User talk:HopsonRoad/Archive 8

Martha Rockwell
Hi HopsonRoad. Please be aware of WP:3RR. I would advise of not reverting on this page again. I see there's an ongoing discussion about the image in question, so I'd wait until that discussion is closed. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Demonstration (political) reversion
Hello!. You are reverted my edition ("This is a section on laws regarding protests, not reports of protests"). I believe two possibilities to save my edition:

1. Change the section title: Law by country -> Political demonstrations by country. This change would do the section more appropriate to the content of the article.

2. Add the laws. What laws for the creation of a new state?. Of course a lot of laws!. But if you prefer, these protests are against the Spanish Constitution where says in Section 2.: "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards". Then the resulting text:

In Catalonia, since 2012 and promoted by the Catalan independence movement, a large number of major demonstrations have taken place (about a half to one million participants each time), not only on the National Day of Catalonia (September 11). Demonstrations against the Spanish Constitution, Section 2, where says "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards". But also (and from 2017) other demonstrations has been placed to demand the freedom of political prisoners.

Jmarchn (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts on the Demonstration (political) article. This is a discussion that you should begin at Talk:Demonstration (political) so that other editors can weigh in. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a problem adding a section (with a title immediately above the text) in the talk page (Talk:Demonstration (political)). The content of that page is absolutely chaotic. Proof it!. If you agree, I add the text of the option 2, provisionally, until the problem is resolved. Jmarchn (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved your initial comment, above, to Talk:Demonstration (political). HopsonRoad (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Landcraft and landship questions
An editor has created a new page, Landcraft, as a DAB page for which there is no primary article, except the page itself (see: Talk:Landcraft). The same editor has expanded the Landship page, which has no references that support use of that term that are more recent than WWI references to tanks (see: Talk:Landship). I'm concerned that no-one else is paying attention to these edits to check whether they are appropriate. I have left a message with the editor at User talk:42Grunt. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll nominate the landship article for deletion; it appears to be pure OR, and while it might well be possible to write a valid article of the name, there's nothing salvageable in this page. A quick Google Books page indicates that indeed early tanks were called "landships", but the primary topic arguably is a type of Barbudian neighbourhood association, if I read the sources correctly.
 * I also agree that the "landcraft" page is inappropriate because there is no indication that any of the topics supposedly being disambiguated are commonly referred to as "landcraft". Since that page is new, a PROD may suffice there. Huon (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Landkreuzer
Minor quibble that doesn't belong in the category deletion discussion: In a military context, "Kreuzer" would evoke a cruiser, particularly for something armed with battlecruiser guns. So there are naval connotations here. Still, it's not called a "landship", and I don't think the term sees use in this context after WWI. Huon (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur, Huon. That's exactly what is implied by Landkreuzer. Nonetheless, "cruiser" comes from "cruise", which is a cognate of "cross" (both verb and noun). In the military sense, it referred to a ship with independent, long-distance missions cf. "cruiser" and "cruiser". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing at Talk:Smart highway
An IP editor at Talk:Smart highway appears to be using the page to promote his company's POV, in part by removing the writings of others. If I revert again, it will violate 3RR. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. Promotional editing can be reported to WP:AIV(despite what it's called); COI editing to WP:COIN, edit warring can be reported to WP:ANEW, for future reference. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources and in what contexts
Hi! I'm here because of a question, and since you had left the welcome-cookies message on my talk page last year.

In a new article (all of which is subject to removal until consensus is found to put it back, per discussions in WP:VPP and WP:DRN), an editor has been removing sections that cite articles with no consensus on WP:RSPSOURCES – with the reason, "this isn't a RS." Often, these citations have been about statements, interviews or statistics that can be verified as true – but when no explicit RS has spoken about them, they have found this a reason to exclude such sections.

1. Is this editor in the right to remove such content, even if (it can be argued that) reliability isn't a concern for those citations (the content is verifiable independent of the source)?

2. In case of a dispute, is a consensus required to reinstate content even in such a situation where the deleting editor doesn't have a policy or a guideline to stand on?

(3.) In case there is no straight answer to the above, should I ask this question at WP:RSN, WP:VPP or somewhere else?

I will provide more context if necessary, but I tried to keep this concise for now. Thank you in advance! Selvydra (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. WP:BURDEN suggests that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Generally what counts is found at WP:SOURCES. I note that direct citation of US Government statistics does not appear to fit the definition of a RS. It appears that WP:RSN would be a good place to start. I've no experience with this type of dispute. Another approach would be to discuss the question of whether each of the sources is reliable in the article's talk page, perhaps reserving a bulleted line for each. That would memorialize the question and help you to restore them to their proper locations after consensus was reached. Sorry to not be more knowledgeable about this! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Other wiki links to Iron-hulled sailing ship
After achieving consensus at Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship, I converted the former version of the "Windjammer" article to become Iron-hulled sailing ship. After some discussion with another editor, I also re-constituted a Windjammer article. Unfortunately, all the other-wiki links stayed with "Windjammer". I have checked the following articles with Google Translate to confirm that they properly refer to iron-hulled sailing ships: I'm hoping that someone can point these wikis to Iron-hulled sailing ship, instead of "Windjammer". If you do, you might check my message at wikidata:Talk:Q573206, which may have resulted in this edit at Q573206. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Windjammer
 * Windjammer
 * Grand voilier en fer "Large iron sailing ship"
 * Nave a palo "Sailing ship"
 * ウィンドジャマー "Windjammer"
 * Windjammer (zeilschip)
 * Windjammer
 * Винджаммер "Windjammer"
 * Вінджамер "Windjammer"
 * 大型鐵身帆船 "Large iron sailing ship"
 * I'm going to turn off the batsignal on this help me request. Your requests are not for how to edit en-wiki but how to change other-language wikis. You're going to need to find a different way to get help with this task. I personally think it's a mistake to have de:Windjammer point to something other than en:Windjammer. You could, of course, go to each of the talk pages associated with with the pages you have listed and ask for the change to see if the consensus you somehow arrived at here remains a consensus after more people have looked at it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That
Good Day - Per - AMY KOBUCHAR - with respect to your addition back of ' that ', you should be aware and know well, if you have had any kind of education, as to what is considered ' proper grammar ' where word 'that ' is totally and completely unnecessary, especially in the particular context in question as it plays no purpose, whatsoever, in a sentence ... Please kindly take a moment to read through sentence again to see for yourself, then maybe remove ' that ' ... Secondly, same is also correct where an ' a ' should properly appear where it was added ... Thank you very much for your time, COLONEL77

Sunday 2 February 2020 - 5:44 pm -
 * Hi, I appreciate your polite invitation to reconsider my edit. You are referring to my edit that changed: "In early 2005, U.S. Senator Mark Dayton announced he would not seek reelection" to "In early 2005, U.S. Senator Mark Dayton announced that he would not seek reelection".
 * It appears what was natural language to me (to include "that") is not natural to you. You also are concerned about which construction is grammatically correct. In consulting that, I see under Conjunction an example that reads, "He told me that the book is a good read", which supports my sense of the word's usage. However, under Usage notes, it says, "That can be used to introduce subordinate clauses, but can just as easily be omitted: one can say either “he told me that it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “that clause”) or “he told me it’s a good read” (in which case the second clause is a “bare clause”)", which explains your position as having validity, too.
 * I'd be happy to open a discussion in Talk:Amy Klobuchar, if you feel strongly enough about this question. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can never figure how to go to Talk: so will continue here -
 * Good evening and thank you for your fast response - Unfortunately the Colonel is doing all night television / radio after Super Bowl LIV - However, he would not consider any of above to be important enough to carry on with although as a person who over 60+ years has edited many hundreds of books, videos / television programs and news reports / radio news and reports and stories / proofreads thousands of stories and articles yearly, he has always been of opinion where a good number of words such as ' that ' are totally unnecessary in many instances, ' the both ' which is entirely and horribly wrong, ' off of ' which is employed / used most often in baseball where only word needed is ' off ' as no one sensibly steps down ' off of ' anything, as well as many other wrongly / poorly used words, so in editing Wikipedia entries has removed / altered / corrected many instances of these bad words to make things more grammatically correct and pleasing to eyes of readers / viewers - Therefore, he would just say to proceed as you see fit as you do these edits / adjustments / corrections on a regular basis so have more real / actual / practical experience and know what Wikipedia wishes to see entered - However, am wondering if you are reporting from somewhere other than North America as at times it appears English people have a different view on word usage ? - Thank you very much and all best wishes for a fine year in 2020. ( I am his wife / assistant ). 04:23, 3 February 2020‎ COLONEL77 talk contribs


 * Hi, thank you for your reply. I respect your experience and opinion. I too have many decades of experience and a top-level North American education; however, I try to use the guidance found in Wikimedia resources (e.g. WP:MOS and Wiktionary) to conduct my editing activities here.


 * Please remember to sign your posts with ~ to create an automatic signature (there's a button at the bottom that does this automatically for your) and to put one or more colons (according to the level of indent; : = one level; :: = two levels) in front of each new posting to indent the thread of conversation for clarity. Also "==" creates a potential coding error, so avoid using that, except in a new heading, as I did above with ==That==. Also, please respect the notice that you received at User talk:COLONEL77.


 * Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly editing my comment
This response is already indented exactly as I intended it to be. It is a reply to the original statement, not to you. Don't edit other editors' comments, and especially not repeatedly and over their objections. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Seraphimblade. Fixing an indent is an acceptable edit, according to WP:TALKO. I didn't look to see that you had restored the level of indent. I simply thought that I hadn't followed through on doing it in the first place. I'll be more careful of your edits. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uploading Problems
I have a question. I can insert images into articles, but when I try to upload images it says 'Failed to load the configuration for file uploads to the foreign file repository.' It says that EVERY time, and I do have some pictures I would like to upload. Also, thanks for the welcome, HopsonRoad! FlatEarth7 (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * FlatEarth7, I'm not sure what process you're using to upload images. Are you using the File Upload Wizard? That portal allows you to upload images into either Wikimedia Commons (recommended) or Wikipedia (if the image is only intended for consumption in English Wikipedia). Use of the portal ensures that you avoid violating copyrights of the owners of images. Let me know, if this is helpful. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering so quickly. Um, no, I never even heard of that process until right now. I'll try it out. Thank you. FlatEarth7 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help
You can translate this article https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA into this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deck_gun ? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking, . One can drop the article you cite into Google Translate and then compare where the English article is lacking. Fortunately, the Russian article seems to be extensively sourced. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don’t have time for an article now and I thought that you would be interested in the proposal. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2016 Vermont Election
I think the 5.68 is correct for Sanders. There are 2 entries under Write-in for him in the Sec of State results. The 2nd entry has 35 votes. 18,218 / 320,468 = 5.684%. If you agree can you update the page?--Davemoth (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ice boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasva ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ice_boat check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ice_boat?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Simon Pearce
Thank you for providing a citation for Simon Pearce dwelling in Norwich (even if I cannot access it). As you may know, the article had been internally tagged "--MISSING CONNECTION TO NORWICH--" or "missing citation" since July 2014. --Bejnar (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . The article begins, "NORWICH, Vt. — The renovated barn next to the family house was always one of Kevin Pearce’s favorite places. There is a skateboard ramp out back and a giant recreation room inside, with three loftlike bedrooms above. But Pearce, 22, did not move into the barn until he was a teenager, and soon he was off to snowboarding schools and then on the worldwide circuit. Home, and his room in the barn, became just somewhere to get away for a day or two." HopsonRoad (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Trimaran image removed
Hi HopsonRoad, I see that you have removed the image of the replica of Donald Crowhurst's trimaran Teignmouth Electron that I had added to Trimaran, with the explanation "Interesting story involving a trimaran. Unfortunately, the image doesn't contribute to understanding trimarans." Actually I beg to differ, it was a specially modified Piver design for ocean racing, which unfortunately failed to complete the most difficult leg because the entrant decided it was too risky (but that is another story), and of quite a lot of historic and popular interest (refer its own article Teignmouth Electron). Unfortunately there are no pix of the original boat in the public domain which is why I put up the replica as the next best option. I do not intend to argue the point indefinitely but I think adding this image to a gallery (presumably showing the potential range of sailing trimaran designs, presently numbering only four, but arguably, "notable trimarans" would not be out of scope either) is reasonable. Just my opinion of course, in case I can change your mind on this one. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS There is a better photo of the replica here: https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/WEN-wenn22551060 - unfortunately not available for WP use... Tony 1212 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sloop lead paragraph
You write: "Let's not put that in, until there is a sourced statement to that effect lower down in the text."

I disagree! It is important to show why the sopp rig has become almost universal; and as the current lead overemphasizes the supposed history of the rig, I consider a rewrite is due. Arrivisto (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with your intent, Arrivisto. However, just putting it in with no context within the article and supported by WP:RELIABLE is just WP:POV. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Squall vs Cold Front
Hi there! Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of the weather in Cold Front. I made some assumptions on what I saw!

So, ColdFrontMtHoodJune2020.jpg is showing a Squall? Do you think it'd be appropriate in that article?


 * Thanks for writing, . Please remember to sign your name using ~.


 * I checked the weather records for Mt. Hood on the day that your camera metadata shows you took it and noticed that there was a drop in temperature during the 24 hours, surrounding the weather that you photographed. It would have been more telling that a cold front passed, if the wind changed direction after the rain shower passed overhead.


 * As to which article the picture best represents, it appears that it would best illustrate Shower (precipitation), if it had something new, different, or better to illustrate over what's already there. A squall is characterized by a burst of wind—I should have said "rain shower", since I didn't know whether there was a burst of wind.


 * BTW, I added "cold front" and "Mount Hood" to the categories of your image. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My Wikipedia-ing is rusty, sign I shall, thanks for that too (not to mention for the detective work). The wind was blowing SE before I took the pic, we noticed in earnest because of the obvious weather we could see coming toward us from the W. Do you still think it's inappropriate in Cold Front? I feel like the main inconsistency is that the incoming weather isn't turbulent, but the change was obvious and it was wet, windy, and overcast for a solid 24 hours. I won't insist on any article using this image (the pics in Shower (precipitation) are already wonderful) but I thought this might be interesting since it almost looks like a cross section of the weather. Ben pcc (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for staying in touch,, and for your cordial manner—not something that's universal among Wikipedia editors!


 * It's not the direction of the front (west to east) that's noteworthy; it's the wind direction before (SE as you report) and after (N to NW in our hemisphere) that denotes frontal passage. It's likely that a cold front did pass on that day. The next question is whether your image contributes to the explanation of such a frontal passage, especially compared to what's already offered. The existing image, titled, "An incoming cold front in northern Ohio (2016)", depicts the boundary between moist and dry air and the vertical development that is characteristic of a cold front.


 * Your image doesn't suggest either characteristic. However, it is consistent with (my emphasis follows): "Light patchy rain can be produced by stratocumulus or stratus in the warm sector" prior to passage and "Prolonged rain (nimbostratus) or thunderstorms (cumulonimbus): depends on conditions" during passage, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of that being frontal passage. What I would do in your shoes is find a weather record that demonstrates that a cold front went through your area close to the time of the photo. We can then use your image to illustrate the stratiform case, where the cumuloform case is already represented in the article.


 * If you can send me a link to a pertinent weather record, I would be happy to help make inclusion of your image happen. Cheer, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: Weather Underground historical data suggests that a cold front went through Portland Oregon at 7 pm, judging by a spike in precipitation and a change in wind direction from the south and east to the northwest, this suggests that your image was pre-cold front. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just about to post that exact same link. MMmm, seems like this pic doesn't fit then. Thanks for investigating! Ben pcc (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sail plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spar ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sail_plan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sail_plan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

High-performance sailing
Do you mind reviewing this edit? - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, Ahunt. That's an entire article that has been languishing for review. I'll see what I can do. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be great. That same editor made some subsequent edits, too, that need review. The refs already there are paper ones, but he didn't add any refs and his additions looked like WP:OR to me, but without the paper refs I couldn't be sure whether the cited ref there supported his additions or not. If you have the inclination a complete fix of the whole article, that would be a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, I have parked unsourced material at Talk:High-performance sailing and done some minor cleanup. Major work is still in order, since the article has poor logic, flow and descriptions. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good way to deal with it. It does seem to be all "original research" and although may be correct (or not), it cannot be retained without refs due to lack of verifiability. Are you able to tackle the other outstanding issues in the article? - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am game to try, Ahunt, after I finish working on the rewrite of Sailing at User:HopsonRoad/sandbox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Put it on your list! - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Smart highway
in relations to the bankset stories and to the smart highway article, would you agree to creaete a new page for " smart railsways "?--95.248.107.78 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me. For there to be a Wikipedia article on a topic, it must be notable. You are welcome to review the topic you propose for notability by checking it against these guidelines. If you feel that there is a case for such an article, then perhaps you could provide links to a number of secondary sources as part of this discussion. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)