User talk:David Trochos

Welcome!

Hello, David Trochos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Atlas

Hi David, just to let you know I changed the link to the ancient atlas PDF download as the old one did not work anymore, the file is just under 50MB and has high resolution maps. The original link was to one I uploaded to in.solit.us about a year ago but the download link longer works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.15.169 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried downloading it twice and got estimated download times of over an hour- checking with a random YouTube video indicated that my connection is not the problem. Also, you're anonymous, the File Savr page has no explanatory text; it's all very unsatisfactory, so I'm going to remove the link until you can come up with something better. David Trochos (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got an estimated time of about 4 minutes and have dowloaded it in less than that before, I won't bother wasting my time trying to help on here again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.59.46 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "trying to help" is not the same as "being helpful". I just downloaded the atlas in the background while I got a whole lot of other things done (maybe File Savr gives good download speeds to its members, but for me it only got above 30kB/s for about 3 seconds). It doesn't actually contain any "early maps" as such, unless you count the reconstructions of Herodotus and Ptolemy. On the other hand, the source of the anonymous PDF, Dent's "Atlas Of Ancient And Classical Geography" was published nearly a century ago, and its scholarship is seriously outdated; also it's available as individual maps from http://www.hipkiss.org from which I downloaded the Britannia map in a few seconds- the quality is lower than your version though. David Trochos (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Flamborough Head

Hi David,

have you considered nominating a fact from the article for the Did You Know feature on the main page. See WP:DYK for details of the process.

Keith D 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sugestion Keith, I'll have a go. David Trochos 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops- it's more than five days old! David Trochos 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the section "Two gunnery duels" a sentence says: ... four of his crew dead .... It is surely not 4. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's aboard the Countess of Scarborough, one of the smallest vessels in the battle (the number is taken from the Captain's report- see ref. on page). David Trochos (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peggy Stewart, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article North Channel naval duel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article - far more substance than many that end up at DYK! RHB - Talk 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Shakespeare theatre

Hello, could you please put the beautiful picture of the old Shakespeare theatre into the commons? I could use it then for the German language article. I am afraid, I am not able to do that myself. That would be great. Thanks!Anne-theater (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is very helpful! Anne-theater (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article François Thurot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Day (sea captain), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Church, Eastham

David. Thanks for the contributions you have made towards the accuracy of the article on St Mary's Church, Eastham. I have withdrawn the nomination made on my behalf for DYK and removed all the references to the Wirral Heritage Churches webpage. I have found a citation for the Kempe glass (but not the 19 windows!). Do you have a reference for the info about the early date of the priest? For the time being I have added a "citation needed" tag. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Invasion of Minorca, 1781, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace of Paris (1783)

On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peace of Paris (1783), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinland map

I saw the note you added to the Vinland map image page on commons. I just wanted to let you know that I did actually try to write the captions in a neutral manner. I'm not sure why you are "frankly disgusted"; I'm just looking for a good image with a neutral, unbiased image description.

I would be happy to collaborate with you on bringing the caption in line with WP:NPOV, but the caption and image description are not places to re-enact or comment on the debate over the map. The caption and image description just need to clearly identify what the object is. I think it is appropriate to say that the map's authenticity is disputed, but not that "most scholars" think it is a fake. How would you feel about the following caption:

"The Vinland map is purportedly a 15th century Mappa Mundi, redrawn from a 13th century original. Drawn with black ink on animal skin, the map would be, if authentic, the first known map of the North American coastline. The upper left caption reads: “By God's will, after a long voyage from the island of Greenland to the south toward the most distant remaining parts of the western ocean sea, sailing southward amidst the ice, the companions Bjarni and Leif Eiriksson discovered a new land, extremely fertile and even having vines, ... which island they named Vinland."

Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this into a character assassination.[1] The bottom line is that it is not acceptable to use words like "regrettably" [2] to editorialize on the content; this is a clear NPOV problem. The statement "probably drawn on old parchment in the mid-1950s" is a view held, at least in print, by just one author. This bit may be appropriate for the article but not for the image description. Remember, this is an image description, and its role is to identify the object in the picture, not characterize the debate. To say that "most scholars who have studied..." is to ignore the peer-reviewed publications of as many researchers that affirm as dissent. Thankfully, it is not up to us to decide whether or not the map is a forgery, only to report the fact that reliable sources ((list) (contributors)) are split on the issue. It is not at all clear that "most scholars and scientists who have studied the map have concluded that it is a fake". We wouldn't be the first to disagree on the issue, but we do have to come up with an image description that is not biased. It is possible, and I'm willing to compromise and consider alternative wording. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Tower

Oops, my bad, thanks for sorting it. I've spent too much time on Wikipedia articles the past few days! --Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me by any chance?Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Da Ming Hun Yi Tu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rayy-location3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rayy-location3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rayy-location2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rayy-location2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray DYK

On 15 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ray, Iran, as a military objective, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monk's Mound

Your removal of the link stated "website contains much incorrect information". Please explain. Marburg72 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC of MARBURG72

David, your filing of an RFC is clearly an attack of personal bias and disagreement in my cited sources. Wikipedia Policy states "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process." I am convinced that you are in direct violation of this policy. Marburg72 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for you or me to decide whether this RfC falls within permitted criteria; that's why the procedure is called "Request for Comment". David Trochos (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as the one above by Marburg72 should be used to demonstrate his inability to understand and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

In my opinion, the RFC should be formatted to clearly show what he's done and how others have tried to correct the situation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TheNautilus is a good example of how to do this. Now that you have the RFC listed, I'll rush to add my comments on the behavior I've seen interacting with him, as well as a quick summary of his early behavior here. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand wikipedia policy is clear - Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines 207.193.87.114 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the ip addresses used by Marburg72. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC holds no water when you use collusion and ask other editors to support you. It is a direct violation of the Wikipedia Policy called Sock Puppetry. Marburg72 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not familiar with the MEAT PUPPETRY policy, read: Further evidence of Sock Puppetry is seen on Paul B's talk page, when Trochos asked him to sign the page in support of his claims: Marburg72 I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, whose edit you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so Pauls request for endorsement of the RFC is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy listed as "Sock Puppetry" or possibly Meat Puppetry".

As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices , or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned .
2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Marburg72 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia further states: In addition to double-voting, sock puppets may be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.[edit] Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions. Your use of Meat Puppets on this site and on the Monk's Mound site are clearly circumvented by your group of friends collusion in this situation. Marburg72 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet David Trochos

The following complaint has been filed against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Trochos Marburg72 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hourglass-cross.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hourglass-cross.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jpj-24apr1778-1800.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jpj-24apr1778-1800.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from Asymmetric Warfare

I just I really do not see the warfare in this action at Guantanamo Base. If you can show some credible sources, hopefully URLs which I can read then I will withdraw my objections.

regards

Reargun (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was an example of Asymmetric Warfare what you need are some credible sources that can be verified that saids that it is. With the evidence you have presented it seems to me more a civil

Please check this for what I consider a similar situation.

http://www.irishhungerstrike.com/fasttildeath.htm

Reargun (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here of an Encylopedea here.

Is the Earth flat because one high goverment offical saids it is flat? What you need is several quotes to show that there is some belief to be credible.

One such comment by one person is hardly credible for an ENCYLOPEDEA!

I confess to me the concept of a person commiting sucide as an act of war is crazy. One of the purposes of a soldier is to kill his enemy. In this case, the terrorist is making it easy. But I am putting my personal views aside about this.

Note terrorist have killed themselves for years in jail and no-one has called it asymmetrical warfare. I am very aware of who Bobby Sands was and what happened. I was the one that told you about him. Other examples would be Ulrike Meinhof, Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin committed suicide in jail in 1976 and 1977. Irving Rubin in 2002 attempted to do do it. In these are similar situations no-one I know considered them acts of asymmetrical warfare. I am sure if you do a search you will find many more.

Why not talk about suicide bombers which would clearly fit into what you are trying to say and be non-controversial?

Or alternatially produce a few credible examples which shows your case. 03:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reargun (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prisioner suicides are unfortunately common. Terrorist in jail are not immune to this problem. There are plenty of examples since 1991, for example Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi just did it in Libyia. Anyone saying that it is such an act?

Let me repeat what I said, do you have any other proof to back your statement up rather than just this one quote? Reargun (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think it is a good idea to make a debate here in the Wiki over what Asymmetric Warfare covers.

Here is a new report of a suicide attempt at Guantanamo again no one mentions Asymmetric Warfare. http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=946238&lang=eng_news Reargun (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom

Thank you for updating this to clarify the "2k" and "8k" comments in the Post-switchover section. It's now much more understandable. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinland Map

You clearly have been tracking this tale for a long time and likely know more than I will ever know about it. I became intrigued by it early on as I accompanied my mother to visit her friend Witten at his home in Madison, Connecticut, on a couple of occasions. I was too young to really know the man, but I went on to attend Yale, where Mellon was quite a force to be reckoned with, and where Witten himself had gone to school. So I tracked this from the periphery for a bit. I haven't edited the piece lest anyone think I have a conflict-of-interest, which I don't believe is the case, but I remain deeply interested. I have not yet read the Seaver book but now plan to do so at the earliest opportunity. This is like a John le Carre plot. And, yes, Mellon wielded, as you obviously know, tremendous behind-the-scenes power at Yale, particularly, I'd imagine, in places like the Beinecke collection, donated by a fellow mogul. It'll take me a bit to digest all this, and place it alongside the reading, but be assured I'll be following that page, and your updates, with tremendous interest. Many thanks for the message. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never saw the article but I do know of the collection to which it refers.[3] If you happen to get your hands on the article, I would be most curious about your impressions. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed that a user pointed out today that Witten deserves his own entry to 'flesh out the story.' That seems right to me. I'd be happy to look over such an entry and provide some background from what I know. He was an interesting character. You can google him under his full name -- Laurence Claiborne Witten II -- where you'll find obits for other members of his Virginia family. This photo of him was uploaded to Flickr by a family member. [4] MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wittens were a prosperous Virginia clan, who made an early fortune in the tobacco business in the 19th and early 20th century, and who subsequently went into the furniture-manufacturing business. [5] Larry Witten was the aesthete of the bunch, and after his musical education, set himself up as a rare book dealer in New Haven, Connecticut (I suppose he was later in Southport from the look of it.) MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. As a journalist and writer, I can tell you that you have some challenges ahead of you. The Wittens were family friends (and competitors) going back to the 19th century, and I'll ask around about them. I am still in contact with many mutual friends and acquaintances from the old days in Virginia who will remember them well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will get back to both articles when I have a chance to make them read a bit smoother and cut some more words in the interests of readability. As far as the degree goes, it appears that BMus is correct. I'm not a musician, but I am a Yale alum, and one can generally trust whatever appears in the YAM (Yale Alumni Magazine). It's one of the best such magazines in the country. I have corrected the entries and provided a link to the page which explains the degree so non-musicians like myself don't make the same mistake. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Trochos. You have new messages at [[User talk:RadioFan#Laurence Claiborne Witten II article|RadioFan's talk page]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vinland

It doesn't appear that this is on your watch list, I've done a bit of editing on it just now but only to do with maps. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Runestone

Yes, you're both edit warring. Please stop now, but rather use the article talk page to find a consensus. Input from more editors may be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Jon kare here. Just like to point out that although we may not agree on everything, I really appreciate the work you've been doing, both on the Kensington Runestone and on other things I've looked at. Jon kare (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Hi, I need an explanation regarding you calling my contribution vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irooniqermez (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walam Olum

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Walam_Olum where our IP friend is complaining.. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Runestone

Actually both articles were interesting, though some of the archaic language (wow, English has changed in 100 years) was confusing. Please check out my edits in cleaning up the citations. I'm kind of a stickler for it, especially when other literature sources were cleaned up too (not by me). Just a suggestion, but it does make it look a bit nicer. And also, link directly to the article. Linking to a page that links to the article might make a reader give up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your thoughts on the recent Kensington Runestone edits (and for your work on tidying the new contributions). This has all been a rather odd situation; I have a policy of always trying to find an alternative to deletion of positive but clumsy contributions such as the Google links by 74.83.75.141 which began this saga. My speciality is finding sources, so I found alternative and more useful links to the same texts, and simply substituted them within the original work. You were quite right to note that they belonged in the "Literature" section- and of course it was very easy to cut and paste to achieve that. My thanks for your subsequent work on templating the citations. I accept your view that naming archive.org as the source is unnecessary (although I do think it might be worth creating a specialist template to acknowledge the value of the archive project). Where I must differ srongly from your viewpoint is on the choice of link destination. The pages I link to offer a choice of reading formats including page-at-a-time (a very handy feature of archive.org if you're paying per gigabyte downloaded) rather than forcing the reader to accept a pdf download of the whole work, so I have reverted to those links. David Trochos (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the pages on which I post, and I don't like disjointed conversations. I need to put that warning up, but usually experienced editors don't reply to the original talk page. Here goes. Why would we point to a link of links? That's not very useful for the reader. I use Wikipedia:Link#General_points_on_linking_style that we should let readers chase links. I don't care if it's pdf, even though that's what we do in most of the academic/historic/scientific articles, if there's a choice. That's why we put the pdf format on the link. I'm not big on first names on academic articles, and if you look across science and historical articles, you'll find that a lot of the FA's use initials only (though not exclusively, I know). It's not a big deal, but I think that the article can be a GA, so cleaning up the citations is critical. Those are my points. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it starts to get really complicated. Close inspection reveals that there already are several Wikipedia templates for links to the Internet Archive. Using the basic one "Template:Internet_Archive" gets us something like this:

{{Internet Archive|id=kensingtonrunest00flom|name=The Kensington Whatnot}} appears on the page as:

The Kensington Whatnot at the Internet Archive, which links automatically to the /details/ folder of archive.org, not to the /download/ folder as you prefer.

The similar template for links to the I.A's Open Library is:

{{OL work|id=OL1207068W|cname=The Kensington Thingy}}, which displays as:

The Kensington Thingy at Open Library, and again links to a reading options page. In other words, there appears already to be a de facto Wikipedia policy on links to Internet Archive resources. All we have to do now is figure out the best way to use the templates available. David Trochos (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Whatnot corrected) David Trochos (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf name

Hi David, after some time away from wikipedia I want to fix the Persian Gulf naming dispute, which a consider to be a low-quality mess. I've proposed a few changes on its talk page. Could you please comment on it? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Steen

Hi, David! Four years ago almost to the second you created this article, using a number of sources to which I have no access. I wondered if by any chance you still do? And would be prepared to add some inline references to the article? Or to make the material available to me so that I can? I've corrected the date of her meeting with Nicholson (on her own say-so); I would also be curious to know the source for the year 1933 for Nicholson's separation from Edie. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now attempted! There are one or two bits which must have come from the autobiographies (which I had borrowed off my parents). I'll try to get back to those later. David Trochos (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have Looking Glass, if that's any help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- we'll see how things develop. The situation is that my draft material for the Steen article is absent from my 2008 backup DVDs, so the refs I put in yesterday were based on a return to the local library to look at the original books. It's very rare for me to lose files completely, so I hope I'll turn up the draft in some unexpected place over the weekend. David Trochos (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only if it would amuse you to improve it further. Your original draft is already well above the standard of (far too) many articles on this wiki, I think. I might try to add something on the dramatisation of Matador in the next day or two. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You mention in the article that MS "had a fair artistic talent herself". I'm aware of the drawings in "Oakfield Plays", and the sketch of Ellen Terry in the V&A, but wondered whether there was much in the way of other material. I should say that I've found it a very useful article. Thanks. TerryRowell (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move it man

Re Peggy Stewart (ship): you have been here long enough. You orter know that if a new name is needed, you move an article, you do not copy&paste. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes; in practice, I can't remember the last time I actually did rename a page- it's something I prefer not to do, as I've witnessed some of the unforeseen consequences when others have done it to pages I watch. As I indicated in my deletion requests, in this case I was in a bad mood over the way the mis-named page had been created, and I lashed out a bit. Sorry. David Trochos (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. William Day

David - this might be original research, and not applicable to Wikipedia, but I'm starting to think I have a plausible identification of the William Day (sea captain) from your article. I am a descendent of the Day family from Massachusetts. I have a first cousin, Captain William Day, who was born and is buried in Springfield, Massachusetts (originally buried at Sheffield).[6] He was famous in the French and Indian War for capturing a French admiral and a fleet of French ships. The British monarchy was so pleased, they had the court painter paint his portrait (often said to be John Singleton Copley). The age range matches up, and my William Day married a Mary "Polly" Day from Boston. I won't go into all my reasoning, but it seems quite possible they could be the same man. I literally just started researching this cousin yesterday, but wanted to let you know, as two heads can be better than one! It would be quite ironic if a man who was praised by the English for capturing a French fleet turned out to be the same one praised by the French for action against the English. - Dunc0029 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David Trochos. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I hope you can do a couple of things tonight as I'm off to bed, need an early start. Thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David Trochos. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is this sort of thing[7] which needs fixing. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Braystones-station.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Carrickfergus-castle-1.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fir Bolg

Regarding your edits to Fir Bolg, could you please include inline citations for the popular culture references which you provided. It's all fine in giving the name of the source, but it's easy to either get soemthing wrong or to be misinformed. Thanks. Uamaol (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't provide the popular culture references, I just reverted the drastic edits by Seu Deva which had removed the entire section. David Trochos (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Flamborough Head Map-mini.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle of Flamborough Head Map-mini.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other Armada listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other Armada. Since you had some involvement with the Other Armada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Trochos. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, David Trochos. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, David Trochos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, David Trochos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Partonmap.gif

The file File:Partonmap.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]