Red King

Red King Archive 1; Red King Archive 2; Red King Archive 3; Red King Archive 4;Red King Archive 5;Red King Archive 6;

Red King, are you able to assist me in adding an image to HMS Argenta? I was sent the image but am having trouble establishing its origin. It is clearly the correct ship. How would I upload it for your review and hopefully admission to the article?

This link shows the image: http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16637.0

Jmont1 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing—United States of Europe—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roads in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belleek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I removed a reference to Newtons being used to describe pressure here. You rolled back my edit saying "pressure is a force and is measured in Newtons". This is not correct.

Pressure is a distinct entity in physics, defined as the force per unit area. The SI unit is one Newton per square meter, called the Pascal.

Specifically in the context of centrifugal casting, where you made your rollback, describing the situation in terms of a force does not make physical sense. Appropriate units would either be a pressure or an acceleration. BetatronRadiation (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the colours on File:Ulster counties.svg are appropriate. They are not orange and green but pink and green: pink is the conventional colour for showing the United Kingdom (and the British Empire) on maps. You are of course free to produce a version with a similar name and with whatever colour combination you wish.Hogweard (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Red King I was thinking this hyperlink [1] may be a good addition on the above issue Map of Ulster Colours [[2]] I edited this page [[3]] and it was undone and described as vandalism. My idea was to explain the reason for the historic map convention of Pink for the commonwealth. No rush at all to reply, I'm on a go slow study/phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

A better alternative source link[4] I wanted a source to show it was a solution from the publishers to make the make easier to read. Sorry I see I'm trying to run again. Should I drop this or is it a good idea, explaining the pink colouring convention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

{{rto|Eimhin de Róiste]], I can't think of any reason to get into such detail in any article on Wikipedia unless it were one about the map itself. Yes, drop it. --Red King (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

On Irish_backstop, Earwig's Copyvio Detector, on September 9, 2019, shows ″Violation Possible 41.9%″.

• https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-negotiator-idUKKCN1PO2IE - 41.9%. So needs to quickly rephrase or article may be deleted (see WP:COPYVIO). I am not admin, just writing there and noticed. Who is interested in the article may try to rephrase while some admin have not deleted it. I put notice about copyvio also on Talk:Irish backstop. PoetVeches (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Budget of the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EU 27 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Come Out, Ye Black and Tans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish independence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Red King thank you for your interest in my edit which was to make the first usage Éire on the page "Names of the Irish state. I linked to the wiki page explaining the term Éire could you please explain why you undid my edit. Many thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eimhin de Róiste:, First, apologies for not leaving an edit note, but the mobile interface doesn't allow it for reverts. My reason is that I fail to see any logic in piping Éire, the name of the state, to s side issue about the word Erin. It is interesting but barely relevant in the context of the names of the state. Yes , I can see that some text about the name Erin might be useful but, per wp:egg, it should be overt not covert. Does that make sense? --Red King (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and thanks for querying it like this rather than counter-reverting blindly. --Red King (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Red King, sorry to clarify are we talking about this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_the_Irish_state&action=edit&section=1 with this link to here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Éire? I made a few edits today. I thought we were talking about the name of the state and the first reference to one of the constitutional names of the state Éire had no actual link explaining the name so I linked to the wiki that explains that. I'm confused by your references to Erin have I made a mistake I'm not sure what Erin is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eimhin de Róiste:, first, yes it should have been linked but – perhaps it was an error – you linked to Éire#Difference between Éire and Erin, that was why I reverted. Is that it? --Red King (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ooops yeah that was what I was trying to do, I put in the wrong link, so sorry, thanks so much for helping me out. If you don't mind I'll put in the link to the actual Éire page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Éire OMG such a shocking error, Thanks so much for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

No worries, we've all had such a moment. Anyway, no need, I have already done it. --Red King (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are essentially undoing my revisions from just an hour or so ago capitalizing section headers ... and I'm glad you are. I've had a chance to review MOS:CAPS and I now realize these headers must be written in sentence case (except for proper nouns). Do accept my apologies for the trouble. Cheers and happy editing. PubliusJ (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PubliusJ:, you are an honourable person to have 'fessed up. I just assumed that it was an error by one of the many new editors who had piled in. No worries. --Red King (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your well-considered contributions there. I quite accept that "it has been suggested" is an imperfect form of words, and I often find myself trying to reframe passive sentences as active ones. But I think it's a stretch to claim that "passive voice is deprecated". The main reason to reframe sentences is to make them shorter and clearer, not to fulfil some blind grammatical rule. There are still many instances where we need passive voice. Anyway, thanks for caring about language and article quality. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion relating to those tables I started at Talk:Sinn Féin#First preference votes. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blocking minority. Since you had some involvement with the Blocking minority redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your recent edits, but not with your edit summary about statute/survey yard. Since the subject seems to interest you, I recommend this webinar by a National Geodetic Survey (NGS) geodesist. I would summarize it as the US Constitution giving authority over standards of measure to Congress, and Congress delegating it to the Secretary of Commerce, and more specifically the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST in cooperation with NGS decided back in 1959 to exempt geodetic surveys from the change in the foot and yard, and now they have decided to do away with the exemption at the end of 2022. None of this requires any statutory changes by Congress. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jc3s5h:, yes, I understand the context but don't really understand your comment. After some debate, the statute measure article says (in summary) that any measure that is defined in statute (law) is ipso facto a statute measure So yes, the survey foot is a statute measure but not the statute measure. Back in 1959, Secretary for Commerce (on the advice of NIST and NGS) defined the US foot (and thus yard) to be identially the International Foot: that to me is the real 'statute foot' in the US. At the same time, the Secretary declared that The foot unit defined by this equation shall be referred to as the U.S. Survey Foot and it shall continue to be used, for the purpose given herein, until such a time as it becomes desirable and expedient to readjust the basic geodetic survey networks in the United States, after which the ratio of a yard, equal to 0.914 4 meter, shall apply.^[1] The moment of 'desirable and expedient' arrives New Year's Eve, 2022.

Or have I completely missed the point? You are referring to my changing 'US statute yard' to 'US survey yard', aren't you? --Red King (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am indeed referring to the change from statute yard to survey yard. The edit summary was "not statute yard, which may be technically true since given in statute, is misleading since statute says that only land surveying is may use it [until end 2022] from using the International yard". Although there were some UK statutes that defined a yard, those have not been in force in the US since Mendenhall Order. As far as I know the only US federal statute that defined US customary units was the Metric Act of 1866, which provided conversion tables between US and metric units, and from which one could infer the definition of the US units.

The requirement that the length of the yard derived from the 1866 relationship 1 meter = 39.37 inches be limited to information based on geodetic surveys was not a statute, it was an announcement in the Federal Register, signed by the directors of the National Bureau of Standards and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and by the Secretary of Commerce. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jc3s5h:, yes, I know about the Mildenhall order (though admit that I had missed the historic relevance of UK statute, the 'inherited law' principle), but doesn't that imply that the article was in error before I changed it, that there has never been a 'US statute yard'? Are you saying that I made the right change but for the wrong reason? --Red King (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am indeed saying you made the right change for the wrong reason. There was a yard in the US from the Declaration of Independence to the Metric Act of 1866 which was inherited from the UK. It could have been described a "statute yard", but that phrase would have referred to a UK statue; the actual definition in the US would have been through popular assent, just as today the US does not have any federal statue adopting the Gregorian calendar, so the meaning of phrases such as "March 20, 2020" is through popular assent, not law.

Beginning in 1866 the yard was defined in law, in terms of the meter (regardless of whether Congress realized that they were defining traditional units in terms of metric units). The operational value was determined by various agencies of the Department of Commerce, and those operational procedures changed from time to time. If I recall correctly, the National Bureau of Standards in 1959 took the view that they didn't need Congressional approval to change the value because the new value was within the bounds implied by the number of significant figures given in the 1866 law. Whether that's what the 1866 Congress really meant is debatable, but the Bureau of Standards got away with it. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to say thank you for the clarification. Henryguide (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Henryguide:, my pleasure. I've been there. --Red King (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Red King: You repeatedly destroy the "arguments against" in Dividend Tax article without discussing your objections on the talk page. If you have a specific issue with some statement (e.g. if you find it un-grounded and required further sources) you should state this problem specifically (in the talk page or even in the article itself requesting clarification). If you feel that arguments in favor are more useful than arguments against you should add the relevant arguments in favor rather than destroying arguments against. Otherwise such actions border on vandalism (though not actually classified as such) and will have unfortunate consequences.

=

Red King: you are completely arbitrary and unspecific in your objections. I do not see what relation your objections have on the text you object to (as opposite to just relations to your political philosophy). If you have actual reasons please say specifically which statements seem un-grounded and as you say political or subjective. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

As I told you on your talk page, my attempt to engage with you was met with threats and that consequently I will not waste any more time on you. --Red King (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll AGF, and assume you looked for, but couldn't find, this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attendance allowance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attendance allowance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply