User talk:Madrenergic

Ships
Hi, just wondering when you were going to move that content over? Thanks - wolf  02:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi I have already moved it over. The General Frank S. Besson-class LSV is already in the destination article, so I did not need to duplicate the entry, while the Round Table-class and Sir Galahad-class LSLs are both in fact the same class (the Sir Galahad-class, per its Wikipedia article, is in fact a modification but considered under the same class). I have reflected the above information in the diffs applied to the destination article. —Madrenergictalk 05:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Move of OSB to Benedictines
Your RM proposal had me look briefly at some lists of orders: Society of Mary to Marists, Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo to Scalabrini Fathers, and Order of the Most Holy Redeemer to Redemptoristines seemed the most likely to propose for the same route. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising them to my attention! They appear to have a good rationale for moving, and I shall work on them. Incidentally, I did consider moving Society of Mary (Marists) and Society of Mary (Marianists) to their more concise and common names Marists and Marianists, but seeing a potential dispute due to the presence of the Marist Brothers, I chose to first use OSB as a test case to establish and explore the potential objections to a similar move in a less-complicated setting. —Madrenergictalk 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj
FYI, he's under a topic ban to avoid education-related subjects and articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! I was not aware as I largely skipped through his particularly lengthy talk page and numerous AfDs, although on closer examination I am now enlightened. However, I do not know if I should take any action, being as my intention was simply to warn him that his content was undue. —Madrenergictalk 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch
You recent revert at Belt and Road Initiative was a nice catch btw. I have informed the editor who added the self-promoting content about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I usually review new sources to see if the content matches the source and if the source also conforms to WP:RS, and it was then that I realised that the publishing company name seemed rather similar to the username. Great job on advising him about the COI policies too. Have a good day! —Madrenergictalk 05:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Royal Caribbean International
I have opened a thread on the talk page proposing that the amenities section not be retained which I am sure you will wish to comment on. I apologise if I have been a bit forward and you intended to do this later as per WP:ONUS. Lyndaship (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I shall chip in as well. No apologies necessary! We are all here to improve Wikipedia. :) —Madrenergictalk 18:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
This is just a friendly 'heads up' but, at the Talk:MS Symphony of the Seas RM, you have so far replied to every single oppose comment with a lengthy, albeit friendly and polite, response about how they are wrong. Such actions can be considered badgering, even bludgeoning, as well as an attempt to impede consensus. The purpose of discussions such as this is to give the community a chance to weigh in with their thoughts and opinions on the issue and to form a consensus to act upon. Some responses (or !votes) are supported by policies and guidelines, some aren't but should be, and some simply don't have to be. But you shouldn't challenge every. single. person. you disagree with as it could discourage further editors from contributing. If you've made a good case for the move, then you should be able to stand by it and not have to try and convince everyone who disagrees with your proposal to change their minds. Again, just take this as friendly advice. I'm sure you mean no harm, but you also don't want to get dragged off to one of the drama-boards by some crusty editor who doesn't care for you 'follow on comments'. Cheers - wolf  18:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the effort to provide me with this feedback, though it does deeply trouble me to hear it. Nonetheless, I understand the need for this policy, and I'll try to follow it more closely. —Madrenergictalk 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to be "troubled" (certainly not "deeply"). Like I said, it's just friendly advice. It doesn't appear that anyone has complained, and that is why I posted this on your talk page instead of at the RM discussion, as I didn't want to make it seem like a formal complaint that would likely cause some other opposers to add 'pile on' complaints, and next thing you know the discussion is completely derailed and someone is dragging you off to ANI. This is basically between you and I and you can even delete this whole section if you like. I will add though, (and maybe you already know this) that fortunately this article is not under any WP:AE sanctions right now. If it were, admins have wide discretion to block people that they feel are interfering with consensus in any way, and beyond that, any editor can file a complaint at AE (legitimate or not), seeking a block and/or topic ban if they feel there is any interference or badgering taking place. So consider this an additional 'heads up' should you find yourself disagreeing with a majority of editors in any discussion on a talk page of an article about a sanctioned topic. But again... relax, this is just an 'FYI'. - wolf  17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you once again. Your advice has been valuable and I shall endeavour to tread carefully and sensibly. —Madrenergictalk 16:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merchant ship
I see that this article has been moved from Merchant Vessel to Merchant Ship following you submitting an uncontroversial technical move request. As it had been previously moved the other way it should have been regarded as a move which others might wish to challenge and been proposed on the talk page and interested projects asked for comments first. I don't have a formed view on which title is best but others might decide to contest this move Lyndaship (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Obligatory edit war warning
Your recent editing history at List of largest cruise ships shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been attempting discussion but the user keeps attempting to revert it even when the discussion is ongoing. Hence, to avoid an edit war, I have opted to stop any further counter-reversions on my part. —Madrenergictalk 21:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider Madrenergic was reverting vandalism by the IP (as the IP was seeking to change the criteria which forms the basis for the list) and that this warning is inappropriate Lyndaship (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's still very much a content dispute, Lyndaship. The IP has actually been harping at us in IRC to side with him in -en-help. We've told him in no uncertain terms we don't take sides. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 21:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your decision but my view is unchanged Lyndaship (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Construction dates on RCI ships
Do you have access to www.miramarshipindex.nz ? Its my usual source for merchant ship info. I'm seeing some discrepancies between the dates you are sourcing from DNV and it. I'm not sure which we should regard as more likely to be correct. Possibly it is confusion with first steel cut and keel actually laid Lyndaship (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't, and yes I agree that it's quite possible. Do you know which ships' dates are in conflict and is it confined solely to the "keel laid" dates? I have to admit it that the possibility (without proof, however) has occurred to me before, but considering DNV is an official classification society, I find it hard to disregard its dates without a strong source to override it. In the absence of that, I wound up going with DNV's dates, because if DNV has officially decided (by whatever criteria they may have) that the events that occurred on a specific date counted as laying the keel and recorded the date as such, WP:V makes it hard for me to defend the use of a different date. Maybe they have some other criteria that we are not privy to? Who knows. —Madrenergictalk 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at some you have recently worked on. There are a couple where a LD or completion date vary by a day but the significant ones are LD dates for Navigator (30/3/01) and Explorer (12/1/99). This supports the idea that DNV are sometimes using construction started in the keel laying box as opposed to the formal date of the keel being laid. Although I would prefer to go with the Minamar dates as I think they are factually correct it must be borne in mind that despite being regarded as RS it is primarily maintained by a hobbyist compared to the professional DNV (which is also RS) and is also behind a paywall. I'm not a lover of notes saying A says this and B says this unless its opinion compared to a difference as to what fact is correct - I think in an encyclopedia it is our job to find a primary source which confirms one or the other but I'm not prepared to put the time into these researching nor do I think you should. Therefore if a date is cited to DNV or Miramar I'm going to leave that date unchallenged.


 * You can apply for a free subscription to Miramar through the Wikipedia Library ticket programme if you think it would be of benfit to you on ship articles Lyndaship (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am very inclined to agree with you. On my part, I generally don't touch Miramar references where present as well, as given the state of most articles on Wikipedia, substituting one RS for another seems like a less fruitful endeavour than, say, cleaning up wholly unsourced statements, unless it happens to be something particularly controversial or involving other articles.
 * Also, thank you very much for your kind suggestion. As you have suggested, I have applied for a subscription to Miramar, and hopefully it will be approved. I foresee that it would be very helpful for my future edits, especially since many classification societies aren't as open as DNV. As it would happen, I have also recently encountered some 19th century ship articles that could benefit from expansion and referencing, and I think it might come in handy. I will also use it to take another look at the dates for Navigator and Explorer, as you have pointed out, just to make sure we're not missing out on anything big. —Madrenergictalk 15:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Engineering officer (ship)
It was edited based upon very common knowledge and I was an "engineering" officer aboard ships (3 A/E). Having a Masters in Engineering, I'm pretty sure I understand what the industry is and what it is not. Operators are not engineers, engineers are designers and utilize thermodynamics, calculus, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, etc. Ships "Engineers" do not utilize any of the above. At most, they add and subtract fuel and lube-oil levels to determine how much they need or what they used. Their duties are starting and stopping machinery, fix broken items, record parameters from pressure or temp gauges and plumbing. Sounds a lot like an operator/mechanic, doesn't it? Does that sound like engineering? NO. It is also illegal to call yourself an engineer without obtaining a Professional Engineers license (PE). That's federal and state facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.73.6 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that this is a topic that you feel strongly about. However, one of Wikipedia's core content policies is WP:VERIFIABILITY; if you wish to add information to an article, such as your claim that it is illegal for engine officers to call themselves engineers, it needs to be backed up by a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. For example, you could start by finding a court ruling that ruled against an engine officer for calling themselves an engineer. Inserting claims and commentary without a source that explicitly states so as you did here is considered WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Simply saying it is "very common knowledge" or claiming personal authority does not exempt the need for a source. I hope this helps. —Madrenergictalk 05:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Watchstanding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boatswain's mate ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Watchstanding check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Watchstanding?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SingHealth logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SingHealth logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NCLH Logo 2018.png
Thanks for uploading File:NCLH Logo 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)