User talk:MarlinespikeMate

Jesus

From WP:NOTSEEALSO "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Editor2020, Talk 22:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TMA Corps of Midshipman 1968.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TMA Corps of Midshipman 1968.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources tag

When you put this on an article you need to post to the talk page your specific issues. I've removed it from Atacama skeleton because I can't tell which of the 3 you mean, and none of them pop out as obviously unreliabe. Doug Weller (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious. The Huffington post is not a source, rather a aggregator of sources, so the original source from that citation is not known to be reliable unless it is posted as something reliable.MarlinespikeMate (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not referring to the specific link, there's nothing inherently unreliable about The Huffington Post and it is used as a source in a number of articles. You might search WP:RSN to see where it's discussed. Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After searching through WP:RSN, the Huffington Post discussion is far from proving itself as a concrete or reliable source. In fact, the blog was black listed on wikipedia for awhile. The tag did not refer to a specific source, but a general theme lacking of solid sources, with a request to add more reputable sources. I could see the HP being supportive, but with only three dubious references, I believe the tag was representational.MarlinespikeMate (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS El Faro

Regarding the change of course... I didn't see anything else in the article that indicated they changed course (except after they'd lost power... at which point they wouldn't be "steaming straight ahead"). Phrases like "continued to head directly into the storm" also aided my thinking. Certainly no expert on the story, but if it did alter course before propulsion failed can you please expand upon that in the article and give references? Thanks! JeopardyTempest (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable, but take a look at the normal shipping route, or the most direct route from A to B, and you will see quite a deviation to the south to avoid the hurricane. http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/15/elfaro/, http://www.reuters.com/subjects/elfaro, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3266077/Doomed-El-Faro-cargo-shop-inexplicably-sailed-speed-path-Hurricane-Joaquin-tracking-data-revealed.html, http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2016/El-Faro-disappearance-is-the-worst-US-flag-disaster-in-35-years/ Other pages like G-captain shows this, which is a USMM run page, but blacklisted for some reason on wiki.

Perhaps information needs to be added to show the change in the route. As we can see, with the islands to the south, and the hurricane to the north, there wasn't much of an option except to turn around or hit the "bail out" point cutting between the islands, which is talked about in some of the articles. A wrong assumption perhaps left them not quite far enough out of the way, and a loss of the only boiler compounded this issue, stranding them in the path. This wikipedia page however is lacking an adequate description. --MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MarlinespikeMate. 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, MarlinespikeMate. 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]