User talk:Rwendland/Archive 2

Considering going to London 15th Birthday Party?
Thanks for the message, but next Saturday I'm going to a photography workshop at Tyntesfield. I don't know of anyone else planning to trip up to London either. Have fun if you do go.&mdash; Rod talk 20:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

On Unha reverting
Hi. I'm the original editor who edited the English name of North Korean rockets into "Milky Way". "Galaxy" as a translation of "Unha" is not appropriate because in astronomy a galaxy means technically one of countless celestial entities. However, "Our Galaxy" or "Milky Way" is the term which North Korean government implies. I'm a South Korean and I know Korean language. In Korean/Chinese language "Unha" means Milky Way or Our Galaxy not the modern astronomical term. Unha can be literally translated into "the silver stream (in the sky)". Polpol (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation edit requests
Please see Talk:Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation—Fhclement (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at: or other articles relating to the area.
 * Core articles
 * Missing article hotlist
 * Missing photograph hotlist

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
 * Bristol (Day 1-3)
 * Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
 * Devon (Day 7-9)
 * Dorset (Day 10-12)
 * Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
 * Somerset (Day 16-18)
 * Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.&mdash; Rod talk 17:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hinkley Point C
Hi, I saw that you had previously been editing Hinkley Point C, I thought you might be interested in discussions taking place on the talk page at Talk:Hinkley Point C there currently - an editor is claiming that some content does not contravene WP:OR whereas myself and Beagel agree that it is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine Today
Apologies for the request for RS. I was in slapdash mode and should have checked the refs before the sloppy request... particularly as it's barely more than a stub. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No probs. Have done it myself!  Rwendland (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for information
Hello; I am working on a Brexit article and would like to use the information on Labour Party membership on the Wiki Commons. The publishers have asked if we can supply the underlying data. Would you be able to give me a source for it? Very grateful if so.

As background on me, I am Alan Freeman and wrote a biography of Tony Benn, recently with a second edition and a new postscript. You can contact me at afreeman@iwgvt.org directly if you prefer (it's easier for me as I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a looong time). But I will check this talk page, and my own, for messages also

Thanks for any help and also for the excellent graph! --Alan XAX Freeman (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan, you'll find the data sources described in the Data sub-section of the commons page for the png graph here, under the graph itself. Let me know if there is any additional info you want. Rwendland (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NB I've heard talk of 650,000 membership recently on radio/TV, but so far have not found a solid reliable-looking source for such a number so have not used it in my data. Rwendland (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Chakrabarti
Hi Rwendland. The photo you are replacing is ten years old and not a portrait style head shot as per photo guidelines. I am searching for an improved photo but for the time being this recent head shot is far more policy compliant for the infobox, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have to say I disagree, MOS:LEADIMAGE says "Lead images ... should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see".  The current image is pretty much the opposite to this.  Perhaps we should take the MOS advice: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution ...". Rwendland (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am good with that - remove till a correct image is available Govindaharihari (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, no lede image til we have a decent one. I don't mind the old standing one being used in the body to illustrate some point.  Rwendland (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't remove it as I support its inclusion in the infobox - imy interpretation on the guidelines - we are not looking for a top class portrait, just a photo that does not violate wp:blp - as for the other photo, what use historically can it really be? Govindaharihari (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about the other photo. Happy to have none for the time being.  Rwendland (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
I changed the 'GDP growth' in 'economy of Ukraine' to the 1,5% as it was in 2016 but you changed it back to 2015 data. Why? Aren't we supposed to update statistics instead of reverting them back 2 years in time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorpetrovich96 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You do understand that Rwendland is an experienced editor, and that such 'sock' accusations are regarded as aspersions by the Wikipedia community. Please be respectful and assume good faith, just as you would expect other editors to approach you. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Igorpetrovich96, I wasn't implying you were a sockpuppet and should have written more carefully - your change got caught up in my larger revert (Undos were no longer possible). User:Australiaslithuanian is the sockpuppet of Eimukas22 who was is recorded as being blocked for "a long history of problematic, if well intentioned editing, including introducing/updating statistics with no sources, putting economic forecasts into infoboxes, introducing and constantly updating USD exchange rates into infoboxes, constantly rounding economic data with no regard for precision or sources and changing pictures in economy articles".  I thought it best to block revert his often uncited updates to 2016 numbers, and accidentally included your perfectly accurate change to 2016 GDP growth.  I should have taken more time over the revert.  Sorry again.  When I have more time I'll have a go at updated the other numbers to 2016.  Rwendland (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see. Doesn't matter. I also changed the largest import and export partner of Ukraine, which is the European Union. On the other hand I could not find how big the other partners are.

Kind regards,

Igor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorpetrovich96 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies. I jumped the gun and misread this as an accusation against Rwendland. Note to self: I'm a silly woman who ought to remember that to "assume makes an ass out of u and me". Feel free to trout slap me! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciated it! Even though I'd been a bit careless this time!!  regards Rwendland (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Type 45 destroyer
I personally wouldn't take the hyperbole of a retired naval officer as gospel. The title of the Telegraph article is also disingenuous, as its use of "investigation finds" implies that Chris Parry was giving evidence in an official capacity to an MOD committee. When in fact, he was only speaking in an interview to the Sunday Times.

Anyway, this radiated noise survey completely discredits anything he said. Figures are in decibels and show HMS Diamond doing consistently better than her design requirement. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, do you not think your rationale for this edit, applies here too? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I assumed that a "director of operational capability" would really be in the know, rather than part of the usual crowd trying to big up spending on a pet project in the papers. Maybe I'm wrong there. I took the Telegraph claim "after an investigation found Navy warships" to mean they had been given sight to some RN report, but that is a bit of an assumption.  If you feely very strongly this is rubbish, revert it again and I'll leave it be. Rwendland (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * On the Watkins revert, he is only an IT security consultant giving a view the cite calls "informed speculation", and it is a very strong (maybe libellous?) claim that no-one was on the bridge just on the basis of tracking info. Secondly if it is true, the investigation reports will eventually say so so we can report that.  And I was willing to be reverted on that one.  Saying "being BOLD ..." in my edit desc was intended to be a clue to that! Regards, Rwendland (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation behind the Watkins revert, that makes sense. Regarding the noisy ships, I think I'll leave it in the article but mention the radiated noise survey. Also, I moved this material out of the "Propulsion issues" section - as radiated noise is a result of all machinery and equipment aboard, not just propulsion. Besides, Chris Parry did not clarify exactly what was causing the class to be noisy, except for neglect of noise suppression methods. Kind regards. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image of Camerton Court
Your image File:Camerton Court, from lawn.jpg has been used on Camerton Court (and also Camerton, Somerset and List of country houses in the United Kingdom). It has recently been reverted by an IP editor from the Camerton Court with the original edit summary being "I have removed the image used for Camerton Court as the photo is of a private house and has been used without permission". I have reverted this as the image is properly licenced and put a message o the editors talk page. After several removals and reverts I put this to ANI (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and others have now got involved. I wondered if you had any comment or wanted to add Camerton Court to your watch list.&mdash; Rod talk 20:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

David Prescott
If you type down 'David Prescott' in Google, there is literally a whole page of references dedicated to his suspension. These range from non-RS sources like the Sun, to BBC News. Brough87 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I did check Google News, and that's where I coudn't find any other articles - not sure what I did wrong, perhaps I misspelt "Prescott". Rwendland (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Framework
Dear Rwendland, Please find the additional reference attached. Do you mind if I add the contents below with the attached ref ?

It was circumstance and background of the existing content (B)below.

(A) During the year 2005, South Korea tried to persuade DPRK giving up their Nuclear Weapon by providing electric power and a significant infusion of aid including 500,000 tons of rice. There was also discussion of six-nation talks over DPRK's weapons programs, and the motivation of agreement 1994 with North Korea was uncovered.

(B) It was reported that US President Bill Clinton's officials agreed to the plan only because they thought that the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed as North Korea's leader Kim Il-sung had recently died.[16] North Korean officials at the time also suspected the U.S. anticipated an early collapse of the DPRK

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of change to article on all women shortlists
Why did you reverse the correction I made to the page on all women shortlists? There's nothing fucking positive about that sexist discrimination.

Avon Green Belt
I think that your statement that "The Avon Green Belt environmental and planning policy has persisted as a joint local authority policy" is slightly misleading. The green belt policy - which was indeed an Avon-wide policy when the county council existed - was then adopted into the four authorities' separate development plans, and the only respect in which it has subsequently been a "joint policy" is that it is mentioned in joint policy documents such as the old West of England Partnership papers (which I personally worked on). It's also a little misleading to describe green belt as an "environmental" policy - although it has environmental consequences, it's essentially a policy for preventing urban sprawl. So, would you be happy if I slightly tweaked the wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do amend. Or simply revert if you like, as it is a minor point really, and at just before saving I doubted if it was worthwhile - wondering if the name rather than the joint policy persisted. I lifted "environmental and planning policy" from the Avon Green Belt article - maybe that should be changed there. Regards - Rwendland (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There was another editor a couple of weeks ago making various changes to green belt articles, so I will double check the wording again. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Len McCluskey
Rwendland, it is possible you are interested in expanding this article. I am in the process of doing so myself, and it would be unfortunate if we were to be duplicating each other's work. Please see what you think, my evolving draft is here. Thank you for any comments in advance. Philip Cross (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not doing anything substantial on Len McCluskey. Just incidental bits, as I wondered about improving the new Jennie Formby article, given she is prominent now.  But I'm busy the next few days so am unlikely to do anything major.  I'll look at your evolving draft when I have a bit of time.  Regards Rwendland (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is reassuring. Whatever happens in a few weeks, the Jennie Formby article is indeed a good candidate for development. Philip Cross (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

VÁSÁRHELYI and FÖLDI reference
Hi there. I notice that you keep removing this reference "GYÖRGYI VÁSÁRHELYI and LÁSZLÓ FÖLDI. History of Russia’s chemical weapons. AARMS 2007; 6(1):135-146." from the Novichok agent page. I agree that this reference is not a particularly high quality source, and contains circular references back to Wikipedia which is obviously something we aim to avoid. However it is also a very important source in regards to the continuing debate over the correct chemical structure of these Novichok agents. So far as I can find, this is the only source published prior to the publication of Mirzayanov's book which corroborates Mirzayanov's claims about the structure. Specifically it states that A-234 is the ethyl analogue of A-232, and that acetonitrile is a key component of the Novichok binary agent for these compounds - both things which are true for Mirzayanov's versions of the structures, but would not be true for the structures suggested by Western experts such as Hoenig. All sources since the publication of Mirzayanov's book have cited Mirzayanov as the source of his claimed structures (and so are essentially based on us trusting Mirzayanov), but this VÁSÁRHELYI and FÖLDI reference cites a 2001 Hungarian military document instead, which represents independent corroboration of the claims. Ordinarily I would just cite the 2001 reference instead but it appears to be an inaccessible "closed-literature" source, and so the only way to cite it is to cite the VÁSÁRHELYI and FÖLDI paper. Your thoughts? Meodipt (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that half of refs (9/18) are to Wikipedia including the Novichok article, and most of the other refs do not look impressive, so by WP:CIRCULAR should not be used. Also it was only being used to cite "5 to 8 times VX" point, and there were plenty of other cites that could cover that, so easy to replace on that point.  If it does have novel info in it that puts a different outlook on it - but I would still be worried where that novel info came from, could it be an older version of the Novichok article?  If at all possible it would be better find the original source per WP:CIRCULAR: "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly".  NB Interesting this cite, as some others I've seen, calls Foliant third-generation as opposed the the article's fourth-generation. Rwendland (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed citing the original source would be preferable, it is listed as "L. HALÁSZ, K. NAGY: Chemistry of toxic substances, Miklós Zrínyi National Defence University 2001, pp. 47–59 (in Hungarian)." I suppose it might be possible to ask for a copy from that library, but even if they were willing to give out a copy it is in Hungarian! But yes I agree there are other sources to support the 5-8x figure, would you feel differently if this source was cited to support the statement that "Mirzayanov gives somewhat different structures for Novichok agents in his autobiography to those which have been identified by Western experts."? This is after all the key point this source backs up, and it is certainly not from an old version of the Wikipedia Novichok article, the mention of acetonitrile as the binary component is the clincher as the wiki page only ever mentioned the structures according to Hoenig, which have quite different chemistry. I'm not too bothered now as I cited the VÁSÁRHELYI and FÖLDI paper on the page for A-234 (nerve agent) which is probably a better place for it anyway, as on the page for the individual compound we can't avoid dealing with the controversy over the structure. For now the chemistry section on the main Novichok page is still quite vague and incomplete, firstly because it would be good to see what the OPCW says once their analysis is complete, and also there is a big debate regarding this structure controversy on the German and Polish Wikipedia pages for Novichok, so I'm happy to wait to see what they decide before doing much more work on the en.wiki page. Meodipt (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems reasonable. I have to admit it is a very nicely written piece, other than the citing! Rwendland (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a shame about the sourcing, as you say it is quite a good article otherwise. I suppose they were somewhat desperate for sources of any kind back in 2007! Don't see why they didn't just cite Tucker's War of Nerves though seeing as that must have been practically the only reference on the wiki page back then. At any rate, the German and Polish Wikipedia pages for Novichok agent are now considerably better than the English page in some places; when I get time I shall have to translate and port across a bunch of the content, but that is laborious work so will have to wait for now. Meodipt (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_5uz0aBN8x6Rc2ln&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Jenkyns
Hi! Please can you keep an eye on the edits done on Andrea Jenkyns by CJS1996. It is incontrovertible that this editor knows the MP, as on one of his posts he boasted "Updated Andrea Jenkyns' picture to a more recent image. This was requested by Andrea Jenkyns herself, and I took the picture".

I am certain he is repeatedly deleting references to her "extramarital affair" in late 2015 with her now husband Jack Lopresti in good faith, because he doesn't want that fact explicitly included on her Wikipedia page. I can understand that. However, as you wrote in one of your recent excellent edits, Tory HQ issued a statement that said, "Jack and his wife discussed breaking up in June. They intended to have Christmas together as a family with their children." So, at the time Jack and Andrea were photographed, just before Christmas, Jack and Lucy were still nominally living together. I'm not sure about the status of ITV News as a trustworthy source, but the Telegraph certainly is.

Please can you monitor edits done on this article? I'm not registered on Wikipedia, and currently have no desire to register, because I know I'll spend far too much time on it! Thanks!! 154.59.156.245 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Tokyo subway sarin attack
Hi! It is true that the quoted body does not agree with the changes I made because it seems outdated. The terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995 killed 13 people. The number of injured was revised by the police to 6.252 in 2010 (see テロ事件の一覧, Liste von Terroranschlägen im Jahr 1995, Ōmu Shinrikyō. Thus, the information below the table is outdated and would need to be either updated or removed. --Sokrates2987 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Sokrates2987


 * The death/injury info information in the article comes from the authoritative semi-academic Henry L. Stimson Centre report (cite [1] of the article), published in 2000. You will need to provide some extremely authoritative cites to supercede that. The ~6000 number bandied about comes originally from early newspaper reports I believe, and includes around 5,000 worried well who went to EDs . I suggest you first read pages 91-95 (and page 100 for the 12 deaths number) of:
 * https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/atxchapter3_1.pdf
 * eg "Roughly 85 percent of those reporting to hospitals in the aftermath of the sarin attack were psychogenic patients, also called the worried well."
 * Rwendland (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding Belgian nuclear phase out
Hi, I would like to point out the nuclear phase out law that has been voted in 2003 has not been changed. The phaseout of the Tihange 1 reactor was pushed back in 2013. The phaseout of Doel 1 & 2 was pushed back by the current government in 2015. Due to the challenge of phasing out 60% of the Belgian electricity generation in 3 years the largest political party suggested pushing back the phase out for the newest plants Doel 4 & Tihange 3. However no majority could be found today but they did manage to add 3 conditions to the phaseout; security of supply, climate targets must be met and prices may not rise about neighbouring countries' prices. Given all three conditions are arguably already met this likely opens the door for further pushbacks during the next government formation next year. MCvarial (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the addition in the Nuclear power phase-out article, more closely based on the WNN article. What do you think? If you have more detailed info you should add it with a cite. Rwendland (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

improving International_General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education article
I noticed that you added to the International_General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education article. As a subject that is likely to continue to be in the UK news for a while, it would be helpful to have a better article on the subject. I have made some changes to make the article more readable and up to date. It would be very much appreciated if you could look over the article again and help tidy things up a little.Johnkn63 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation title
Please expand on your edit summary to reverting my editing. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never seen anyone use anything other than the near-exact published title in a cite (excepting strange punctuation/special sysmbols). As to policy, WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include ... title of the article", and it seems reasonable to take that to mean the exact title rather than some trimmed down one. Rwendland (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

DF41 mass
From 8×2 wheels TEL, DF-41 mass is equal to Russian TEL solid icbm or Df-31. chinese wiki presents 55t mass ITO666 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of M. Steven Fish


The article M. Steven Fish has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. creffett (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi creffett. The has been deleted in Onel5969's revert to a redirect, so I assume this deletion is no longer proposed.  The M. Steven Fish redirect is there because that is his chosen name in all his books - arguably this name should actually be the name of the main article as his "common name". Rwendland (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Woops! I'm sorry. That was a doofus move. Thanks for the catch. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Happens to us all from time-to-time. Rwendland (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ecotricity
Hello

I am (as you can probably tell by my ham fisted attempt to correct the Ecotricity page the other week) pretty new to editing Wikipedia...

If you check the below link: (I will shortly try and make that the source for the Accounting numbers mentioned in the article) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03521776/filing-history/MzIyMjk1MzU3N2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

You can ignore any numbers before page 6 as they are not audited. However looking through the rest, I cannot find the £510k operating profit mentioned in the article that you use as a source. Using teh audited results on pg 12 and 13, I would like therefore to change this to a £1.6m operating profit, with a total loss before tax of £4.9m, due to interest payments with a total loss of £9.5m after revaluation of fixed assets.

Rather than a backwards forwards of me correcting the numbers to the audited accounts, I thought it best to reach out.

Let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horn22 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Horn22, I also noticed that the 510k wasn't in the accounts, so this was a bit problematic. The problem is that Wikipedia strongly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources like reliable news reports to WP:PRIMARY sources like the accounts, for 2 main reasons: 1) primary sources can easily be misunderstood whereas reliable secondary sources are assumed to have some expertise to analyse primary sources properly, 2) Wikipedia isn't supposed to be full of all non-notable facts and a good secondary source demonstrates that the fact is important enough to be worth mentioning in Wikipedia. In face Wikipedia policy isn't to always have the "truth" (which sometimes cannot be determined), but to have verifiable statements, see WP:VERIFIABILITY for more info.
 * So what best to do here is problematic. Taking a strict policy based view would I think be that the secondary source we have is not reliable (see WP:RS, which requires much higher renown such as the FT), and neither is the only other news report I can find, so we don't have a properly usable secondary source. So what we should do per policy is remove all discussion of Ecotricity financials. Would you be happy with that?  If not, we could try to find some fudge to include minimal financial info, ideally giving operating profit and loss before taxation, perhaps using the other secondary source I found which does give an accurate 4.9 million loss number.  Rwendland (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for the information. Interesting that they prefer secondary sources, I suppose that does make sense. The reference you have is the only one i can see that reflects the £4.9m loss, I would be happy to use only that figure and change the source. I think it is right to have the loss on the page as it is accurate, even though the source may not be of the standard of the FT. I am an accountant so can interpret the accounts, but appreciate the need for a secondary source.
 * I'm generally ok with that, but am a worried it superficially makes Ecotricity sound like it is going bust, which I don't think is (necessarily) a balanced view. If we could somehow say it is running an operating profit, but a £4.9m loss after loan interest and charges I'd be more comfortable we were presenting a balanced, or at least somewhat ambiguous, view given we don't really know its future prospects. Do you want to have a go at a change, or I can have a go if you prefer. Rwendland (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection?
What is the connection between PS-algol and Flex machine? You added links in the respective See also sections, but it isn't clear to me from reading the articles what the subjects have in common. Quale (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Quale. It is a loose connection, simply they both implemented a persistent store, and were both UK creations in the late-1970s and 1980s. Also neither articles has many links to them, so giving this connection might help people find the other. I did wonder if there was any closer connection, but haven't found any: Michael Foster of Flex (who I knew) had Aberdeen and Edinburgh University connections, but as far as I can see nothing direct with PS-algol. Rwendland (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Persistent store research done around the same time is a connection. Quale (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Type 45
Hi. I think technically you’re right with your edit 12/6. However I do think the info box is a somewhat misleading now, ie there was a time where 12 were planned. And the article main body doesn’t explain 12 > 8 > 6 from a cursory scan. But agreed, that’s for someone to find a reference for that and update if/when. Mark83 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult one. The note [N 1] by the number (hover mouse over it) attempts to explain the 12 > 8 > 6 numbers, as does the "Ships in the class" section.  But it is tricky to explain, and could perhaps be improved.  To my mind "planned" means a plan with forward budget allocated to it, and that never happened for more than 6. "Planning assumption" was what the Navy wanted - their wish list pushed heavily into the media - but there was never the MoD money to give the Navy that as well as the other stuff they needed (or politicians wanted eg aircraft carriers).  Rwendland (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression (from memory) that there was a firm plan for 12 at a stage. I'll try and have a dig to see if I can find references. Mark83 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Type 45 Destroyer
Your edits are unhelpful, nonconstructive and appear to be edit warring. First of all 3 people have changed the number of planned vessels to tweleve, because 12 were originally planned If a ship wasn't ordered despite being planned it was cancelled. it doesn't matter whether a contract was signed or not. Let's say a government wants to buy something but never do we would say they cancelled the project. Life200BC (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your claims. I was simply reverting it back to the stable state this has been for several years. "cancel" has a firm meaning, cancelling an order. Only 6 were ordered, 6 were built, and so none were cancelled.  The difficulty here is conveying the changing plans, or as the MoD likes to put it "planning assumptions", concisely in the infobox.  I hope you think my recent change improves that. Rwendland (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Rwendland

Thank you for creating M5 Motorway (Syria).

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

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

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

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Inviting you to take place in a discussion about Chris Mullin page
Hi, how are you?

As you know, right now the Chris Mullin page leads directly to the basketball player, which I find a tad ridiculous, as outside of the US, hardly anyone has heard of him, and in Britain when they say Chris Mullin they clearly refer to the politician Chris Mullin (politician).

I've started a discussion on the Talk:Chris Mullin page, under the title Talk:Chris Mullin, and would really appreciate it if you could voice your piece there.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ROKS Cheonan
The sources cited below all show 58 injured and 46 dead, not 56 injured. Gorden 2211 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Unattributed use of your photo
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that a group called "OneLewisham" (a group which opposes low traffic neighbourhoods in London) is using your photo of Keir Starmer without any attribution on a blog post. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've noticed a fair few of my politician photos have been used unattributed over the last 4 years.  Though a fair few are attributed. I've only tried to chase it up when they are commercial publications - life seems too short!  I think I'll not bother on this one as it seems to be run by volunteers.  That sounds a bit soppy - I wonder if I should make them PD! Rwendland (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. I disagree with your edit summary on Type 45. “Rv” or “revert” makes it sound like you were correcting the previous edit. The previous edit was mine which didn’t introduce the error. Mark83 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark83. I wasn't aware the "rv" or "part rv" implied it was the previous edit that was being reverted, I knew it was an earlier one by User:2A00:23C4:7C09:1701:914B:F348:5EAA:19A5. I've been following this practice for 10 odd years, and no-one has picked me up on this before. Are you sure it is generally taken to imply the previous edit?  If so, I will change my habit. Rwendland (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

South Georgia
See @2:09 it shows the Argentine Marines parading and raising the Argentine flag on 19 March.

Regards, WCM email 10:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unite the Union
Hi, Rwendland. I've reverted the figures and included citations. Unite claims 1.4m at its membership page; this seems to me the most authoritative source since other sources can be manipulated by press release writers for effect on reportage. On this basis, election turnout was just under 9% and Graham received just over 3% of the votes of all members. This is a striking detail which is of such prominent as to be suitable for the introductory paragraph. The figures are developed further in the article. best wishes, SteveCree2 (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Long Bailey
Good morening, Mrs Long-Bailey has admitted on live tv that she is a catholic most recently on the bcc 1 debate where she described herslef as a 'good catholic girl'. On a more personal note, I do know for a fact that she has quite frequently attanded mass.

Thanks and all the best Permareperwiki1664 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/201903 timeline large European state interventions
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/201903 timeline large European state interventions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)