User talk:Madrenergic

Hi, just wondering when you were going to move that content over? Thanks -

Hi @

Thewolfchild: 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. —Madrenergic^talk 05:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Madrenergic^talk 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Madrenergic^talk 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Madrenergic. 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

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]

You recent revert [1] 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)[reply]

@

Madrenergic^talk 05:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

@

Madrenergic^talk 18:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Madrenergic^talk 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

wolf 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Madrenergic^talk 16:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Madrenergic^talk 21:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I respect your decision but my view is unchanged Lyndaship (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

Madrenergic^talk 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@Lyndaship: 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. —

Madrenergic^talk 15:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see that this is a topic that you feel strongly about. However, one of Wikipedia's core content policies is

Madrenergic^talk 05:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thanks for uploading

).

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

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)[reply]