User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 11

Talk:Roman numerals

Thanks for "butting in' here - I am feeling a bit overwhelmed in this "argument", and the lightest of support is very welcome. Since the "sections" or "sub-topics" on this page were getting a bit extended I have done a little editing to make things clearer - including putting your comment into a separate thread. Realise I have probably broken a few "rules" (laughs hysterically) about what one usually does to a talk page but I couldn't see how anyone was going to be able to follow stuff as it had gone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Martin of Sheffield! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 50 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed6767. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will have a look at it in a day or so. One thing I'm a little concerned about: does it rely only on icons for the actions or is it possible to add human language to the machine's squiggles? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Roman numerals

Thanks for fixing the mess left by our (I suspect, largely mischievous) friend. I am not so hot on "tricks" with hidden text etc. And, incidentally, thanks for your constructive work on the article itself - while battling someone like [that person] the odd rational remark and sensible suggestion comes like balm from heaven! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Xcalibur (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal mark citation

Thank you for correctly reformatting that citation I added. -- Denelson 83 20:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for table of "individual decimal places". (Roman numerals)

We don't seem to have a source for that really neat table of standard values for the individual decimal places you came up with at the end of May. Was this entirely your own invention? or did you grab (at least) the basic idea from somewhere? Just I'd really like us to have a source at this point that really does relate (even if indirectly) to the table itself. You can probably guess for whose benefit I'd like this! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I just sythesised it. I've seen similar elsewhere, after all they are not complicated. Isn't there a bit in WP: or MOS: about leaves in autumn/fall or the sun rising? I was trying to provide a way out of the "Rules" dilemma, something I clearly failed at! I must say, I nearly hit the "Vandalism" button on the last appearance of the "rules", I think WP:VNOTSUFF applies. Got to rush, I'm out out on the river today and quite literally, "time and tide wait for no man". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've actually seem something very like it somewhere - in fact I wasted a good deal of time trying to locate something without locating anything half as clever. Just that constantly reacting to stupidity is wearing, while trying to forestall it can at least be a challenge. No worries, anyway. Have fun on the river (assuming you are out for recreational rather than professional reasons?) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. Actually the wind was a stiff ENE and with spring high water over the mud the fetch was around 10 miles. My yacht is reached by a 10-15 minute passage in a small (8') open boat from the slip. So in the end we didn't go. Re our mutual friend: do you think that adding the blindingly obvious "the sun rose yesterday" suitably supported by lots of citations might get the point over? I could get really stubborn if asked. :-) Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubborness may eventually be necessary. Hope springs eternal. Keep up the good work. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses in Damp (mining)

My objection to the parentheses as they originally stood was not to their validity as punctuation but to the issue of "parabombing" (i.e., laziness by previous editors allowing parenthesized text to be misused in a way that disrupts the flow).

As for the use of brackets, I was just going by my own intuition. I am a native speaker of American English but am not the right kind of geek to pick up on obscure subtleties of grammar. My apology was for not thinking hard enough to remove the word "meaning" in my original edit.

I think we agree that no further changes are needed to the article. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Numerals

You may have already noticed - but the "rules man" is at it again. I am SO fed up with this -which is probably all this troll really wants. Trying hard to be patient but what the [naughty word expunged]. I suspect you are even more fed up than me, but would appreciate your support in establishing a firm consensus here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I responded at User talk:Johnuniq#Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are up to date on this without further prompting from me - but we do need to keep this going! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundofmusicals: Sorry, but I've been a bit distracted over the last week or so. It's just coming up on my oncologist appointment, and it is always a bit unsettling, plus I've been trying to knock a backup regime into shape. I'll try and do better, but please allow me a few days grace! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism intended - hang in there! I'm probably just being over anxious. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Not Needed

Hi,

I noticed you used the {{cn}} template over at Talk:Dido Elizabeth Belle. I think that template is meant for article space. On talk pages it's better to simply ask editors to back up their statements using a regular polite reply. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I see your point. It was not meant as impolite, but merely asserting "Walvin says this" isn't helpful. For that matter I'm not sure why Schama and Reddie were added to the statement that "James Walvin has pointed out, slavery DID exist after 1772" since I doubt that they speak for him. The Schama reference is particularly tiring since:

I've just been reading the Schama book. Schama does make the point that the case was over the right to transport a slave against his will out of England. He does this in part by using a slightly different report of Mansfield's words (Sharp's transcribed notes - from where? Sharp was not present at the judgement (Schama p61)) rather than Loft's Reports which most writers use. See Schama's note 16 to chapter II for his justification. Notwithstanding the preceding Schama in the next paragraph makes the points that both sides though he had made all slavery illegal in England. The chapter mentions that some slave hunting and auctioning did occur after the case, but ultimately slaves could and did leave their masters quoting the Somerset case. Nowhere in the cited 10 pages is there any mention of a 19thC date, and the claim "This ruling was misinterpreted as presaging the formal end of slavery in Britain, but in fact slavery continued to be legal in the country until the 1830s" is uncited and a misrepresentation of Schama's thesis.

which appears under my name in the preceding section ("Excessively strong inference") dated 1/4/19. I'm going to see if I can get hold of Walvin and check out the citation, so it may be a while before I get back on this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to discuss this at Talk:Dido Elizabeth Belle, not here. CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Mikesiva would take a blind bit of notice, I'd be happy to though really I was responding to the {{cn}} comment. Since all I'm doing is quoting the talk page (which convention dictates that we must assume Mikesiva has read) I don't know that it will do much good. Both my local library service and the regional library association don't have a copy of Walvin (1971), not surprising since it is nearly 50 years old. There are copies nationally, so I may try to get over to the library and see if I can get it on Interloans on Monday. Unfortunately until then I don't really have any new facts to add so I wasn't going to waste time and space regurgitating points. However if you think it would help I'll copy this over. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: – I've just been down to the library to order up a copy of Walvin. Unfortunately as the whole country is going into lockdown on Thursday the Interloans system has been suspended as of this morning. Grrrr. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, but really, I came here solely for your usage of the cn template. Any progress relating to an article is best discussed at its talk page, whether you feel you have something to share now or merely in the future. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals

I know this is a horrible bore (no one more fed up than me) but a quick little one line comment from you is probably all we need to get on top of this nonsense! -Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A distant Thank You and question

As time permits, please re-visit the Gibson Disambiguation Talk Page. (Not sure how to paste that link here.). — RayBirks (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoca moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Zoca, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just trying to deal with the IP submission. That's why I hoped any editors would be helpful, but if you think it's best to go, please delete it. I'll remove the link from clog, but I believe it needs an admin to delete. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biquinary

Martin, I asked a question on the Roman numerals talk page about the use of biquinary to describe its original basis. Clearly the page has been plagued by some people with incredibly long-winded descriptions of the rules and so I didn't get an answer to my question. Looking back at the archives I saw only two sensible contributions about the subject; one from Denise Norris back in 2002 (Denorris—long since disappeared) and one from you in 2019.

I'm in the same boat as you as I can't find any sensible reference for this. I added a bit to the Quinary article to point out that Roman numerals were not positional and therefore didn't properly match bi-quinary coded decimal which introduced the term (aiui). But it seems a far more satisfactory description of the basic Roman numeral system to consider it as alternating quinary and binary. And surely some mathematician must have described it! Ifrah is particularly shallow on this issue.

Did you ever get anywhere? Chris55 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've been taking a bit of a Wikibreak and have deleted my watchlist to stop all the Monkbot crap. I've responded at more length on the talk page. Cheers! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvasing

If you ping people during an XfD discussion you end up inviting claims of WP:CANVASing. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was careful not to suggest keep or delete. Comment isn't helpful, but if you don't like it I'll recurse. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Zocca (shoe)

Hello, Martin of Sheffield. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zocca".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

Just a heads up, I think posting other users' email addresses on-Wiki is against the outing policy. You should probably remove that and possibly seek to have it redacted from the edit history. Don't want you to get into trouble. --SVTCobra 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, but it is a works email taken from a public site, not a private one and not one obtained in some other way. Do you think I should ask one of the admins for a ruling on this? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: I've asked the admin (331dot who pointed me at the board for advice. Are you happy with that or should I start deleting things at once? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to consider that outing. It doesn't matter if it is publicly available information. You'll also need to request oversight of the edits(I'm not in a position to right now) 331dot (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything has been sorted out. For future reference, you can request oversight at WP:RFO. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread related to discussion in which you participated

Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St or St.

Re Bede. Your OED is contradicted by my Fowler's Modern English Usage - "St or S. is better than St. for the abbreviation".

More importantly, English Wikipedia has settled on the form St for UK subjects; see: St Albans, St Andrews, St Ives (and St Ives) et al. Nedrutland (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird! I know there are some people who seem to want to constantly change the language, but this is a bit silly. The Yanks don't seem to have a problem (see for example St. Louis) so I assume this must be some "Guardian reader" newspeak! Generally the OED is best source, but I'd agree that Fowlers runs a very close second. Do you have a reference for where this oddity is laid down? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For things like its own MoS (or what counts as a Reliable Source), I find Wikipedia hard to navigate. I find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations which just unhelpfully gives "St. or St" but then Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling which discusses national differences, omits saints. So no, I can not point to where it is discussed, but it must have been in the early days of WP. Nedrutland (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]