User talk:Mackensen/Archive19

Mass prod
A series of "List of peers" articles that you created has been prodded. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 June 2009. Discussion is ongoing here. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, those articles. That was an idea that didn't scale well, honestly. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we bin them then? Nothing worth saving? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection--it's an idea that didn't work and I've no interest (myself) in reviving it. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Robert lowe wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Robert lowe wiki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Earl of aberdeen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Earl of aberdeen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Arthur balfour.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Arthur balfour.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Salisbury wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Salisbury wiki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

IRC channel, Questions, and comment
I would like to ask you three question:


 * Is anyone ever on the WikiProject Train IRC channel?


 * Do you have the following pictures


 * Pictures of the latest London Overground Turbostar train
 * Pictures of the interior of the British Rail Class 390 aka Virgin Trains Pendelino


 * And please comment on the following template:

Thanks, Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MackBot
Is MackBot actually a bot? or used for manual editing? If the former, it should have BRFA (and then listed under "Bots" in AWB's checkpage)... If the latter...shouldn't have Bot in its name. =) –xenotalk 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I toyed with the idea of actually scripting something at one point but no, it's just me doing AWB stuff. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. You might want to request a rename so people don't get the wrong idea. –xenotalk 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png)
Thanks for uploading File: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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli
Hi there,

in the said paragraph, you added a reference of a certain Morley, but the bibliographical information is missing. Do you still have it, in which case, could you add it, please? Thanks in advance? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have it, but happily Google Books does ;). I've updated the page numbers and added the book to the bibliography. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Fremont Amtrak station.jpg
File:Fremont Amtrak station.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Fremont Amtrak station.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Hayward Amtrak station.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hayward Amtrak station.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Oakland Amtrak station.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Oakland Amtrak station.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Schlieffen
I read your essay with great interest. I wondered if this http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3202_pp155-191_Lieber.pdf was in your files? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

S-line usage and page layout factors
I have started some work on this stub: Rydal,_New_South_Wales since it is local to where I live. I note the railway information has already been contributed.

My preference is for the rail information panel to appear under, and aligned with, the geographical information, i.e., forming a right hand column. (Currently the rail information is centered under the text content.)

Is this layout possible? and how should it be done?

If it is not currently possible would you consider its implementation?

To date I have not been able to find documentation on how I might achieve this formatting outcome for myself, but I am also very inexperienced and could well have missed the relevant part(s).

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Regards, -- gtsWiki (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Benjamin Disraeli
As you are the major contributor to this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware that Benjamin Disraeli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins
Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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) 00:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Duck Island, garden feature
Hi, Mackensen. Please add a closing rationale to Articles for deletion/Duck Island, garden feature. Summarizing the arguments of the debate will allow the users to understand how you weighed the arguments. Note that I do not disagree with your close of this AfD, but in divided discussions, it is best to provide a rationale. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've been at this a while and I didn't see a need for a rationale. The consensus was to delete and the arguments were grounded in policy. I think a rationale is needed when consensus is non-obvious. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is to provide a rationale, since the deletion was disputed.  I am particularly concerned because Cunard continued the AfD "in order to "generate more discussion about MuffledThud's "keep" opinion". Three hours later, there was one additional comment, a keep, with a suggested title change -- and just two hours after that you closed as delete. This in my opinion is ignoring  both the  general concept behind relisting--and if you regard Cunard's relisting as an admin action,more specifically  not paying any respect to the grounds on which he made it. I think you do need to provide an explanation of why you did that-- first, why you did not keep it open longer, and second the  seeing a relisted debate, obseving an additional keep, and closing delete. You're essentially reverting Cunard's close without prior discussion with him and over his  subsequent objections. (I have no particular view at this pointon the issue of the article--I did not comment at  the AfD)    DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG's assessment of the situation. Please explain why you ignored the relist. In this AfD, there was the nominator, three "delete" opinions (discounting the unregistered users), and two "keep" opinions (discounting one unregistered user). The "delete" opinions mainly discussed how the article was being used to make a political statement and lacked sources, while the "keep" opinions provided numerous sources about the topic. I believe that the AfD should have been more of a "no consensus" close since none of the "delete" opinions discussed the validity of the sources provided by . I relisted the discussion so that those who voted "delete" could explain whether MuffledThud's sources were valid or not. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, I missed the date on the relist. I came to the debate from the old AfDs list, and naturally assumed that the relist was far earlier. I wouldn't have closed the debate at all had I seen that it was on the 17th. I'm quite content to be reverted immediately on those grounds--the relist should stand and the debate should be moved to the correct date. Taking the debate as a whole, leaving aside that I missed the date of the relist, the most comments favored deletion and I found them persuasive. Furthermore, the article itself seemed (to me) a fairly obvious and implausible WP:COATRACK. In any event, I'll reverse myself on the grounds that the relist should go the full measure, and I apologize for the mistake. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it looks like a coatrack, but I didn't see enough discussion in the debate for it to be closed as delete. Thanks for relisting the debate; I've moved it to the correct date. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: T&P station
Yes, there is something wrong. The NRHP parameters have shrunk considerably compared to those from the Trains parameters. I've noticed that a lot of the combined Trains/NRHP infoboxes you worked on have this problem. Not all of them, mind you, but a lot of them nonetheless. DanTD (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the font size in Infobox Station is slightly smaller ever since we switched over to, but that's true project-wide. I don't really see that as a problem. Certainly not one which would justify keeping a forked template. However, the font size should be consistent across all of them. I would be curious if you could point to a converted Infobox which didn't have this "problem." I mean, I think we're talking about one point in font size, if that. I can barely see it. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Sebring (Amtrak station) is one. West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station) and 30th Street Station have smaller NRHP parameters, but not by as much as many of the others. DanTD (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't touched Sebring at all. West Palm Beach and 30th Street yes, and they look the same to me as the changed version of T&P. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's just a font-size issue boosting it isn't a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't touch Sebring. I just used that as an example of how they should look. One other thing I've noticed, is that a lot of maps are dissapearing from the new versions. DanTD (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't happen, because the NRHP infobox should be the same. Can you point me to one of those? Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Point to what? The disappearing maps? Are you telling me you don't see a big white space where the maps are supposed to be? DanTD (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm telling you that I want you to tell me the articles which are missing maps. Because I look at West Palm Beach, and I see a map. I look at 30th Street and I see a map. Please give me a link to an article which should have a map but doesn't. Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to be sure of what you were talking about. I think it was more than just the new versions of the infoboxes, because I saw them disappearing on the older ones too. Maybe it was just my PC. As for the improvements you just wrote to me about, I'm willing to see the results. There were a couple of others I replaced with older versions, but only because they were missing the services. DanTD (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Like I said, the font sizes are the same now. Let me change T&P Station back to my version of the infobox, and let me know what you think. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the NRHP parameters are still shrunk. Would a map and some other parameters make any improvements? 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we clarify shrunk? Do you just mean spacing around the box? The text appears the same size to me. Mackensen (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything different about the CTA infoboxes, other than the formatting. But as for your previous question, yes the spacing in the NRHP section of the infobox makes it looks smaller. DanTD (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

F-Zero
Please do not move series articles like this again. These things are controversial (especially since there was not a consensus to include that guide) and should be done through WP:RM.  TJ   Spyke   00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was listed as a non-controversial move via speedy deletion; I'm unaware of any larger debate and assumed the listing was made in good faith. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * tagged the article for the move. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP Relisting of Thomas K. Dye‎
Hi. Just dropping you a line that I'm going to be disputing the way this was re-listed and closed out. Despite the re-listing policy, there *were* more than a two comments on this, and there *were* stated policy reasons for people saying keep. The closing admin also appears to have done so without consensus being shown. --Barberio (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you refer to as a policy is actually a guideline; the purpose of a relisting is to broaden a debate, which is what happened. I didn't think the discussion had sufficient commentary, and the doubling of comments after the relisting could only aid the discussion. Feel free to challenge the close at DRV, but I don't see the relisting as being in error or subject in itself to review. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the WP:RELIST guideline be changed? I don't think the rule that "the discussion has only one or two commenters (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy" is what any admins are going by. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline; it's not enforceable. I've been closing deletion discussions for five years and I've never heard of any such thing. I doubt whomever wrote the current wording had any idea it would be used as a justification for overturning a subsequent close. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, if you don't like the guideline, find consensus to get it changed. Don't just go around saying "It's only a guideline, I don't have to follow it." The guide line is the only documented wikipedia process that allowed you to re-list in the first place, if you don't want to follow it, don't re-list.
 * Ignoring, or apparently being ignorant of, the consensus developed guidelines... then turning around and saying "well, since we've not been following it, we don't *have* to follow it at all" is exactly the kind of stuff that gets people upset at Admins. Don't like a guideline, work to change it, don't just ignore it and declare it invalid *because* you ignore it.--Barberio (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * About a year a couple people on the Deletion Process talk page decided to spell out in greater detail how the mechanism worked. This was apparently in response to a phenomenon of multiple relistings. It was not their intention to bind administrators to any stricter standard; if it was, they would have needed to seek wider input. The guideline is just that: they're a suggestion about how to conduct a deletion discussion. For actual policy, see Deletion policy. Changing a policy page does not change a policy by itself, unless it has consensus (leaving aside that this isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and administrators are free to depart from it). The relisting was fine and completely within policy. Now, let's look at what the relisting portion of the guideline currently says:


 * ''However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only one or two commenters (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to get further discussion to determine consensus. It may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.


 * That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.''


 * Nothing in that compels the administrator to relist or not relist; rather, it spells out a situation where you should consider doing so. That page is meant to guide an administrator, not bind him or her. It clearly leaves it to the discretion of the administrator to decide whether a debate has had sufficient input to warrant an actual close. On reviewing the debate, I decided that it had not, and would best be served by an additional seven days. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've said all I'm ever going to say on this question, and indeed never expected that I would ever have to write so much on the matter of relisting a deletion debate, nor that the ethical balance of the project would hang on this matter. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is no longer the re-listing, but the attitude you have taken that Administrators are free to ignore guidelines at will and declare them to be "wrong" simply by refusing to act by them. That affects the ethical balance of the project, by giving Admin the power to nullify policies and guidelines created by general editor consensus. Admin are not a ruling class who get to decide what rules they will follow. --Barberio (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what about that note said "please, let's continue this on my talk page." I've already responded on the village pump where it's more visible. I have not taken the attitude you ascribe to me and I find your entire approach deeply repugnant and offensive. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thomas K. Dye
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas K. Dye. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Metra and other RR station images
I've got to congratualte you on the mass upload of images of Metra stations and a few others. Although, you really should add categories to them, and eliminate the "images needed" parameters. But it's still nice to see them up. My wikibreak was supposed to start today, but my vacation has been delayed by the recent blizzard. So it starts tomorrow. DanTD (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm planning on revisiting them after the fact and adding categories. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though the real credit should go to, who took most of the Metra pictures. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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) 03:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. :)
Anyone who creates a valid article under a title I'd deleted is more than welcome to do so; I don't generally keep track anyway. :) Thanks for all of your great work and the great new article.  Always a pleasure to see your stuff and have a word or two with you.  Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DB-RB lines
Template:DB-RB lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mackensen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Annika Mombauer -
 * 2) Terence Zuber -
 * 3) Edward Baldwin, 4th Earl Baldwin of Bewdley -
 * 4) William Astor, 4th Viscount Astor -

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox station header CTA
Template:Infobox station header CTA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Toledo Rockets football

 * Kudos to you, sir, for this excellent article! (Though as a resident of NW Ohio, I admit that I might be a bit biased ... )  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ;) Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dyer (Amtrak station) reference
I just saw that reference you added to Dyer (Amtrak station), and I found out it's useful for a lot of other stations in Indiana. Have you considered adding it to other articles. DanTD (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I hadn't. I added when someone challenged the notability of Dyer, so I was focused on that particular article. It's a good idea though. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

En dashes in SCOTUS template
OK, got it thanks. I've asked for a change to be made to the template syntax: Template_talk:Infobox_SCOTUS_case. Tony  (talk)  01:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
–MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New socks
Hi Mackensen, I'm putting this here because it was you who blocked the sockpuppets and underlying IP in this investivation. Two new heads, User:Antoniarowland and User:Madgebrandt popped up this morning, presumably from a different IP. This looks very much like bot spam, and going through another CU request seems a little tedious - any chance you could check to see if there's another IP that could be blocked? Blocking the socks as they pop up is a no-brainer, but because they keep creating new ones that don't return after the first spam attack it doesn't prevent future spamming. Cheers, bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another batch of IPs blocked. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

template:S-rail-national
I am confused about the use of this template. Is this now the recommended template for UK stations to show the lines which serve it? I have been unable to work out how to set-up the old destination stations that used to appear in the 'left' and 'right' templates. Template:S-line/FCC left/Cambridge is an example that used to work, but creating template:S-line/National Rail left/First Capital Connect (as National Rail is the System, and First Capital Connect the Line does seem to produce any output.

Any ideas? Ajcoxuk (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * S-rail-national is a mirror copy of s-line with some display tweaks; National Rail isn't the system. See Manchester Piccadilly station for an example of usage. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, but the example you suggest also doesn't appear to be working in the manner I thought. If you compare the section for Manchester Metrolink you will notice the previous and next boxes containing the text 'towards' and a linked destination station.  Having moved to using the S-rail-national template I cannot get these destination stations to appear.  If the template is just a tweaked copy of s-line, then I would expect this functionality to still be available, but how does it now need setting up?  I would guess it is something to do with setting up the 'left' and 'right' templates, as I mention above, but to-date I have not been successful.  Thanks again Ajcoxuk (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that; you were right the first time (it's been a while since I looked at this). National Rail is the system, but s-rail-national was designed to make that non-obvious. At the request of UK:RAIL, terminus display is suppressed and not implemented. Mackensen (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to get your s-rail-national template to work with historical/disused stations without any success. Would you be kind enough to implement it for Spalding to give me a working example? The Manchester Piccadilly example above doesn't contain any disused/historical lines. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. There's some groundwork to be laid first; I've done GNR but I still need to do the other. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up your amendment to Spalding railway station, because the line to Surfleet is closed, not open. I've also made two small tweaks to . One is to show the newly-added GNR as a colour sample (so that all the template's features are documented); the other is to obtain the GNR value from the existing template (so that should we decide on a different colour for the GNR at a later date, it would only need to be amended in one place). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have no idea what I thought I was looking at ;). I've taken of the GNGE now as well. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - that gives us a real basis for future conversions. It's actually a very useful template once one knows how to apply it. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One more question - how would I disambig Sheringham (North Norfolk Railway) from Sheringham in the historical routebox in West Runton? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Specify the county1 or county2 parameter (depending if it's on the left or right). Whatever is passed that way will be put in parenthesis. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another question for you - would it be possible to modify the template to allow it to cover heritage lines, i.e. something like title=heritage? See the routebox in Duffield for an example. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it will take a little tinkering. Let me look at it and get back to you. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West,.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Athenean "sockpuppetry "case"
I would greatly appreciate if you would answer my e-mail from two weeks ago where I demanded explanation and more details about the sockpuppetry case that I initiated. Thank you very much.Draganparis (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I missed your email at first. Having now read it I have nothing to add to what I said publicly and I regret that I cannot give you a more specific answer to your query. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Talkback
C628 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 19:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Metra-style infobox suggestions
If I'm not mistaken, we've both considered new Metra-style infoboxes, and I think I've just come up with one;


 * Title pages should have a medium-blue background with white helvetica lettering(as done on the official signs).
 * Titles for segments such as Station statistics, Services, other info, should always be in correspondence with each Metra color, and lettering should be either white or black, depending on which is more visible.
 * In the event that a station has more than one line(Clybourn, River Grove, Western Avenue Milwaukee District, many stations along the Metra Electric line from Millennium Station to Kensington/115th Street), those segments of the infobox should be black with white lettering. Exceptions are for stations that share services with Amtrak and the Chicago "L's."

I didn't actually make any of these yet, I just thought I'd throw my idea for them your way. What do you think of it? DanTD (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the sound of that and it shouldn't pose any great technical barrier. Let me play around with that. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm testing the generic Metra style at Clybourn. The one problem I'm hitting is the blue linked text from the "type" parameter disappears against the blue background. It may be necessary to modify Infobox station to deal with that. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's going to be a pain in the neck, with ramifications elsewhere. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of type and it's probably a style violation somewhere to keep it in the above matter. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings
Wow. I may not agree with your suggestion, but you sound incredibly hurt. I just happen to think that the existing naming convention makes a lot more sense(although I'd like to see a return of SEPTA's old names, and maybe a return of the Newark City Subway), and if it seemed like I was jumping down your throat over this I apologize. I just hope you don't think I mean any harm. DanTD (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that means a lot. I'm not hurt, just a little frustrated. I think my pedantry gets the better of me sometimes. I'm going to turn to a different long-range project: making List of Amtrak stations more useful. Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Atlantic City Line
A lot of these stations are still owned by Amtrak and have the old Amtrak codes. There must be a reason for that. DanTD (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the ownership, but Amtrak started through-booking to the Atlantic City Line stations in 1994, and kept doing so after the Express stopped running. I think they do that for other NJT stations on the corridor but I'm not sure. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New image on Spring Garden (MFL station)
I see you finally posted an image for Spring Garden (SEPTA Market-Frankford Line station). I was planning to make this part of my trip as well. Only in the picture I wanted to take, you could acutally see Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania. Just one more for me to consider skipping. DanTD (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for lifting of restriction
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:TransLink color
A template you created, Template:TransLink color, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:TransLink lines
A template you created, Template:TransLink lines, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unused Templates
Templates you may have created; Template:Infobox Station Begin, Template:Infobox station begin, Template:Infobox Station Example, Template:Infobox station example, Template:Infobox Station Header, Template:Infobox station header, Template:Infobox Station Main, Template:Infobox station main, Template:Infobox Station Services and Template:Infobox station services, have been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

QVC Vandalism
Hi,

Sorry to bother but I've been reverting the edits of several anonymous IP adresses on the QVC page for awhile now. The article is clearly biased, and going back in the article's history you can see these anonymous users omitted details about lawsuits against QVC, false claims about weight loss products etc. without giving a reason. I've tidied up the page and got rid of some of the more blatant advertising but they keep reverting those edits, as well as the advert tag I placed on. According to Wikiscanner QVC have made about three dozen edits to their own page (as well as mentioning QVC in a few other pages), however I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am unsure of what to do apart from keep reverting their edits. There is also a user called Murphy86 who does the same thing and his only edits have been to the QVC article. Thanks. Deftera (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * NVM, it's sorted now. You weren't responding so I pm'ed another admin. Deftera (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PhotoWest
Thanks for the link. I had hunted around the DPL website looking for the language "encouraging" use of the images, and hadn't found it. You and I could probably have a nice long debate about fair use. I don't think it includes plastering images on a website that will be seen by millions of readers. But more importantly, I think there are ways to compromise on this issue that don't involve debating. There are some reasonable alternatives: 1. Contact the Denver Public Library for permission; and 2. Provide a link in the article to the DPL image, which I tried to do. (It worked when I first added it to the article, but doesn't now.) #1 could be done for the entire collection, thereby saving the hassle of any future debates about other images. See my further comments on the deletion review page. Thanks again. TardyHardy (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've responded there. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for beautifully articulating the real NFCC issue
Thanks for so beautifully articulating the real issue about consensus as it applies to deletion/retention decisions and applying WP:NFCC. While the Pioneer Zephyr image itself is a fairly minor one in importance to WP, the principle of consensus and how deletion decisions are made in general is, I believe, a very important one indeed. Perhaps this discussion will serve as a jumping off point to establish a way of avoiding this kind of situation in the future. Centpacrr (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. That's my concern as well--it's easy to get blinkered and forget why we're enforcing this policy or that guideline. I've certainly been guilty of that in the past. We'll see how things play out. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey
This is kind of awkward. :/

The picture you added to EMD E1 in this revision was actually a picture of Amos 'n' Andy after they were rebuilt into the cab units. I removed the picture from the E1 article, as it did not belong.-- in te la ti (Call) 19:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Here's a ref for that"-- in te la ti (Call) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack, my bad. Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.-- in te la ti (Call) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox station
I have suggested/requested two additional parameters. Could you advise me on how to have this implemented, as I do not have the authority to edit the template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg Deletion Review
Hello Mackensen. A discussion in my has been opened by User:Howcheng, the editor who originally nominated  for deletion, claiming that he did not know of the subsequent  you opened on September 10, and that I should have personally notified him of the DR as the editor "with the most to gain" by the image's restoration. When I pointed out that I had not opened up the DR, he then claimed that if I were to be considered a "responsible editor" then it was "my job" to have then hectored you (as the one who opened it) to inform him and "everyone who was previously involved" of the original discussion. I have explained to him that I was just one of many third party editors who commented on the matter in two discussions neither of which I opened, and thus do not feel that I have acted in any way "irresponsibly" in the matter. (I also pointed out that a template notice reading "This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 September 10" was also added to the original discussion page shortly after the DR was opened for exactly that purpose and which he would have seen in his personal Watchlist (as I did in mine) unless he had already unwatched the page. See ) I suggested instead that he contact you as the second discussion's OP if he felt in any way slighted in the matter, but so far he has failed to do so. As you have been mentioned in the discussion on my Talk page, you may wish to comment on the remarks that he has posted about this issue. Sorry for the inconvenience, but he does not seem to understand how the process works. Best regards. Centpacrr (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a note. And here I thought this process was concluded. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I did too. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mackensen: This is Terence Zuber. Terence Holmes and I are of the opinion that the Wikipedia Schlieffen plan site is in serious need of revision. While it is necessary to present the “traditional” view of the Schlieffen plan, as you do in the Wikipedia article, that view has been seriously overtaken by recent analysis and research. You made a start at a Wikipedia revision in User: Mackensen/Schlieffen Plan but it appears that no one has looked at this article since 2007, yourself included. Foremost, this revision must emphasize that the salient characteristics of the traditional “Schlieffen plan”, that it was for a two-front war against France and Russia and included a 39-day timetable for the capture of Paris and a 42-day timetable for the defeat of the French army, are nowhere to be found in the Schlieffen plan Memorandum itself. Holmes and I have our differences, but we agree most emphatically on this. Our point is easily verifiable: read the Memorandum. It’s detailed and rather dull, but for all that short and clear. The Schlieffen plan was for a one-front war against France alone and there is not a timetable in the entire document. As Holmes has pointed out, mere repetition of the traditional “Schlieffen plan” myth does not make it true. Wikipedia is relied on by school students and undergraduates and must therefore conform to the highest academic standards. Holmes and I stand ready to offer a description of the Schlieffen plan based on documentary proof. You can contact me at zuber@terencezuber.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.225.11 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Metra-style infoboxes revisited
I'm glad you created those Metra-style infoboxes, and every now and then I've added the style to a lot of stations in the Chicago metro area. I'm just not sure they're entirley right for combined Metra Electric-South Shore Line stations. What do you think about using the style for these? DanTD (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncited ethnicity categories
Please do not add uncited categories to articles, especially ones of a potentially controversial nature like ethnicity. It is a violation of BLP. Thanks--TM 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Underground rapid transit by country
Category:Underground rapid transit by country, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fredericksburg_Amtrak_station.jpg
This image (and the source) isn't accurate. The (west side) building in this image isn't the rail station but is a restarunt just behind it.

There isn't really a station builing at Fredericksburg rather its just a bridge with a central tower (containing stairs, ramp, and an elevator) to the top under a covered walkway.

Cheers!

BaomoVW (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:First Great Western stations
Template:First Great Western stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Louis de Maud'huy
If you're still there, I just started this one which is in your sandbox.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)