User talk:Mackensen/Archive16

T:DYK.
Congratulations! · AndonicO Talk 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad
Re: Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad - Congratulations on another great article! Bigturtle (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WT:PERTH
Just giving you a heads up re a question there re railway templates. Orderinchaos 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And fixed. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mayfair Metra Station article
Hi again. I'm currently working on an article for the Mayfair (Metra) station, and while I'm almost finished, I'm having a lot of trouble fixing the transfer to the proper Montrose (CTA) station in the routebox. Is there anyway you can both fix this for me, and send me some tips on how to do so myself in the future before I submit it as an article? DanTD (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oberhof BLS track submission adj in DYK
Thanks for the adjustment in the Oberhof bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track DYK nomination earlier today. I really appreciate it. Now, let's see if it does earn that. Chris (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is late, but i am happy to inform you that the article made DYK on the 14th. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Hunger"
Hi. Having come late to the "debate" on the famine page, I spent a while looking at the naming issue. I want to stress that the current name is a BAD name for the article. It is NOT unambiguous and it is NOT the most common name. There are many Great Hungers in literature and history and the Irish one is just one of several. Even in google books, "The Great Hunger" is mostly a translated Norwegian novel (440 references out of 854 in total) from the early 20th century. In terms of famines, there have been famines in China (several), Ukraine, Greenland etc. that have been called "The Great Hunger". As far as I can see the renaming was done with Sony opposing his own suggestion and only Sarah77 and Domer48 supporting. I wasn't involved but I understand your presence on the page in the first place was because of the disruptive activities of editors, including (but not limited to) those two. Please have a look at what I've found and mentioned on the talk page for the article. In light of these FACTS, the naming decision should be re-visited. Hughsheehy (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thank you very much. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pere Marquette
You would be right on that. I trust you've made the correction.

Best to you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

What am I missing here?
Wife? Risker (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the fallacy of many questions, the most prominent example of which is "Are you still beating your wife?" Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that at least makes some sense. I've been asked some pretty weird questions lately, including a few by email, and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some joke everyone else was in on. In an abstract way, the comment is probably more humorous than you realise.  Risker (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan interurbans
FWIW, I added these to the defunct railroads section. Under List of Michigan Railroads The Defunct Interurban section says "No need for separate list, all interurbans are defunct." So you can sort this out, as I really did not know where to put them. Best regards to you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan Detroit, Lakeshore, and Mt. Clemens Railway)
 * I was trying to create an article. I was quoting from the Michigan Historical marker, which is in the public domain.  I was about to  give a reference, and a link to the Michigan Historical Markers website (which I did not get to put in, as they deleted the article before I could do that).  I made one edit, and the Wiki police jumped on this and deleted the article.  Frankly, I'm not up to this fight, as it ain't worth it to me.  They didn't give me five minutes to work on this before being both officious and overbearing at the same time.
 * I hope you can put together a great article on the subject. My parents loved the interurbans, and their destruction (and the loss of the streetcars in Detroit -- sold to Mexico City around 1955, where they are probably still running) was a tragedy of untold proportions, both for the society and the environment.
 * Yes, I just added the section. What I'd meant was that there's no need for separate interurban and defunct interurban sections, as all interurbans in Michigan are, by definition, defunct. I'll amend that. Let me see what I can do about the deleted article. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really not important. I'm just p.o.'d, and I'll move on to some other project.  Indeed, if you put it in your more comprehensive article, everybody will be better served.  There really isn't a need to Balkanize this for every little line. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan
 * It looks like it got deleted because the text in the wiki article and the text on the website were essentially the same, which violated copyright. I'm setting up a stub article at Detroit, Lake Shore and Mt. Clemens Railway. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Railroad I listed
7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan
 * Detroit, Lakeshore, and Mt. Clemens Railway
 * Michigan Shoreline Interurban Railway

Michigan Historical Markers website
http://www.michmarkers.com/Frameset.htm 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for the information. Good luck with your stub. FWIW, I don't think it did violate copyright. To begin, the website on Michigan Historical markers is itself quoting from the markers, which have text that is in the public domain. To be sure, I quoted from the historical marker, too. As to the rest of it, there are only so many ways you can say that service ended in 1927. They don't have a copyright on the thought, just on the words. Moreover, I was going to give a link and a reference. I was also working on this, and they jumped on it before it was little more than barely a glimmer in its daddy's eye, so to speak. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

DYK

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For consideration
In regards the presently suspended Matthew Hoffman case, as you know there is an RfC currently running on Adam Cuerden. As an involved participant in that RfC I may request to be added to the resumed case as a party if that will not be inappropriate. If so, and having the greatest of respect for you would still like to avoid the appearance of any prior disputes between us being viewed as relevant to any decision. I ask you only to consider this and exercise discretion as to whether you might recuse as to my own involvement, or let me know what you think. Again, I have had nothing but friendly discussions with you since my first RfC ended, and if you think that it has no bearing on present circumstances, I will rely upon your judgment. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When your situation has come up on the mailing list I've recused myself from discussion as a matter of propriety; if Adam's block of you takes center stage I will of course withdraw from the case altogether. Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and your letting me know. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another kind of Michigan railway
I wouldn't know where to put this in the List of Michigan railroads, but maybe it belongs there somewhere. Maybe you can figure it out. I don't think it should be disregarded. If you put that in, maybe the Detroit Zoo and the Henry Ford could be included, too.


 * The Michigan Au Sable Valley Railroad is located in Fairview. It is 1/4 scale 16 gauge railroad, that offers rides on a passenger train through the scenic Northern Michigan landscape. It operates in jack pine country during the summer months.  Riders travel through parts of the Huron National Forest and overlook the beautiful Comins Creek Valley.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

p.s., there's also on in Royal Oak, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing different from the Michigan Au Sable Valley, the Detroit Zoo, and private logging railroads/industrial tramways. At the moment, List of Michigan railroads is just past and current common carriers, but there's no reason to not include private lines. We already cover (albeit in minor detail) Western Michigan University's former incline (Western State Normal Railroad). See East Campus (Western Michigan University). Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand Rapids%2C Kalkaska and Southeastern Railroad

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion templates
Mackensen,

I've taken the liberty of removing User:Mackensen/ccf‎ from the conversion templates category. Hope you don't mind.

Jɪmp 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to protect it myself. I rather doubt that any productive commentary could possibly take place if protection were removed. Mackensen (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some period of discussion should be allowed. If the arbitration committee want to discourage input from the wider community (rather than the particular group involved here), that would be rather a big step to take (much better to politely listen and ignore if that is the choice made). Those banned from the pages could e-mail their thoughts. Asking the whole community to do that seems excessive. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee discourages disruptive activity, particularly on case pages. The participation on that page has been rather limited; I suspect most of the community is off happily editing articles and doesn't give a good damn over the issue. Certainly it doesn't care enough to restrain itself, or its members. I can't imagine who could possibly be bail for that unprotection; I won't do it. Very little has changed in the proposed decision in the last few days; given that so much of it turned on personality I'm sure it can be (un)profitably discussed on the relevant talk pages. Input is fine; by no stretch can I call what I saw there today input. Mackensen (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - read first
I'm on vacation the next three days. If I make any edits, I'm breaking my vacation and ought to be blocked or de-sysoped. Not a bad idea anyway. Pile up messages if you like; I won't see them until Monday. Mackensen (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC finding
You write "At root I think is an unwillingness/inability to back down from a situation until it explodes"

If I might venture a personal insight, it's somewhat more difficult than that. I'm not even aware of being out on a limb in the vast majority of these cases. In the Bishonen matter I was only subjectively conscious of Bishonen coming along and gratuitously dragging up an ancient grievance. I did not examine my words until some days later, when I realised that my reply had compounded the original offence. I'm not going out of my way to cause offence, I'm simply doing so in the normal course of expressing my opinion, apparently without the ability of introspection to see the consequences. This is a new and disturbing discovery for me. Provisionally, I think that the only course of action is for me to be extremely careful in expressing my opinion in future, on any matter relating to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken; this is what it looks like from the outside looking in. I can only speak from personal experience that alarms go off in my head (usually) before I go beyond what most consider appropriate. I base that on the feedback I get from other people. Unfortunately this project (and, for that matter, the outside world), doesn't always give good feedback soon enough. I recall this being the same problem in the Giano case, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's a new problem. I also suspect that the Committee, at this stage, will not rely on voluntary guarantees from anyone. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I well understand that this damaging case has long passed the point for voluntary remedies, and have indeed recognised my own propensities for intemperate expression and invited remedies. .  As I've said, I'll accept any necessary remedy without complaint, in the interests of a lasting peace.
 * When I say "new", I mean it's "a new and disturbing discover to me", no more than that. Obviously it might have been more apparent to you. --Tony Sidaway 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ore dock
Saw a red link in your article... I thought I knew UP railways well but I had no idea about that one. :) (I have a very fond memory of my father and I weaseling our way into the SOO line roundhouse in Marquette and then sweet talking our way into the cab of an old F which was in the shops... ) ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I was surprised that we lacked the article when I was putting IR&HB together; figured somebody from this state had to have tackled it before. My grandfather worked for the Escanaba & Lake Superior, so he used to tell me wonderful stories about that part of the state. The IR&HB itself was a lucky snag--ran across Barnett's article and decided we simply had to have an article on it. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication restricted
I think that's got a good chance of working. Very much along the lines I've been pursuing recently. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd been thinking about such a remedy since the start of the month; effectively it's a restraining order. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant remedy 2.1 instead of 3.1 in your statement. That was the best idea I've seen on that case. Thanks for coming up with it.  SGT Tex (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2.1. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the responses on the talk page, I think it needs to be settled that if two editors who are party to this case happen to contribute to the same discussion, it obviously doesn't necessarily constitute "[interacting] with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other" unless they do in fact refer to one another. Or if it does, then that also needs to be spelled out, I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer
I must say I feel that Phil has been unjustly entangled in this case. He is entitled to have an opinion on the subject, and (on his conduct immediately prior to the case) as an administrator he was entitled to use his best judgement to handle a situation in which he was not involved and in which he had played absolutely no part in causing.

He seems to be being penalized simply for making an ill-judged comment, which he withdrew as soon as he understood the problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remarkably ill-judged, frankly. I suspect it won't be forgiven either. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil obviously did not intend what was imputed to him. Lawrence, on the other hand, stepped well over the mark, falsely claiming that Bishonen was "the victim of targeted misogynist harassment", an accusation that completely beggars belief.  I did not intervene, having decided to avoid the risk of inflaming things, but frankly I found that statement by far the most shocking in the exchange. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC
can you PM me on IRC please? Thatcher 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not logged on at present; is it urgent? Mackensen (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sending you off well
Since I saw that you've completely withdrawn from all remaining arbitrator duties, I just wanted to say you've done a great job. Not that I always agreed with you, but you handled your role professionally and tactfully. I would have supported you for another term if you'd chosen to run, though of course your decision not to was the much saner one. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its too bad that you've withdrawn, and too bad also that you did not choose to take another term. Its completely understandable, though. I've been impressed by your reasoning and contributions, and as no one else has here yet I want to thank you for your long service on the Committee and the benefit the project has seen as a result. Avruch talk 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think many people approve of what Giano says. I know that I don't, but it seems futile to say anything to him about it. Avruch talk 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your service as an arbitrator, which reflected credit on you and Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have always appreciated your contributions. Jehochman Talk 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say thanks as well. You were always prepared to discuss things during the IRC case, and handled yourself well in that case and on other cases. Best wishes for the future. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Full marks for effort and good intentions (as per usual...) as well as thanks. Hopefully you're not going anywhere, there are still railway articles out there... ;) so I shan't say bye. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to express my personal thanks for all the work you have done for Wikipedia. I have been exasperated as the next man by some of ArbCom's decisions, but fully appreciate what an impossible task you have (had!). For what its worth, I find the lack of respect offered to you, and other Arbs, by some editors really quite despicable. I find it desperately sad that we, the community, will stand by and let someone be hounded in this manner, but at the same time I know I would have snapped a long time ago and so fully understand your decision. Anyway, please accept this, as but a token of appreciation:


 * As someone with tremendous respect for the careful work the ArbCom does, I'd also like to thank you for your service to the community. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 149.9.0.25
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 149.9.0.25, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! :) SQL Query me!  20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

South Shore Line (NICTD) map template
I looked at the history of the article on the South Shore Line (NICTD), and found the map template was either created by you, or merely installed by you. Whatever the case may be, it has one error. The Airplane logo should be at Gary Airport, not at Gary Metro Center. I'd fix it myself if I could get in. ---DanTD (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not guilty! (Well, almost ;)). The template is at - while I did create it, someone else added the airports. I've fixed it now. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV for Adult-Child Sex
Allow me to be the first to say good job on the DRV for this article. While my opinion did change in the debate after reading the admin's original resolution for the AfD, I was impressed by your reasoning and your explanation as to why you endorsed the deletion. This was going to be a difficult resolution either way and I just wanted to say thanks for handling it so professionally. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A 'good job' note from me too. I saw the DRV and thought, "You know, the person who closes this, no matter what they say, obviously has to be working for the good of Wikipedia, since either way it goes they'll be lambasted by the involved parties." You're a braver person than I. Hopefully, no cretins come to lambaste someone willing to stand and make a decision on the matter! ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above - thank you for closing this, it was a difficult situation. At least someone can't say it was closed by 'A newbie admin with no closing experience and no notion of policy' like they attempted to do (incorrectly) with Keilana's AfD close. Avruch talk 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good but tough close. But don't you need/should to add a close tag on the main WP:DRV page?  MBisanz  talk 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right you are; looks like someone took care of it. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins who close DRVs fall into the following groups: In short, it's like protecting The Wrong Version except that you usually have many more people willing to tell you about it. :-)
 * New admin, closure agrees with the commenter: This admin is wise beyond his years.
 * Old hand, closure agrees with the commenter: This admin has made a wise and thoughtful decision on this controversial issue.
 * New admin, closure is opposed by the commenter: This admin is too new to understand how policy and consensus work.
 * Old hand, closure is opposed by the commenter: This admin is too jaded/cabalistic/rouge to properly judge the merits of the case.

All kidding aside, though I can see your reasoning in endorsing the deletion and I respect the consensus determined, I think that the article itself should exist; One cannot address how the phenomenon was dealt with prior to the advent of modern understandings of childhood and child abuse within the single lens of child sexual abuse or slivered out over several articles with no comprehensive view. Once the pro-pedophile stuff is de-weighted, the remaining information could make a good article.

I'm glad that the DRV rationale doesn't close the door completely on the content of the deleted article. Can I have the deleted article emailed to me or put in my userspace so I can put any useful content into other articles? --SSBohio 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of the folks in this category should be able to help you. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SSBohio 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me pile on here and say good job on this difficult case. Dreadstar †  00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, thank you very much. Best, Keilana | Parlez ici 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My hero
I just read your user page. I noticed your mention of both Hegel and Mills. Any man who combines German idealism and Anglo/American liberalism is obviously one of good taste and intelligence. :) Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you :). Of course, I'm subverting Hegel by detaching him from the Frederican state he so dearly loved, but he's not around to shout at me. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! The combination of German idealism and Anglo-American philosophy is of some particular interest to me. It was surprising to encounter someone with at least a parallel train of thought. :) Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD
Out of interest - what do you see as the relevance of the wikidash stats to the MfD? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, it shows that only a small subset of people have weighed in on the page's contents in a significant way. I'm not sure how this page would compare stat-wise to other policy pages... Either way - having a (currently) controversial page that results in such a big problem even though only 4 people have contributed substantially to it is a pretty strong argument for its deletion. Avruch talk 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, among other things, that two of our colleagues were arguing over how much they discussed the page (about a line or two above me). I confess to also being tickled to find something that broke down pages that way–I've been looking for such a tool for some time. Now if they'd only update their data dump, or start querying live...Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hellfire Club
I'm working on this article... are you able to help me with it?? It's currently underconstruction for now! Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:First Great Western lines
A you created, Template:First Great Western lines,  been marked for deletion as  deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

 * And thank you very much again! Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bigger images from the UP Digitalization Center Collections site
I sorted out how to get the UPDCC site to show the full scale of the entire image at once, without having to stitch the image together from pieces. I used this trick to replace Image:IRHB_ore_dock.jpg ... it's now much bigger and you can really see the detail on SS Chris ... it's one of the best pics of Chris I've seen now that you can zoom in. The trick is this... take the properties of the image while at 100% zoom (any part is fine) and display that URL. For instance ... Change the parms in the URL so that DMWIDTH and DMHEIGHT are some huge numbers (i used 6000), and DMX and DMY are 0, and display that. The image URL now would be... That image is 100% zoom, ready to save. Hope that's helpful! ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * is a small part of that image.
 * 
 * That's a neat trick--very helpful indeed. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lansing, St. Johns and St. Louis Railway

 * Thanks so much! Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kyriakos (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

latest DYK

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And again

Thanks
"Rhetorical exuberance". Yes, I like that, and I recognise it as an accurate characterisation. I will try to be less rhetorically exuberant. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser, abuse reports, Runtshit
Hi Mackensen, where would I go to see if an abuse report had been/could be filed on User:Runtshit? I notice him only because he frequently vandalizes the Norman Finkelstein page, which is on my watchlist... But there are 372 blocked sockpuppets, which seems like a candidate for some further action by someone. Any ideas? Avruch  T 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about contacting an ISP, probably any Checkuser in the same country. I'll raise the matter on the mailing list. Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Merseyrail color
A tag has been placed on Template:Merseyrail color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Merseyrail lines
A tag has been placed on Template:Merseyrail lines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Merseyrail stations
A tag has been placed on Template:Merseyrail stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Metromover color
A tag has been placed on Template:Metromover color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Metromover lines
A tag has been placed on Template:Metromover lines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Metromover stations
A tag has been placed on Template:Metromover stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ministry
A tag has been placed on Template:Ministry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ministry member
A tag has been placed on Template:Ministry member requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Documenting railway lines using nifty diagrams
Mackensen, have a look at Solway_Junction_Railway as an example. (the things one sees when snooping on other user's pages!.. that snoop is from John's page) The Brit railfans seem to be using a set of images and templates to document what junctions/stations/crossings etc a line has, quite clever stuff. (I see it in use on some other lines like Tōkyū Tōyoko Line for example...) If you end up doing more lines you might want to consider using that stuff (or maybe you're already aware of it? Maybe I should go read the WP:RR project more often??). Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a few of these: check out PM Toledo Division and Ionia and Lansing Railroad for examples ;). Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Figures. :) Cool. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall and whatnot
Thanks for speaking up about the issue which came up in my RfA. I was glad to discuss it with the party who raised the issue, but I think I'd rather lose some votes than talk about someone else in such a public forum. A third party's actions had given him good reason to feel so strongly about that issue this week. (What timing.)

I had already been planning to reply to you about the admin recall thing. Thanks for your thoughts on that. Honestly, I had created the userbox at Doczilla (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vline color
A tag has been placed on Template:Vline color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vline lines
A tag has been placed on Template:Vline lines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vline stations
A tag has been placed on Template:Vline stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vline style
A tag has been placed on Template:Vline style requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA
I saw your notice to spammers. At the RfA talk page, we had [|a discussion] about whether thank you notes like these are spam or not. I've been watching for any talk page notices which say this isn't welcome. I wasn't sure from yours, and I really do want to express my appreciation for your active involvement in the things that went on during my RfA. Not just for the vote, I appreciate that you watched out for what was fair and right. Best, Doczilla  RAWR! 08:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I (somewhat) joked on the talk page, commenting in an RfA establishes a relationship between the nominee and the commentor. Now, if you try to upsell me, we may have a problem. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Velebit
Can you please tell me if I ask checkuser for user Guivon (this is confirmed puppet of Velebit) and his new puppets it is possible to make check or not. I ask this because last article edits of this user has been in second half of August 2007 and his last edit has been on Guivon talk page on 7 september 2007.

Sorry for disturbing you with this question but because Allison is on wiki break ... This question is connected closed case Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff because user Velebit account is stale.--Rjecina (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a checkuser familiar with the case already then it might be possible. Otherwise no. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Grand Rapids, Belding and Saginaw Railroad, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Developer accounts
Is this another one? Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Brest (1941)
Thanks for your input. Could you look at another controversial fragment - about major Gavrilov's imprisonment? I think the sources are not contradictory, and they indicate he was imprisoned; Irpen disagrees.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Western State Normal Railroad

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism
Gene Ray really IRL died. 24.147.52.110 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Docs please. Mackensen (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

g'day mack....
I've got a quick question for the checkuser ombuds folk that I hope you can help me with (you'll probably recall the emails I've sent over the last few months, and I also piped up here and here! Hopefully it's not too big a deal to sort out...

I was wondering if the ombudsman commission has any opinion as to the propriety of an individual checkuser telling an editor (me!) when they have been checked, by whom, and for what rationale.

I have understood that the commission is not minded to instruct the release of such information, but I'm wondering if that implies a general restriction or not.

I popped a note on rebecca's talk page also - but hope you don't mind me coming here too... thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question
Yes, there is a uniform.... Risker (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I call Conrad! Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Conrad was the king of cool. Crazy fighter-jock, third man on the moon, and died in a horrible motorcycle accident. Tom Wolfe was all over him in The Right Stuff. Pity that part of the book didn't make it into the movie...Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes! My goodness, it's been 25 years since I read that book. I'll have to spring it from the library when I return the stack about hockey goaltenders I got out for an article. Wolfe will no doubt be much more interesting. Well, except for the Ken Dryden book. Risker (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:C2c color
A tag has been placed on Template:C2c color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:C2c lines
A tag has been placed on Template:C2c lines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:C2c stations
A tag has been placed on Template:C2c stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shii/ED
The relevant DRV is over. See. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. The context has changed; a completely new MfD might make more sense then re-opening the old one. Mackensen (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Guy IARed it away anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster
One of the prostitutes says he tried to haggle over the price — he has $14 billion! Such haggling would be the true pathology of the whole thing! El_C 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence §  t / e  17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Central Trains lines
A tag has been placed on Template:Central Trains lines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Central Trains stations
A tag has been placed on Template:Central Trains stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Station Header CTA
Hi. Something is wrong with this template--the images are appearing full size on the station pages. I had a look but I don't know the code well enough to be able to fix it. Can you take a look at it. Thanks —Jeremy (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Strange that that should suddenly start causing a problem. —Jeremy (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. —Jeremy (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot Blocking
Thanks, i think...

Lol

I cant believe how bad the categorisation seems to be. It shouldnt be unreasonable to suspect 99.9% of articles in a category and any subcategories are actually related...

Ahh well

—  Reedy  Boy  18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks heaps for your response on the checkuser thing, Mackensen - and I'm very pleased that my question has been addressed (I've received other responses privately too - which is great - I'll try and bring something together before too long....). More than one checkuser indicated to me that this was a policy question about which they were unsure - and I think the key bit here really is "it's up to the checkuser in question to make whatever disclosures he or she deems necessary or proper" - which tallies with what I perceive as practice.

To be very clear - it is my understanding therefore that if an individual checkuser wishes to inform an editor about any checks run on an account, including details of rationales given, the identity of the checkuser, and the date / time of the check, then that would not be prohibited by the privacy policy - but a strong reason would be required to overcome the expectation that all checkuser information be kept as private as possible.

Thanks once again for engaging - and would it be ok with you to copy your comments to a centralised location for discussion at some point? - I think that would be useful! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Amtrak stations in the District of Columbia
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Amtrak stations in the District of Columbia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Amtrak stations in the District of Columbia has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Amtrak stations in the District of Columbia, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day Mack.....
I saw your recent thoughtful post about how your roles within wikipedia have changed over the last 5 years - and that you're now back full circle to straight forward article editing - it struck me that not only am I very interested to talk about your experiences, but that others may be interested in having a listen - I wonder if you might consider sparing an hour or so at some point convenient to you to have a sort of interview / conversation about your wiki experience 'in the whole' - which I'd really like to then 'broadcast' as one of the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' podcasts? - If you've any questions at all, please do let me know, and I hope you might be agreeable to a friendly, open chat - which I think would be very useful to many in the community... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fascinating, but at the moment I must turn you down--I don't use Skype and I lack the necessary kit anyway. Otherwise I'd be more than willing to do it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no worries - and with sincere apologies if you were politely declining to preserve my dignity, it is with some trepidation that I let you know that we could actually have a chat via either a dial in, or dial out service (basically, I can call you, or you can call a specific number if you prefer) - so the only really necessary kit is the willingness to spare an hour or so, and a functional telephone! Let me know if that helps any - and of course feel free to decline - I do feel that your insights gained from a long and multi-faceted wiki career, and your take on the wiki in general would be of interest to many (and by many, I guess I certainly mean me!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

temporary inactive / reserve list
I noticed your addition of a temporary inactive list to the MiLB roster temp. I think MiLB uses the terms "temporary inactive list" and "reserve list" interchangeably. If you'll look at the PCL's transactions list, you'll see that Laynce Nix was placed on the "temporary inactive list" on May 6. Now, if you check his team's roster you'll see his status as "reserve". It seems like "t.i.l." may be the official designation, but they use "reserve" on the roster because it fits better into the allotted space. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't sure about that. How about keeping the double-cross symbol (‡), but calling it reserve? Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman DRV
Very well done and well stated in that close sir. I haven't been editing much or keeping track of DRV lately. I just noticed that May seems to be the month for returning to major DRV controversies I have previously closed. ED, Vicki Iseman, Corey Delaney. Fun times... IronGargoyle (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Mackensen, what can I say? Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I've always held your opinion in high esteem, and to see your name in the "support" column meant a great deal to me. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome; I hope I haven't helped condemn you to cycle of burnout and regret. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Amtrak lines and route templates
Hi Mackensen. We seem tyo have gotten into a mini edit war (edit skirmish?) about Amtrak route templates. The reason why I moved the route maps from outside the infobox is that they don't display correctly when inside it. It ends up with gaps between each line segment. I'm not quite sure why... I think it may to be something to do with the infobox template. Tom pw (talk) (review) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see about three gaps on Pacific Surfliner even now; I'd rather an integrated infobox because the simplifies page display. I don't recall seeing any when they were unified. What browser are you using? Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would rather have an integrated infobox too, but not at the expense of the overall apearence. I use the latest version of Internet Explorer, like most users, and I get gaps between every single line segment. Tom pw  (talk) (review) 17:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can reproduce it in IE 6; both Firefox and Opera render the page correctly. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the majority of users will view articles using IE, where does this leave us? Tom pw (talk) (review) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking for a fix. I'm playing with it in my userspace. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lord derby.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lord derby.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Email
FYI, sent you an email. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chetniks
Mackensen, I'd like to go forward with the general cleanup of the article. I wonder if I could rush a resolution to this matter? The "irrelevance" and "not a proof" justifications Deucaon keeps repeating are clearly not valid in this case, as they do not address the matter at hand. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hate to annoy you with this thing again, but User:Deucaon is in all objectivity not really discussing, nor has he yet stated any real reason for his actions. I would let the thing run its course, but like I said its just that I'd really like to start the cleanup while I still have time (I'm generally working on the cleanup of WW2 Yugoslav articles). As for Chetnik collaboration, I can't imagine how POV a source would have to be to actually state the Chetniks did not collaborate with the Axis. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Railway station naming consistency
Hey Mackensen - how is your plan on railway station renaming going? Just to clarify, in Australia we use "X railway station, City" where the line is part of a suburban system and "X railway station, State" where it is not. So Dulwich Hill railway station, Sydney for a station in suburban Sydney, and Greta railway station, New South Wales for a country station. I think this works well. Alternatively you could just do "X railway station" and disambiguate where necessary - that's where the Australian and English systems differ. In Australia there are stations with the same name in three different cities (and I imagine America would have the same problem) so it might be better taking our example.

The only exceptions are ones with proper names which are iconic - Southern Cross Station is the title, for example, with the usual name a redirect. Grand Central Terminal or similar I expect would be given the same treatment.

How's the Sydney infoboxes by the way? Any way forward on them? JRG (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can reply here. JRG (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem... JRG (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring you, I just had to get the styles issue settled (or out of mind) first. The only limitation is that we never quite agreed, or I never quite understood, the railway structure in central Sydney. Otherwise I think things are ready. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Mackensen/Flarp updated again. I think we were close. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Maybe a little smaller - they are quite large compared to the other systems used around the world? By the way - what's up with the first box of the GSR system (see the Flarp page for an example) - it's adopted a separate colour? Can you tell me how to change that if I need to? JRG (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The color thing was a bug, which I've fixed. Still not sure where it crept it. There's no real way to shrink the boxes (save eliminating the termini altogether). Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)