User talk:Geni

/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8

new comments at the bottom of the page please

Thames and Severn Canal

Thanks for editing: please see my comment on the talk page. You added to an existing section, but fundamentally this is very odd because "Phase 1b" is on a different canal, the Stroudwater. So I think this is odd. Incidentally, I could not find any confirmation that the bid has actually been made on the Cotswold Canals trust site; are you sure the reference you gave is accurate? Can you share anything online? (Please reply here) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that navvies is correct. The current edition isn't online yet.©Geni (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The bid is mentioned on their site here http://www.cotswoldcanals.com/pages/posts/saul-to-stonehouse-restoration-funding-bid-809.php?p=5 .©Geni (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We177

Am I correct in thinking that you took the photo at File:We177 science museum.jpg at the Science Museum, London (and not some other science museum)? And if so, that means its safe for me to list that museum as another home for a surviving example at WE.177#Retirement, right (it wasn't some special travelling exhibit that you saw)? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Geni,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Mute Swan Emsworth2.JPG is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on March 2, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-03-02. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to use photo

Hi Geni,

I must say your photographs are amazing! I have been experimenting myself with light painting and am just wondering if I may use this photograph in the background of my photograph. Of course I will credit you by posting a link in the description of your page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Southampton#/media/File:Southampton_docks_at_night_4_seconds.JPG

Thankyou in advance.

Aidanr97 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Uri-Geller.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uri-Geller.jpg, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside3.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside3.PNG, 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. Cloudbound (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside4white.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside4white.PNG, 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. Cloudbound (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox US university ranking

Hi Geni, I counted the transclusions of {{Infobox US university ranking}}, and it appears it has less than 390 transclusions, which does not make this highly visible in my opinion. Note the thresholds described by Template:High-use and Template:High-risk. I've seen templates at indef semiprot while citing Wikipedia:High-risk templates, and believe that semiprot should suffice. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that. I now believe the level is acceptable both to prevent unregistered vandalism, and to encourage discussion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Pier, Southampton

On 27 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Pier, Southampton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Royal Pier, Southampton, used to have a station at the end of it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Pier, Southampton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Royal Pier, Southampton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wey & Arun lock photo identification?

Hi Geni

As I am now doing volunteer work restoring the Wey and Arun Canal, I feel it is my duty to get its article up-to-date.

I have updated the map (several times) and made some other changes, with more to come when time permits (as the article is badly lagging the restoration progress).

Anyway...

You uploaded a photo of a lock on the canal, but it does not identify which one. Can you try to work out where you took the photo, please? (I know it was 10 years ago!)

Cheers! -- EdJogg (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fort Victoria (Isle of Wight) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Car ferry

Keyhaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Car ferry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Geni,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Dendrogramma enigmatica sp. nov., holotype.png is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The image has been rescheduled.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oriole Park at Camden Yards article vandalism

Huge thanks for blocking Bensaw11 for blatant vandalism of this article. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Huge appreciation for your actions against blatant vandalism. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Geni. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Biber submarine

Biber find in The Netherlands.

Dear Geni,

With regards to the biber attack on the bridge at Nijmegen i think i can provide you with additional information. As it happens the remains one of the subs used in that attack are now on display in the Fort of Pannerden. A fort located very close to the location of the find. I work there as a volunteer and as such I think I could lend you a hand getting some information. With kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigifrith76 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've not worked on that article in years. If you have stuff to add I'd suggest raising it on the talkpage or adding it directly to nl:Biber_(onderzeeboot). Alternatively you could try contacting wikimedia Nederland who are probably in a better position to work with you.©Geni (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Paddlers

As we were discussing.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass protection

Why did you mass-protect every template used on "the Hillary page"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

too bad we don't have Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Cascading_protection for levels other than full. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection on templates

It looks like you have added extended confirmed protection to Template:Obama cabinet and Template:US First Ladies, though those pages have not been vandalized recently. Note that the announcement above from September 23rd states that "Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort." Additionally, Hillary Clinton itself is semi-protected, so preemptively protecting subcomponents with a higher level of protection is odd.

I assume this was a mistake, perhaps a misclick. Would you mind changing the protection level of these templates to semiprotected? Mamyles (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ThinkPoint for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ThinkPoint 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/ThinkPoint 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

John Reaves sent me your way...

Can I get a pair of admin eyes on a couple of Commons procedural things that have stalled? Thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01

43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Craigievar Express

On 27 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Craigievar Express, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Craigievar Express (pictured) is driven by a steam engine previously used in a sawmill? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Craigievar Express. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Craigievar Express), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources on the YouCaring page

Hello Geni, thanks for taking the time to review my post. I'm just wondering, which pieces of information are lacking reliable citation? I have attempted to provide as much citation as possible but I will continue to edit the page until I've met your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5CA0:D4C:C030:63D8:48CE:6912 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

All of it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQPq1VLXY7U is a self published video. Heat street is never a reliable source. http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2104057-Zarna-Joshi-is-now-crowdfunding-because-of-Hugh-Mungus is forum thread which again aren't considered reliable sources. Neither are go fund me pages or individual tweets.©Geni (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the context of the post, referring to YouTube videos and GoFundMe pages, those actually do provide proof that what the Wikipedia entry is claiming is 100% true. I have edited several of the sources to be more reliable, and I believe it's a matter of opinion that Heat Street is not reliable. In this case I believe the opinion is wrong, because Heat Street provides links and videos that serve as proof to the claims made in the Wikipedia entry.