specifically told NOT to use self-published sources. Please remove all reference to your own website since again the website doesn't provide any clue where the information came from. 3. I will remove info that only can be traced to your website specifically. If it can be found elsewhere, it will stay. 4. I will be adding references as I get a hold of them. Not everything can be done in one day. 5. It's holiday time, so don't expect anything to be done until after the New Year.

Ultimately, you could've simply said you're the website owner and want me either to credit you or remove relevant info, would've saved everyone's time and effort.

Crook1 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. When an entire paragraph is taken and translated word by word, yeah, that's copy and pasting.
 * 2. I weren't warned in the past, for the simple reason that while being active on Wikipedia for years, in the past I never used my website as a reference here. Because it wouldn't be fair. Then I saw what you did and told myself: then again, why should I be fair, when this is not mutual? You are free to remove all references to my website (which, by the way, provides a lot of clue where the information came from, since there's a list of websites referenced at the bottom of each page, and an entire 'Fonti' page where all the books used are listed. As I don't like using someone else's work without crediting them). --Olonia (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian auxiliary cruiser Ramb II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasebo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Italian_auxiliary_cruiser_Ramb_II check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Italian_auxiliary_cruiser_Ramb_II?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Would like your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 1908, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kavak ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_shipwrecks_in_1908 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_shipwrecks_in_1908?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Clan Matheson (1905), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beira ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/SS_Clan_Matheson_%281905%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/SS_Clan_Matheson_%281905%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Italian destroyer Borea (1927) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Italian_destroyer_Borea_%281927%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Italian_destroyer_Borea_%281927%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Derna
 * SS Victoria (1902) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/SS_Victoria_%281902%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/SS_Victoria_%281902%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Lota

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian destroyer Pará (1908)
Hey there! Thanks for adding this info. Do you have the article's title in the London Standard that you cited? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the section called "Disasters and Marine Notes" Crook1 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian submarine Beilul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Italian_submarine_Beilul check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Italian_submarine_Beilul?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of German torpedo boat TA 14
Hello, Crook1. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, German torpedo boat TA 14, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Pam D  09:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

German torpedo boat TA 14
Sorry, but I can't see where this is mentioned in Italian destroyer Turbine (1927). What am I missing? Pam D  18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished it yet. But it mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine-class_destroyer Crook1 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whirlwind
No, my friend, that's where you got it wrong. Six ships in class were named after winds, and the other two were given names that mean nimbus and whirlwind. A specific wind is something you name a ship after. "Whirlwind" or "nimbus" are words, with a meaning. --93.144.170.9 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Overlinking
Can I ask you to look at WP:Overlinking and comply in future. Oh and I would appreciate it if you would undo the reversions you made on the couple of articles I corrected for you. Lyndaship (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pan per focaccia
I don't care about my standing here (i.e. about getting banned), really. I am done with Wikipedia anyway after this insult. I did not contribute to Wikipedia for years for a petty thief to come, copy-paste from my site and then link other sources instead as if he really used them, 'cause the actual source would make him look bad.

Ah, and try to complete those pages on Turbine-class destroyers that you started and left incompleted. On Wikipedia you don't start a page and leave it 'TBC' for months, you write it all or you don't write it at all. That is, too, against Wiki rules, my friend.

Bring it on.

--Olonia (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Olonia insults

 * Really, you're pathetic. I did not remove anything, you had not completed that page and I did. We all both know too well what is the problem about Wikipedia and my website you've ransacked without credit, it's no use for you to feign our previous conversation of some months ago did not take place. I've already dealt with kids like you here.


 * --Olonia (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Olonia admits he acts out of spite

 * That's right! How does it feel like, tell me? I guess you don't know the meaning of the expression I used as title for this talk section. --Olonia (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just seen your titles, I wonder how old are you? Twelve? --Olonia (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well! Did I already tell you how much I care about being banned? --Olonia (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Italian destroyer Espero (1927). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Overlinking
Please read MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:REPEATLINK. You have a bad habit of linking every ship an article which is a real pain in the ass to read, much less fix. Italian destroyer Turbine (1927) is particularly egregious, although it has a bigger problem in that you liberally used various volumes by Bertke and associates. These are self-published books and are generally not reliable sources unless the author can demonstrate professional qualifications, which, AFAIK, none of the authors have. I trust that you will find alternate sources for the facts that used Bertke and friends, otherwise all text supported by those cites will be removed. I would also prefer that you fix all of your duplicate linking yourself and stop reverting editors who try to do that for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Turbine
I just deleted most of the section on the ship's German service because neither source used is RS and neither mentioned TA15 or TA16. Most web-based sources are not RS, which is why we generally use non-self-published books. So find a copy of Jürgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea or similar books and use them instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the website actually does list where the info came from, KTB for the 9th Torpedo Flotilla. I have all of them, so I can attest that info is indeed correct. I'm not exactly sure how to use them as references though. I'll check the Rohwer's book to see if it lists those ROMs.Crook1 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY for guidance on how to use primary sources like the KTB, although that should be far less problematic than most. If you want to use the KTB, cite it directly, including file numbers, location, any links, and, not least, page numbers so that somebody else has all the info needed so they can access the file themselves, even if it's behind a paywall.
 * Another issue is that you're mostly just transcribing the data, not summarizing it as per WP:SUMMARY. The better way to cover Turbine's activities would be to say, forex, that it escorted convoys to and from the Aegean islands from x date to y date, noting any unusual things like transporting Italian POWs, damage to ships escorted, engagements, etc. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you have to understand that we write for a general readership and a laundry list of the ship went someplace, escorting x, y, and z, and then returned is damn boring. So we summarize things which actually accentuates the unusual events that happened during the time in question because they're not buried in a sea of minutiae. See any of the GA-quality or above British or German destroyer articles for ideas on how to structure this sort of info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (SS America (1914)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating SS America (1914), Crook1!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed, well done!"

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

SS Mount Temple
I see you made the changes to the infobox, but I was just curious as to whether or not you had a source to confirm she continued to be a UK-flagged vessel after being purchased by a Canadian company? Also, speaking of sources, there are several bare URLs in the article, and I was also wondering if you were going to fill them as part of your improvement od the page? Thanks - wolf  02:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As i said, Lloyd's lists her port of registration as Liverpool and her flag as British through the end of her career. According to the flag state rules, a merchant vessel must carry the flag corresponding to the nationality of her port of registry. If she was registered in Montreal, I can see how you can claim she could be considered a Canadian ship, but in reality she would still be British-flagged. There were ships, for example SS Malaya, that had to change their flag in the middle of their journey because their registration changed in the middle of their trip.I will update the links too, I noticed most of them are dead.Crook1 (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Waratah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advertiser ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/SS_Waratah check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/SS_Waratah?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice job
...on your updating SS Dakota. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic
I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (SS West Niger) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating SS West Niger.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (SS Lyman Stewart) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating SS Lyman Stewart.

User:Hughesdarren while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (SS Oklahoma (1908)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating SS Oklahoma (1908).

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 20:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (SS Swiftstar) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating SS Swiftstar.

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS West Compo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/SS_West_Compo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/SS_West_Compo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Move Valbanera
Your move to include "SS" in the title SS Valbanera was contrary to the instructions at Naming conventions (ships), which states,

";Optional prefix
 * An article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name, if that name is unambiguous:
 * Niña


 * Since the optional prefix is, in fact, optional, it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources:
 * Celebrity Equinox instead of MV Celebrity Equinox"

The Valbanera was a Spanish ship, and the prefix "SS" is not used in the sources about the ship. Ship prefix is an article, not a naming convention. - Donald Albury 12:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

SS Western Front
Hi there Crook1. First of all, thanks for your contributions to maritime history.

With regard to your move of USS Western Front (ID-1787) back to SS Western Front - while I'm sympathetic to your view that too many ship article names reflect only a brief period of military service by comparison with the rest of the ships career, I am also strongly of the view that article names should, in the vast majority of cases, reflect the preponderance of article content - not simply the name the ship had for the longest time. To do anything else just leads to absurdities. For example, there are many ships that had a very short period of notable service, and then had long subsequent (or previous) careers about which either nothing of interest occurred or else virtually nothing is known or will probably ever be known. If you insist on naming ship articles after the longest time a ship had a particular name, you end up in many cases with an article name that reflects only a sentence or two of the actual article, by comparison with reams of text about the ship under a different name. That is not just patently absurd, it's a breach of WP:COMMONNAME.

With regard to Western Front in particular - the ship only had a very brief period of merchant service anyway - almost certainly shorter than its time in navy hands - so even the chronological argument doesn't apply. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Howdy. We had this discussion prior to the moves and the consensus was that if the ship had significant events during her Navy career such as sinking then she can be considered a Navy vessel. Otherwise, the ship should be considered a civilian vessel. The article will be expanded to include her civilian career. Currently it only has info copied from DANFS, but this is not a reason to move article titles back and forth. The ship was in civilian service for over 2 years and in Navy's for about a year. It also was lost as a civilian vessel, therefore the article should be titled SS Western Front. The US Navy requisitioned a large number of vessels over 2,500 GRT during WW1 Many of them had their Navy IDs assigned but never formally taken over by the Navy. Many were taken over by the US Army but do not have USAT prefix here. Some were even loaned to the Admiralty. None of these ships were true Navy vessels. The same situation happened during the Anglo-Boer War when the Admiralty requisitioned a large number of vessels for troops and supplies shipments, some of them being directly operated by the Admiralty. None of them have HMS prefix. Crook1 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion prior to the moves and the consensus was that if the ship had significant events during her Navy career such as sinking then she can be considered a Navy vessel. Otherwise, the ship should be considered a civilian vessel.
 * I haven't seen any such discussion, would you mind providing me with a link please?
 * With regard to your other comments, you don't need to explain the history of these ships to me, I have written a stack of articles on them (including Western Front). Your comment that none of these ships were true navy vessels is your personal opinion - the US Navy has requisitioned a huge number of former civilian ships in wartime, and supply ships are just as much naval ships as warships.
 * Currently it only has info copied from DANFS
 * That is plainly incorrect, the article has nine sources, and even the three paragraphs based on DANFS were reworked by me.
 * The ship was in civilian service for over 2 years and in Navy's for about a year.
 * The ship's history with the Navy begins 16 September 1917 when she was inspected, and ends 15 August 1919 - 23 months. Even if one assumed her mercantile history began immediately after decommission, August 1919 to June 1921 is 22 months - actually less time than her naval involvement. And in case you are unaware of it, there was a severe oversupply of merchant shipping after the war, which meant that many ships just sat around doing nothing after their naval careers - sometimes for years. In Western Front's case, the earliest date that I have found pertaining to the ship's movements after her naval decommission is March 1920 - and even that isn't clearly a commercial voyage. Perhaps I should emphasize that I combed newspaper archives for records of this ship's postwar career, as I do with all the ships of this type I have written about, and found virtually nothing apart from the brief news reports of her final voyage - which for all we know may have been her first and only commercial voyage.
 * I therefore maintain that this particular article should remain at USS Western Front, since the bulk of her career - and indeed the most important period, based on secondary sources - was her naval service. That may not be the case for other naval supply ships from this period - they should be taken on a case-by-case basis - but I think this is a pretty clearcut case of the former. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosecrans and Dreadnaught
Hi, I've noticed you making a lot of improvements to SS Rosecrans. Today I noticed that a proposed deletion on USLS Dreadnaught, and wondered if some of the details and refs from that article might be useful in the Rosecrans article, and then Dreadnaught could redirect to Rosecrans. What do you think? Schazjmd  (talk)  18:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just realized you were the one who prod'd Dreadnaught. You don't think any of the rescue details are worth including in Rosecrans? Schazjmd   (talk)  18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There will some details on rescues but probably without mentioning individual lifeboats by name. Also looking at the references they are mostly the same as in Rosecrans itself. I think that info was simply copied over.Crook1 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

SS Clan Matheson
Hi, I understand that you expanded the SS Clan Matheson (1905) a few years ago. It seems that you did not complete the expansion, so can you please continue? Thank you, Lettlerhello • contribs 13:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirects
Please stop mass reverting without explaining why you are doing so. --Rschen7754 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello? --Rschen7754 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * reverting uncalled for and undiscussed changes.Crook1 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TWINKLE says: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. " What do you think about this? --Rschen7754 17:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I got about 150 notifications this morning and have been waiting for a WP:BRD discussion to begin, so I guess this is it.  So last night I went and redirected any NM highway article, including the less-than-1-mile list, that was less than 2 miles in length to the list of state highways.  I did it WP:BOLDly, so there was no discussion required.  By and large, the standalone articles consisted of an infobox, junction list, and a short lead.  There were a handful of C-Class articles (which I believe were created by Crook1), but they were mostly stubs.  And they'd been that way since creation.  If you read Notability_(highways) it actually suggests merging them into a list.  The highways shorter than 1 mile were already in a list, but they all have the same format.  It all comes down to "how much can you really say about a short highway?"
 * Based on WP:USRD's history, we've never really had a "full-time caretaker" for New Mexico. That usually goes hand-in-hand with availability of sources.  I'm not saying there are no sources for New Mexico, but I do think a regular editor would have popped up if there were lots of sources.  Anyway, if you look at NM from the project's perspective, it's by far the worst state in terms of article quality.  There are nearly 400 stubs and over half of them are highways less than 15 miles in length.  The latter part has more to do with how NMDOT creates routes than anything we as a project are doing.  So we can either let all those stubs lie or we can do something about them.  I started doing something about them.  I clearly upset you for redirecting work you had done, and I'm sorry that you got upset about it.  I would not have been mad if you had only reverted articles you'd worked on.  But reverting everything?  That just seems irrational and throws the baby out with the bathwater. –Fredddie™ 18:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

do you have anything to add? WP:BRD doesn't work without a discussion. It's been 10 days since this all happened and there's been no response or activity from you since prodded you into responding. I'll give it a few more days before I start redoing my changes. –Fredddie™ 20:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there. The state roads are notable so there is nothing wrong with having articles about them. Your choice of a list though is completely arbitrary, why less than 2 miles, why not less than 3 miles or 5 miles? Secondly, redirecting the road onto the list is redundant. Your list has less information than the articles themselves, so I do not see how that is improvement, if anything you deleted a lot of information and replaced it with really nothing. So I will object to any deletion of good information because it is still way better than what you propose.Crook1 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Japanese submarine I-21
Why is a link to Japanese submarine I-21 unnecessary? There is no other link to the sub on the page. Submarine I-21 is the one that sank the SS Montebello. I came to the SS Montebello page to see who sank her and learn about that sub. Thank you Telecine Guy (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already linked in Sinking section.Crook1 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Link should be in first occurrence per: Manual_of_Style/Linking ''...only link the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article.  Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.''
 * Thank you for the reply.

Sinking is near the end, not the first occurrence. But, if you like the link in sinking, I will add it to the infobox, per the Manual, as this is OK.Telecine Guy (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the linking to the beginning. Crook1 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Rosecrans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Fleet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS China Arrow
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS China Arrow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DocFreeman24 -- DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS China Arrow
The article SS China Arrow you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SS China Arrow for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DocFreeman24 -- DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS India Arrow
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS India Arrow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS West Kasson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Havre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS West Kasson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entourage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS China Arrow
The article SS China Arrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SS China Arrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DocFreeman24 -- DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS India Arrow
The article SS India Arrow you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SS India Arrow for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS India Arrow
The article SS India Arrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SS India Arrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SS Mohawk (1925)
You edited-down my new lede, without leaving any comment in the edit summary to indicate what you felt was wrong with it, as specified in Wiki procedure.

My lede came to about 7% of the article-length, which is a suitable proportion. I deliberately left-off the name of the shipbuilder, since I judged that it was not famous enough to be ledeworthy (though I don't feel strongly about that one). But I quoted the number of people aboard -  a standard mention when reporting casualties  -  which you deleted. Finally, I explained the cause of the sinking in suitable detail, itemising the three main factors, as the sinking is the chief point of interest. I won’t revert at this point, but I would appreciate some explanation for your changes. Valetude (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Eurana (1915)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS Eurana (1915) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Eurana (1915)
The article SS Eurana (1915) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SS Eurana (1915) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello. I have noticed that you 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! Trains2050 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An apology
Hello I would like to apology for failing your review, I have reflected that I good have handled it better and it was a bad decision to fail the review. Once again I am extremely sorry and this was a mistake on my side. I am not a perfect editor and just started doing GA review and I really do want to make sure that the article meets the criteria. I should have been clearer and given the chance for you to make more changes. Once again I am sorry and hope you accept my apology. Trains2050 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Question on MV J. A. Moffett Jr. edits
Hello, Crook1! I appreciate your edits on the MV J.A. Moffett Jr. article, but I do have some questions. What sources did you use to add the name sake, identification numbers and flag letters? On that, are you sure that it was named after James A. Moffet Jr., one T? I hate to sound aggressive, I am just unsure if you used one of the existing sources which I overlooked. On another note, I am still a bit new to Wikipedia. Did you purposely remove the state from city descriptions (ie. Wilmington, Delaware to Wilmington) as they were already hyperlinked? Also, how should I restructure the article to something satisfactory to you? You ranked the article as having a poor structure, accuracy, and style. Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . Welcome to Wikipedia. All that info can be obtained from Lloyd's and US Merchant Ships. Both can be viewed (for some years) on Hathi. Moffett should be with 2 ts, i corrected the typo. Yes, I consider the state redundant since the city is already linked, and it overloads the infobox. If you're serious about writing good articles about ships, ask to get access to Newspapers.com, so you can get alot of info on ships career. Right now most of the vessel's career is missing. Where was she carrying her cargo? (no, she did not always transport oil from Texas to the Northeast) Please omit minor details like ship going into drydocks for minor repairs and inspection, they usually do it every 3-6 months. I will add the design-construction section for you, but

the rest right now looks disjointed, there is no real flow to the text. Crook1 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information, I will work on getting the text to flow better and add references. I do have some comments on your edits: you cite Ships of the Esso Fleet in World War II page 144 as a source for the namesake. That page is about the attack on E. M. Clark and was pushed from the correct line it supported by the edits. The clipping from Baltimore Sun does not mention any names of ships or people. I think it is safe to same the ship is named after the former vice president of the company, yet I do not see it stated in Lloyd's or US Merchant Ships. Could you link the specific edition you mention? I do agree with you routine maintenance should not be included. The only reason I did is because the records reference it as repair, as in something was damaged or destroyed previously. What content would you consider to be mention worthy? I believe the refit and collision to be so. GGOTCC (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ignore the refs now because it's a WIP. I will add relevant info, but the ship was also known by its full name. Re-engine, collisions, rebuilding, sinkings are notable events. If someone was murdered on board that could be too mentioned. But not when a worker fell down the hold for example, as that was pretty common those days.Crook1 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Plan for the MV J. A. Moffett Jr. article
Hello again, Crook1! After yesterday's confusion about the edits on the MV J. A. Moffett Jr., I believe we need to seriously coordinate a plan going forward. What I would like to do is add the date the ship was refitted and recategorized to the infobox, an addition to the hidden comment mentioning common misspellings of the vessels name, details such as Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Company also producing the axillaries, several simplifications of sentences, linking access to the Marine Review references, and the addition of a gallery. Anytime I add these you blanket rollback all my edits without a reason which relates to the information. Edits removing the state which followed the name of a hyperlinked city was undone by you even after you said it was unnecessary. I also fail to understand why you removed the entire gallery even after you said it does not have the correct copyright information. The images in the gallery detail how it was accessed and are correctly tagged as having to rights attached. What part of the copyright information is incorrect? Sincerely, GGOTCC (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . Here are some answers:

1. We try not to edit other users' style because it leads to continuous edit wars. Feel free to fix punctuation, grammar, or clarify anything that is confusing or unclear. Please also be prepared that it still maybe reverted. I also told you that I will write the Design & construction part. If you want to significantly expand the article or some portion of that, I can see how some style changes are warranted but do not change things just because you don't like them.

2. A lot of things in the infobox are for the military vessels. Reclassification would apply when a destroyer for example is reclassified as a patrol vessel. In this case the ship stayed as an oil tanker throughout her life. Adding refit date would be redundant, because there is also info on her engine change down below. Also, ships get refitted all the time I don't think adding a date will serve any purpose.

3. Please do not add redundant references like you were trying to do with various other editions of Merchant US vessels.

4. Please use proper conversion templates. Please avoid doing it everywhere. Keep in mind that oil barrel is not the same as a regular US barrel. Not sure about your obsession with imperial gallons, are you British by any chance?

5. Pictures that you add need to comply with certain requirements, each picture needs to have a source, author and copyright status. Even the top picture that you added doesn't comply and I will remove it for now. Wikimedia is where I put my pictures. Wikipedia allows fair use, but it has to be justified. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content for more info. The gallery also clutters the article with unnecessary things. If you have the source please consider adding the link to external website where you found them, that's typically how we go about adding multiple pictures.

6. Please avoid reverting things. I had to revert all your edits for a simple reason that I couldn't figure out what it is that you're trying to do, other than to re-add the things that were redundant.

7. Please post all your proposals on the article Talk page before you try to change whatever it is you don't like. Please explain why you want to change it.

Hope this clarifies things. Crook1 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Eurana (1915)
The article SS Eurana (1915) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:SS Eurana (1915) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Template Design 1023 ships
Hi

Is it ok to change what seems to be a typo in this template, please?

Continetal Bridge -> Continental Bridge?

Thanks. Wprlh (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)