You are questioning the link at [3]. I've looked at it twice today since it has been in question. Possibly I am able to view it so easily because I am registered at this site. If I am, it certainly didn't cost anything or take much to register because I don't do paid memberships for wikipedia sourcing. I am guessing it is a cookie stored somewhere in my browser. Now to your request to fill out wiki source format. I explain in my user page, I resist doing that. Its an awkward, time consuming process, but more particularly, it serves no purpose. You ask "What?" but that is not solved with the format. What we want here is verifiability. I provided that with the source, albeit a weak message board link in this case. It is there for you and anyone else to read (as I said, perhaps requiring you to do a free registration). Filling out the wikiformat does not make it any more or less verifiable. It doesn't capture or repeat the text. It does nothing. You are welcome to run reflinks if you think it is necessary. Trackinfo (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trackinfo, thanks for your note. Filling out the wikiformat allows other editors, like me, to know that "registration is required". The first thing I did was to run reflinks. But of course it can't parse the page without the prior registration. I'm not sure you're aware how baffling the page looks if you're not registered - in fact, have you ever seen it? I've also looked for a better (and non-registration-required) source, since message boards are not generally considered to be WP:RS. But I can't find one. I have no problem with removing the "What", as it was added to prompt this discussion - although it might have been better to have had it at the article Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A classic that one. "Mor falch o weld eich bod wedi dal y clefyd y Gymraeg." Lucky we don't live in Delhi where you can "even drive odd cars" every other day: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me you used a computer to come up with that. That there might be human minds capable of devising something like that is too awful to contemplate. EEng (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Even worse if it was a non-human mind.[reply]
Not encyclopaedic? Are you aware of what the Greek words that are the source of the word mean? en kuklos paideuein , to educate in the round, something like that. Eliot has been consulted by the investigators, but not good enough for 'martin evans123'. ugh. ugh ugh. little things please little minds, enjoy your revert power 'martinevans123'.92.3.17.204 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that according to WP, "Punning has been credited as the fundamental concept behind alphabets, writing, and even human civilization"! (Just as well I wasn’t there with my terrible ones back in the day, then….) WP also claims that "Chinese is a tonal language with a comparatively small inventory of permitted syllables, resulting in an exceptionally large number of homophone words", so it's a shame that the noble pun is shunned in China – and they certainly take their aversion to extremes! JezGrove (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's just totally freaky! Loved the mythical creatures - and the fact that the Chinese government censored the word 'censorship'. JezGrove (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! And cracker jokes could be the right level for my puerile sense of humour - I wonder when the deadline is for the 2016 batch? JezGrove (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Let us known when you're done on this. I've got a couple of sources to clear up the "citations needed". Reminds me to get on with Llanfrechfa - really should have an article. Diolch. Robevans123 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How strange! My personal favourite actual anagram is 'A man, a plan, a canal - Panama' for what it's worth (very little, as it happens...) JezGrove (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An anagram of "a man, a plan, a canal - Panama" is "Pal, Mañana, A Manna Alpaca!" Unfortunately I'm not clever enough to make an anagram that's also a palindrome. Eman235/talk20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like when I wrote "When Rudy was through talking to Crystal, he walked into the nearby elephant." The word I meant to write was elevator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123. I thought it would be more appropriate to reply to your question "privately" rather than extend the discussion at AN/I.
When I nominated Malcolm X for FA, I was surprised when another editor expressed copyright concerns about File:Shabazz Gravesite.jpg, an image I had uploaded to Commons. See WP:Featured article candidates/Malcolm X, about two-thirds of the way down the page (under the heading "Significant image concerns") -- concerns I addressed by removing the image from the article.
The issue is whether the gravestone is just text or whether it's a "work of art" that incorporates creativity, so whether there is a copyright issue depends on the specific gravestone (as well as its age, of course). — MShabazzTalk/Stalk23:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to thank you for your work on this article, which deserves some good effort. I like your additions, which complement my own. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
for weighing in at Money (That's What I Want). Feel free to undo the last edit and add my comments about the British Invasion versions back, I have been warned that I will be blocked if I do it, though the admin who issued the warning seems to have backed off, agreeing that my edit is okay. However the chap that I had the initial disagreement with does not seem to be under the same constraint. Oh yes, I was slow getting here because I was waylaid by the quiz on your user page. it seemed to cover rather well everything that is going on at this article. And so it goes. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Einar. I think what you put is quite right. But it might be over-ruled by WP:SONGCOVER, which is quite clear, isn't it? But no point editing until some kind of consensus has been agreed at the Talk Page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martin, Many thanks for all your help regarding vandalism on my Talk page. Due to a few problems at home, I do not have all the time I would like on Wikipedia and your intervention is much appreciated. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is just mindless trolling - although I think it should be stopped very soon. In answer to your question: no, have never visited DLR, Malta. Best David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime I see a IP talk page blanked. I take a look & never revert. I leave that up to who ever issued the warnings. I do like that people believe that making the warnings disappear helps their case. Krj373 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hello. In case of a sonic attack on your district, follow these rules, dears. If you are making love it is imperative to bring all bodies to orgasm simultaneously. Nice.""Steeleye Spaniel? or would sir prefer something more classical? ...I'll get my coat"
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stockholm syndrome may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
is kidnapped by the story's villain "A", played by [[Charlotte_DiLaurentis|Charlotte DiLaurentis]]). Charlotte holds Sara captive in an underground bunker, which she has built to resemble a human-
You've lost me with the bendy spoons I'm afraid - btw, I think Bracketbot might be sending you less welcome greetings soon, if I'm not mistaken! JezGrove (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those Llanelli multistorey car parks are so romantic...! I remember Geller bending spoons and stopping watches, I just don't get the Welsh connection...! JezGrove (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was slow on the uptake there - I should have asked Lyn (Llyn?) - she spent quite a few years in North Wales (getting a music degree and qualifying as a climbing instructor - apparently 'portfolio' careers aren't so new after all...) JezGrove (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to all of their Wikipedia pages to give a more detailed description of their places of birth only to have them taken down by you. I have given reasons for the edit which you seem to have ignored please tell me why? Hackinghobb (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me. It's plenty of other editors. As I have reminded you on your Talk Page, you were warned about this exactly one month ago following the Administrators noticeboard discussion here. You chose to make no input whatsoever to that discussion. The reason why your edits have been reversed is very simple - you have no consensus to make them and all the reverting editors think they are unnecessary. If you make another similar edit I have no doubt at all that you will be blocked. Is that now totally 100% clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. if you wish to continue this discussion please do so at your own Talk Page, where I left you the reminder. Thanks. [reply]
I hope you don't mind the further revision I made to your Canada edit today. I was trying to make it more objective (after I thought about it more, as the other guy said), more accurate with the periods, but also less specific with the hits because it is the article summary. Regardless of all this, the Canada topic probably should have been addressed more specifically in the article body itself (by whoever originally added it) before it was even added to the summary. Shortage of time for me is an issue at the moment though. Regards, AusChartMan (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AusChartMan, many thanks for your considerate note. I think your edits are a big improvement, although as you say, the intro section should only ever summarise the article. I'm also unsure that such comparatively moderate success belongs in the intro. As you may have guessed, however, the article is no longer on my watchlist. I wish you the best of luck editing there. I'm busy enjoying a little fish with lemon. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, it appears that there is a growing number of Flat-Earthers - most of them the citizens of one particular country, of course. No wonder Trump is doing so well! (But then such stupidity goes back to the country's origins: after all these are the people who despite declaring that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then elected a slave-owner as their first President….) JezGrove (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please forgive my ignorance of the correct procedures/rules etc when it comes to resolving a dispute or disagreement on Wikipedia. As you know, I have included the 'Former denomination - Roman Catholic' information in a number of Wiki entries in the sincere belief that it is highly likely to be relevant, useful, interesting and informative to many readers, providing valuable context, perspective and clarity on the history of many important religious buildings. I should also add that, as an atheist, I have no interest whatsoever in elevating or promoting the role of the Roman Catholic church, historical or otherwise, within the pages of Wikipedia. Clearly, however, the inclusion of the 'previous denomination' has 'ruffled a few feathers' but that in itself does not sufficientIy persuade me that this information is 'superfluous' or in any other way lacking in merit for inclusion. Please advise as I would really appreciate your insights and expertise in helping to resolve this matter. I am more than happy for this to go through any kind of wider-community dispute resolution process so it can be settled once and for all. I feel that the editors who have reverted my edits (as well as myself) really need some final clarification on this issue. Many thanks. (Woodseats44 (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Martin - long time, no see. Really sorry that you've been dragged into this nonsense, although I think, from reviewing the Lincoln Cathedral pages, you've encountered this chap before. Personal stuff has distracted me from Wikipedia for quite a while but I hope you are well and still enjoying it. KJP1 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello KJP!! Great to see you around, I am very well and "enjoying" most of my editing (although I'm not sure everyone else is, haha). I had no idea (i.e. forgotten) that I had ever seen this two-litres-of-whisky character before. He's very eloquent, for a vandal, isn't he. But he's left a small trail of POV in his wake and I was asking at AN/I how best to revert it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi girls, sorry to interrupt your frankly embarrassing 'love-in' but I think you will find that (Woodseats44 was not engaging in 'vandalism' as you put it but was, as you will no doubt eventually see for yourselves, actually trying to address a glaring historical oversight in reference to Wikipedia's information on churches built in Pre-Reformation Britain. By systematically reverting all of the edits made by (Woodseats44 and then trying to silence them for all time by applying a permanent block, you have simply served to reveal yourselves as people who happily support and collude with each other in abusing their editorial privileges, censoring key facts whenever they conflict with their own agenda. One is led to believe that editors on Wikipedia are as impartial in their judgment as possible but this is self-evidently not true for all of them. Rest assured, this is by no means the end of the matter. (Oh and the casual use of homophobic statements and thinly-disguised insults like 't@sser' does nothing for your credibility either.) I personally think Wikipedia is a fantastic project but, as this whole episode seems to indicate, it is, one fears, in great danger of being hijacked by a bunch of hysterical, self-aggrandising, self-important social inadequates with nothing better to do all day than misuse their pathetic 'power' in between j@cking off to Cliff Richard videos. Truly heartbreaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.89.44 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The DYKcheck tool indicates that it has about 1000 of the required 1500 characters – another 50% required. Ritchie seems to have found all the low-hanging fruit but I'll keep my eyes open. Myself, I have created a couple of spinoff stubs: Hanwell Band and Leverett & Frye. They would be an even bigger struggle to get to DYK level so I'm content to leave them as buds on our tree of knowledge. Note that what's interesting about Chuffer Dandridge and the other TOG stuff is the extent to which Wogan's material was crowd-sourced. Just like Wikipedia... Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, how how lovely. But this was before strict BBC compliance, wasn't it. So, just like Wikipedia, there were probably just a few regular staff with multiple sock-puppet email accounts, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a source is available (but one might well have turned up in the last few days following Wogan's death), but an explanation of why Dandrige was created and what were Byrne and Slane's ideas would probably get us there. Or just quoting one of Chuffer's whimsical nostalgic looks at prewar music hall. We've also got this that confirms Wogan corpsed at Chuffer's ramblings, but I can't believe we can't do better than the Daily Mirror :-( Some might argue that Chuffer isn't actually notable, but the tipping point for me is that his writing was read out to about 8 million people a day for ten years, and Wogan obituaries at least name-drop him, so I think it can stick. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also support keeping memory: a work of the conductor who died will make it with Ilse Gramatzki in the next set, please watch (pictured my talk). Teh points: should there be a penalty for opposing without a contribution to the article? Isn't it interesting that the term "principal editors" didn't yet come up in the project discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... that was not actually the common capitalisation, or even anything like the common spelling. It will likely soon be reverted to its previous title. Also note conventions such as WP:NCCAPS to assist with deciding upper/lowercase wordings. Dl2000 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that would be pretty conclusive, wouldn't you? Of course, we can't use the styling as used on the single cover, as it's all lower case. But, yet again, this seems to be a case of the prescriptive title rules of Wiki-land flying in the face of normal usage in the real world. Yes, I know "like" is an adjective here, but to my eye this looks Like a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Hart's Rules says: "Exactly which words should be capitalized in a particular title is a matter for individual judgement, which may take account of the sense, emphasis, structure, and length of the title. Thus a short title may look best with capitals on words that might be left lower case in a longer title." (2005 edn, page 133) Personally, I agree with you that the capitalized version looks better here - though I see there are many other WP pages also using the weird-looking lower case 'like'.JezGrove (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good moaning. I was pissing by your teck page when I soo this bricketbat wratting ballocks on it agoon. Shall I black it?
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Moody Blues may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
are Coming! The British are Coming!: With an emphasis on Donovan, the Bee Gees and the Who. [Part 6] : UNT Digital Library |publisher=Digital.library.unt.edu |date=2015-08-21 |
They released a new compilation album called ''[[Timeless Flight (Moody Blues album|Timeless Flight ]]'' in 2013. On 19 July 2013, it was announced that the band
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Adele and Van Morrison's songs "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts over at the policy discussion, Martin. I took a look the other day and thought we were heading towards a sensible outcome (silly me). Given that WP seems to be able to accommodate the erratic capitalization insisted on by e.g. CinemaScope and K.d. lang (although admittedly the latter page name itself starts with a capital 'K', the page title and body text use her preferred lower case one) surely it shouldn’t be t-o-o controversial to accept a policy that WP matches the capitalization in titles of works used by the original publisher on title pages or liner notes etc? Do you think that there’s a case for arguing that adopting such a policy for capitalization would in fact bring it into better alignment with the policy on spellings of titles of works, where artists’ preferred unconventional spellings such as Nothing Compares 2 U or Cum On Feel the Noize seem to be accommodated (also, presumably, on the basis of the publishers’ versions)? JezGrove (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Far too sensible, I'm afraid. What's on the liner notes obviously falls into the "who puked up on the tour bus" category of meaningless factoids. Why bother having silly arbitrary rules unless we all follow them slavishly forever. This is a worthy and grown-up encyclopedia not the gutter press, you know!!!Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Back to original intent, you can join the discussion about the section's subject just to improve consensus. Also, you may want to read comments there. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it would have stopped some people claiming him regardless - Oliver Sachs was American, for a while. (And let's just hope that Assange doesn't pop his clogs any time soon...!)JezGrove (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you took out "seven grand pianos" to Ludwig Wittgenstein ? Is something bad with seven? They removed seven mice to. I put seven mice, Thomas removes seven mice, at comma article. Put back as it was. Somebody puts back seven mice again. Or is no reason? But I know how to sing pages now. Talk pages. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are funny man. Listen, I can not make the word empiricism normal. It is too black. Can you help at Ludwig Wittgenstein?
It is like when on article I am in the front of text, here I am behind. The blue works if copied. I copied word "Western philosophy" so that is blue, it is nice. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody removed logical empiricism. But is no factual errors! No, it is a well known fact. Not incorrect. Not false at all. The Vienna Circle were the circle of philosophers who introduced logical empiricism in Western philosophy. and the base was exactly Tractates. Read logical empiricism. It is a very well known fact.
This is from article: "In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s."
You must read about it and you notice it's true, because it is true. This is one very important thing. Exactly WHY Wittgenstein is so important in philosophy. Not piano or brothers suicide, but the develop of logical empirism. The scientific mind!
I said:"The ideas in the Tractates were an important influence on logical empiricism," and it was the Wienna Circle supported ideas. This what I said. Exactly this. Never said he was member of Wienna Circle. Like One many think, or others. No I cannot speak English very good, true. I learn now. But I can think. That is different thing. It was nice meeting you. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quotation from the 1879 Annual Register is: “Although the country inhabited by the Bulgarians extends far to the south of the Balkans, the Berlin Congress decided, chiefly in consequence of the firm attitude maintained on the point by the British plenipotentiaries, that the Balkans should form the southern frontier of the Bulgarian principality, and that the remainder of the Bulgarian territory should be constituted a province of the Turkish Empire under the name of Easter Roumelia, with an autonomous administration under a Turkish governor.”
A much more recent publication – Salisbury, Victorian Titan by Andrew Roberts (1999) – states that: “On 17th June the Congress got down to the meat of the Bulgarian question, with Salisbury proposing that Bulgaria be split into an autonomous principality north of the Balkan mountain range, whilst the territory south of it would be called the province of Eastern Roumelia and left under the military and political control of the Sultan...”.
It will take a special kind of talent to hold that the best thing to do in order “to maintain peace in the Balkans” (as this is what I am contesting) is to divide a nation into two different neighbouring states. The inevitable consequence of this brilliant diplomatic solution was their unification just seven years later – in 1885, after a rather peaceful revolution. As this event is a historical fact I do not think that quoting a particular publication is necessary, but at the same book Mr. Roberts describes the complete chaos that followed (pages 352 to 356) and, amusingly, the new development that since in the meanwhile Bulgaria became anti-Russian, now Salisbury favoured big Bulgaria.
What followed from the 1885 unification, which followed the decision at the 1878 Berlin Congress to split the nation in two autonomous states, was the Serbo-Bulgarian war from November 1885. The official casus belli was the violation of the Berlin Congress. That was a rather brief war, that lasted a couple of weeks, but due to the surprising Bulgarian victory, it ended with the acknowledgement of the unification of Bulgaria. Nonetheless it deeply divided the two Balkan nations and that would have implications later, during the First (1912-1913) and Second (1913) Balkan wars, when Bulgaria fought first, along with the other Balkan states against Turkey for liberating the remaining provinces populated by Christians and then against its former allies for dividing the spoils of war.
To wrap up – my argument is that: 1) you cannot state that there was piece in a region (the Balkans) when a war broke out just seven years after the Berlin Congress (followed by further conflicts few decades later) and 2) this turn of events is directly influenced by Disraeli’s government that demanded the separation of one of the Balkan countries (Bulgaria), that ultimately led to that war. I hope that this would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Schrocat, and there is a new discussion thread which bears his name upon it (but thankfully not mine as well). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: "It’s piece in our time". Hoorah! (... waves graciously to general kindly cheers and flag-waving ...) Nev Chamberpot123 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Modern translation: "looks like we’re gearing up for a real humdinger..." [reply]
Weirdly, my dad was in a TV dog food ad with John Noakes back in the '70s - Noakes had the line "My dog Skip...", with the copywriters hoping that no one would notice it should have been Shep (who belonged to the Beeb, of course). And because he said "My dog..." he was contractually obliged to keep the dog for six months (I think) because otherwise it would have been a breach of the regulations on honesty in advertising! JezGrove (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this looks like the '70s Noakes ad as I remember it, though I’m not sure where Dad fitted into it all! It wouldn’t have been the first time he ended up on the cutting room floor, but when it came to ‘commercials’ he never minded because the Equity rules at the time meant that he still got the recording fees and repeats (plus if you were seen appearing in an ad for one brand, it effectively ruled you out from being used in one made by their rivals, so not appearing on-screen bizarrely worked in his favour). Dad appears a couple of times in the background here in an advert with Nigel Mansell and Eric Idle – the original storyline had him getting his tie stuck in the (then) new-fangled electric window, but that meaning is lost in the broadcast version and all that remains is one of those ‘blink-and-you’ll-miss-it’ appearances his nearest and dearest fondly remember looking out for back in the day! Believe it or not, that got him over £20k all told – quite a bit at that time, and one of several occasions when he earned more in a couple of days than my poor old mum did slaving away for a whole year… And for some reason they filmed it in Paris, so he had an all-expenses trip too… Not bad for a lad who left school at 14 to go down’t pit - I’m definitely in the wrong line of work! JezGrove (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Peckham lacked some of the tax advantages that Paris offered some of the dodgers and divers involved. Plus ca change... JezGrove (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That must have been one of the roles that he missed! He appeared in the first Smash ad as a caveman, but was replaced by the Martians - and was also in one of the ill-fated 'PG Tips - The tea with the 3D taste' campaign commercials before PG quickly reinstated the chimps... Absolutely true! JezGrove (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you’re right I ought to find this stuff while he’s still with us but seems to be easier said than done – lots of chimps but no 2D chumps in the teabag ads that I can find online. Ditto not having any joy with the Smash caveman ad from 1968/9. I thought his RSC days would be more fruitful / better documented (he was with them for over a decade from about ’72 onwards) but so far have only dug up credits from audio recordings of performances from the first half of the 70s. And dodgy sites like this one – it’s definitely him, but equally most definitely not a reliable source! Though an external link from Dead on Course backs up the weird transvestite nun photo! Will try and find some actual clips when I have some free time! JezGrove (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rod Hull was a bit miffed that I didn't recognise him, but still made me a nice cup of tea – in the house Charles Dickens’ Miss Hamilton 'lived' in!
The evidence is very circumstantial, but the story is true. My mum – a Dickens obsessive since childhood and who was eventually elected (joint) Honorary General Secretary of the Dickens Fellowship – was for many years the Branch Secretary of the Fellowship's branch in Rochester, Kent. As such, she was actively involved in all the Dickens-related activities in Rochester, and so in the mid-'80s met the new owners of Restoration House, who happened to be Rod Hull and his second wife Cheryle. On discovering that Cheryle was a professional portrait painter mum duly commissioned a joint portrait of myself and my sister. (Without asking us first - we weren't best pleased and in the event, for complicated travel reasons, were never actually in the studio at the same time.) Anyway, as a result, early one morning I found myself knocking on the door to the house but didn’t immediately realise who was letting me in because 1) I was nervous and apprehensive about the whole damn thing, 2) even though I knew he lived there I hadn't actually considered the possibility of Rod opening the door to the mansion himself, and 3) I’d never seen him without Emu on his arm! Anyway, despite his obvious disappointment at my failure to look suitably starstruck he was very sweet, made me a cup of tea and then led me along the labyrinthine route through the house to the attic where his wife had her studio. JezGrove (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a tragic death. Perhaps if the satellite channels had snaffled up the rights to Champions League matches sooner (!) Rod would still be with us. But just in case you think the Rod Hull instalment is weird… just this Sunday mum was talking about her regular chats with the deputy head of Abbey Court school (again in Kent) which she often visited both as part of her then day job and also her co-founding of a new sign language for children with special needs with some of its staff (we're back in the late 1980s again, btw, although the link I found was for the 1994 7th edn of the first book from the Signalong project). Anyway, just before one of mum's visits the deputy head was outed by the tabloid press as a notorious murderess who as a teenager had killed her own mother, and who was working at the school under a new identity. My life truly is a box of chocolates (well, WAS - I’m sincerely hoping all the weirdness is in the past! JezGrove (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jezza, how amazing. I am truly humbled. In my opinion, both of your wonderful parents are eminently worthy of a mention in this "esteemed" encyclopedia. And weird is nothing to be ashamed of! ... in fact, please treat yourself to one of Al's best (I've always found him a real and essential kindred spirit). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think she gave up on all three of those some time ago! But I obviously DID need to mention I was joking - although we've had our differences, as families do, I was just clumsily trying to say that they'll only be missed when they're gone (and no offense was intended to "Weird Al" or anyone else). BTW, I’ve just remembered that dad was also the foreman of the jury who sent James Willmott-Brown down in EastEnders (although admittedly you have to scroll a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g way down through that unreliable external link to find him)! JezGrove (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted the pic in Viola Beach. It's tricky since the pic is from the last venue they played at in Norrköping (Where's the Music?) so it really belong in the previous section "Deaths", but the only way to place it there would mean "sandwiching" the text and that is a no-no according to MOS, hence my placing it a bit below. Suggestions? Thoughts? Cheers, w.carter-Talk23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try that. But if it's reverted again I will not put it back up. I was looking for another Norrköping pic when I came across it and thought it might be something for the article. Best, w.carter-Talk23:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Coming up to 9 years of service and 77,000 edits, Martinevans123 is truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. On the surface, you may know him for his witty banter and Private Eye-esque visual humour, which I always enjoy, but beneath the surface lies someone who toils away day in, day out, on keeping articles in better shape. He doesn't go for the big awards like GAs and FAs, but he really does make the encyclopedia better without much reward. This nomination was seconded by User:Yash! and User:MelanieN.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Right, that's it! Please accept my resignation! 19:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but many thanks, anyway. That was really unexpected. I am deeply touched. (allegedly)
The award is usually distributed on Sunday. Due to the unexpected amount of touching displayed on this page you have been penalized with an additional day as Editor of the Week. This matter has not been discussed with the other WER clerks (Are there any other WER clerks?) and cannot be rescinded or changed in any way. Buster Seven Talk20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to the attention of the Editor Retentions' Board of Clerks that you may, perhaps, could be, in possession of a much desired and rarely displayed Official Wikipedia T-shirt. The report states that it is black with the The Wikipedia Globe prominently displayed. The report further states that you may have had your name imprinted on the front (potentially an act of vandalism). This would imply that you have already received accolades and "pats on the back" for your efforts. If that is, in fact, the case you may suffer the misfortune of having an additional day added to your week. The issue is under review. You will be advised ASAP. Buster Seven Talk22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um....the baseball bat is more of a fungo bat, actually. It's used to hit fly balls to the outfielders during batting practice. And the Bavarian jockstrap is, um, obviously for someone that is well-endowed. Plus, its a Fool card. Not a Complete Fool card. I thought you would like it. The tights have a "slimming" quality, don't ya think? Buster Seven Talk07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, thanks for the thanks at Reynolds Stone - I really hope his alleged 'Englishness' isn't going to be controversial... Sorry to not send you a greeting for St David's Day – I was worried that it might come out wrong. Oh, and congratulations on your latest WP gong! JezGrove (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry there's no "omfg brilliant button" yet... )
That's only the start! I’ve just realised we could actually out-source Trident! So... now all we have to do is find some mugs to pay the bills and face the fatal consequences if it ever gets used, and the problem's sorted! JezGrove (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are any good, we make waves. But your presence and the way and weight of your contributions is itself worthwhile. Little piffles don't change that. 7&6=thirteen (☎)17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not multiply, Stan! I said "sum of" i. e. add. Before we changed to decimal currency in 1972, we had pounds, shillings and pence. See [19]. "Seven shillings and sixpence" or, as we used to say, "Seven & six" Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 08:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the contribution towards clearing up the Alley Oop issue in the Herb Alpert article. I appreciate your effort!THX1136 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, your source at Dylan Thomas#Early life looks more specific/detailed than the one I used - I guess his age at the time of his victory should be changed in the article to 14? (I'm in no position to make judgments about the reliability of the City and County of Swansea, of course!) JezGrove (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess so. Although in the photo he looks about 10 years old! (and not totally unlike someone else just born). I was surprised to find such a good source, especially with that image of the Sports Day programme. Except that, on 19 June 1928, he was still 13, of course...!?Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh - so either way we go with a 'reliable source' and get it wrong, or get shot down in flames for indulging in a bit of commonsense 'original research', then...! JezGrove (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you’ve sorted it already – that’ll teach me to take a 10-minute Wikibreak! I liked your comment on the Talk Page, btw: "Maybe we need a reader tick box at the bottom of the article for ‘Drinker / Poet / It is hard to split the two’?" Dorothy Parker put it very aptly (as usual): "I'm not a writer with a drinking problem, I'm a drinker with a writing problem". And it seems you have to be especially careful with your writing in Wales! (Though no drink was involved with that case, obvs… - thanks to my legal team for that qualifying remark.) JezGrove (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t underestimate the value of the blank slate, and all that philosophical poo! (On the other hand, a friend recently reminded me that: PHILOSOPHY is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat; METAPHYSICS is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that is not there; THEOLOGY is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat, that is not there, and shouting "I found it!"; but SCIENCE is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a f----- torch".) JezGrove (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Martin I didn't see your reply until just now. (Though I don't think I've missed out on not having the Duff debt management advice!) I just popped over here to say 'Thanks' for the thanks over at Dylan Thomas. The Poetry Foundation source extract that I used started: "Like James Joyce before him, Dylan Thomas was obsessed with words—with their sound and rhythm and especially with their possibilities for multiple meanings. This richness of meaning, an often illogical and revolutionary syntax, and catalogues of cosmic and sexual imagery render Thomas's early poetry original and difficult. In a letter to Richard Church, included by FitzGibbon in Selected Letters, Thomas commented on what he considered some of his own excesses: "Immature violence, rhythmic monotony, frequent muddle-headedness, and a very much overweighted imagery that leads often to incoherence."" It seemed potentially useful, but I couldn’t quite see where it might fit… It has to be said, Thomas is THE best poet to read out aloud (his Elegy is probably my personal favourite in that respect, for what it's worth...) JezGrove (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've added some good stuff over there. Yes, it does sound good. And he could read it pretty well himself, of course, which is why the US lecture tours looked so attractive to that leech Brinnin and his cronies. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC
(Suggested substitute image): showing the dazzlingly popular "Trump comb over" effect
I can't comment at the article talk page since the image I have found will mislead and confuse since it is about someone else and the "joke" gets lost but the file name fits exactly (and is not a joke). Buster Seven Talk12:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as long as I'm here, I want to say what a fun time I had during your tenure as Editor of the Week. The box of chocolates and the daily flowers were special and really un-necessary. I'm just doing my job. A new awardee will be notified tomorrow and your reign will be over but your term in office will be a memorable one for me. Thanks for being unique and creating that opening. Buster Seven Talk12:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the hidden "Why, if he was Jewish?" buried away in a comment when it is explained that Emeric's grave bears the only Star of David in that Church of England churchyard -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's wurst than that, the Mary Rose was a certain couples' post war love - nest cleverly converted by the bloke who would later found Ikea. He/she/it wishes to bury that fact. Hence the attempt to cover up the truth by the rediscovery edit. (Twitch). Is it not clear? (twitch). Irondome (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of moving the article on Keith Emerson's old band The V.I.P.'s in order to lose that horrible apostrophe - it doesn't appear in the band's name in the lead paragraph? JezGrove (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) JezGrove (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks dreadful, doesn't it. The Grocer himself would be proud, I'm sure. Although some people do advocate apostrophes for plurals of abbreviations and acronyms. There are probably huge discussions archived over at MoS punc. But one issue I've just spotted is that it's currently disambiguating with the film The V.I.P.s. So maybe we'd have to move to The V.I.P.s (film) and/or The V.I.P.s (band)? So I'm guessing the admin over at Wikipedia:Requested_moves might well post it out for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keith Emerson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
153711 |title=Online Community for Keys, Boards, Gear, Lessons, News, Video, Tabs & Chords > Home |publisher=Keyboardmag.com |date= |accessdate=11 March 2016}}</ref>
[[Billy Sherwood]], [[Steve Porcaro]] and [[Vinnie Colaiuta]], on ''[[Back Against the Wall]]'') (2005)
Hi, thanks to you too for helping to fix up Keith's article. I wasn't a huge prog fan backintheday but I happened to see ELP at HV in 2010 and was impressed despite myself (and despite some of their olden fans saying it wasn't a very good show). Just letting you know I found a few more cites for the Instrumentation section and am trying to fix that up with some better refs and general tighten up this morning. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my pleasure. Myself always a bigger fan of the Nice, which seemed to me to be much more exciting. Emerson Lake and Parker often a bit too sterile for me, although Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery still personal favourites. Keith was kind enough to reply to me in 2014, through social media, about St Mark's Church - see Talk:Tarkus#St. Marks? I guess that, with the very many improvements made, the article may get to the front page. It's only two days since we learned of Keith's death. Unless of course someone who has "no interest at all in this individual" and who "won't be working on it" simply decides the article is "tremendously far from ready". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating discussion on St. Mark's Church. I too was trying to figure out which St. Mark's it was, especially since there was a post somewhere that said Rick Wakeman almost used the same organ for something else but didn't like the sound. Found plenty of sources saying "St. Mark's Church" (I believe it's also on the record jacket credits) and one saying Flentrop organ but as you discovered the Flentrop St. Mark's seems to be in Seattle - bit far from London recording studios - and no clue on which St. Mark's or whether the place still existed. Very cool that Keith answered back on the query. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You also a fan? I see that the good old Daily Mail has gone all out for a suitably trite and lurid headline for this morning's coverage (but still good pictures). He seemed like a genuinely nice guy who still connected in a meaningful way with his fans - perhaps too meaningful. It's very sad that his life ended like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was too young to see their show back in the 70s and I had a bias against prog for a long time, partly because I was a punk when I came "of age" and partly because the musical establishment back then, such as radio, did not make it easy to hear the best moments of the British 70s bands (or in many cases, any moments at all). In my middle age my musical taste got way more eclectic, plus I played classical piano for many years as a kid, so I got a little bit into Emerson. After spending 2 days in his virtual presence now I'm really interested in him. Wiki is good for creating little obsessions like that (last week it was Martin W. Littleton - super famous in his time and so forgotten today all he had was a stub with a picture). TheBlinkster (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, Thanks for chipping in on the Senghenydd article. It passed today as a GA, and I've put it up for PR. Should you have any thoughts that would help it get to FA, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, it seems the tattooists and piercers of Wales have had a reprieve now - though I hope Dor isn't caught short now that there'll be no compulsory local toilets strategy after all. (The heady power of devolution....) Still, no one can say Leanne and her party monsters are a cheap date now! (I didn't get the email wit the dodgy link, btw.) JezGrove (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. Am surprised he didn't include the dreadful colour of his cell blinds as contributing to his breach of human rights. I didn't know it was only in 1979 that Capital punishment in Norway was abolished. Even after the 2011 Norway attacks, it seems, "opposition to the death penalty remained firmly entrenched, with 16 percent supporting and 68 percent opposed." Those PA announcements saying "Now it's time for outdoors recreation" must have been terribly annoying for him. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been pointed out to me that the plot of The Simpsons episode "Bart to the Future", set 30 years in the future, included Lisa becoming President of the United States of America and trying to sort out the economic mess left by her predecessor in the Oval Office, Donald Trump! JezGrove (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only he'd stuck to sax practice sessions in the White House. "I did not have saxual relations with that woman" would never have got him into trouble - except with vocabulary pedants, and he managed that anyway with his "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". BTW, do you think my source stood up the since-deleted "economic mess" claim over at Trump?JezGrove (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Joe B is a fantastic guitarist - although whenever I hear "Sloe Gin" it always strikes me as an odd choice of drink in the title as I think of it as an old lady's drink and not too rock'n'roll (but maybe that's just me). JezGrove (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, since you apparently have Colin Welland on your watch list, could you please keep your eyes out for drive-by editors that change the birthplace from Liverpool (correct) to Leigh (incorrect)? I'm not always on-wiki to catch that (was off for four or five days recently), so the article needs more eyes. Thanks, and anyone reading this, could you please also assist by watching the article? (The main reason the drive-bys try to change it is that all of Welland's obits got the birthplace wrong (see article talk page and the footnote in the article itself.) Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we had quite a discussion about this on the article Talk Page last November, didn't we? After I answered the question you had posted there in 2009! It's the sort of "correction" that many editors will make - especially when in it's in the The New York Times obit which is used as the article's first source! I think maybe a hidden note could be added after the text to explain? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) OK, I've done that, thanks for the suggestion. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if you and others could specifically keep an eye out for drivebys who change it -- this is twice in one week it's happened (perhaps even the same person) and I'm not on Wikipedia every day; sometimes I take long breaks, and this sort of information shouldn't be left incorrect like that. Thanks anyone who can help! -- Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used to drink with Larkin on jazz night (Tuesdays?) in the Haworth. He wasn't a big drinker - I guess unaccepted oesophageal cancer will do that - but I always made a point of buying him a pint. "Very kind of you", he'd say. "Think nothing of it", I replied, "I'm going to dine out with impressionable young English students for years on this story". The old lecher smiled. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least in later years, he had relatively little interest in his own poetry and his two great loves were jazz and his library (maybe other things beyond my knowledge). I went to Hull, in large part, because of the quality of that library - although there weren't many other places to do laser physics. He certainly detested the Oxbridge sherry circuit and its affectations. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. In the section "Song versions" seen here [25], would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? I'm personally done with talking to that editor who opened the thread. Maybe you could help by sharing your input? Cadencool23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks Martin. And I agree with you the wall of text is overkill. Any input from you would be appreciated so thank you :) Cadencool00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin if you have the time could you please go to this [27] RFC and share your opinion? I know you are a long time music editor so I thought you could add to the discussion. Thanks. Cadencool19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently experimenting with the clever gadgets on my user page, when I stumbled upon the view history tab. Inflamed with curiosity, I pressed it and was intrigued by a number of watchers tab. In my folly I pressed it. Imagine my horror as I discovered I only had sixty one! In my grief and shame I rushed to my bedchamber, where I suffered a complete Mental breakdown. It may have been days or weeks, but I awoke clutching my poster of arguably the greatest Briton who ever lived. The days have become an unending nightmare. How can I increase this miserable total? Should I start an RfA? Should I start an Infobox war? Is the answer to include the word fuck in all postings? Only you can help. Irondome (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder were you intending to add the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning"? And have you made any attempt "resolve dispute on article talk page? But are you sure you have the right venue, as "Pov Pushing" doesn't necessarily mean "edit warring". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I don't see there is anything I can do to help the situation. I have no personal interest in this topic. I trust it will be resolved one way or another. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my comment at inappropriate place, but i write only because of tagging my name at here. this clumsily behaviors such as send notifications to all of admins [29],[30],[31],[32] or launching mayhem and controversy not only isn't effective but also similar to an example of a criminal act! Wikepedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and Dishonest and gaming behaviors oughtn't be place in that. when seen to the his contributions log we faced with massive amounts of these behaviors after approval restrictions! i hope admins including EdJohnston be following up these issues.
Since it is Killuminati allows to track messages, so this is a WP: Harassment. For the rest given the magnitude of the POV pushing, it was legitimate to notify administrators. Could you warn him ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Martinevans. I was unable to see more than one page of the book you linked to (the page mentioning Dupree's song). Feel free to revert my edit, but I think it would be appropriate to link to your source for substantiation. I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia articles, but I was a book editor for 30-some years. I may have been overly bold with this particular edit. I appreciate hearing from you. Best wishes from Jim Wicklatz Jwicklatz (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You did a good job at tidying up what was there. I'm thinking that although the book suggests a link between that song and the development of rap, but it doesn't explain why very well. So it is a bit tenuous. I may open a thread at the CJD Talk Page. While we consider, we might want to listen, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to Liverpool, but I came in from Dublin at midnight and caught a train at 5:45, so I saw and spoke to exactly two people only: the taxi driver and the hotel clerk. EEng14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And editor except the article creator (i.e. I) can end the speedy-deletion nonsense by simply removing the template. Might I suggest you do that? It's amazing that someone can be active on WP for that many years and still be that confused about the meaning of notability or even, for that matter, the meaning of the various speedy deletion modes. EEng20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better idea, which is that you might perhaps refresh your memory of WP:A7, which requires not a claim of notability but rather a claim of "significance", which is explicitly defined as a far, far lower standard than notability. Clearly "cousin of the Japanese emperor" qualifies. Martin, can you put an end to this by just doing the honors? In removing the CSD template, you need not even state a reason -- it's meant to be as easy to remove as to add. EEng21:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll give you that one. Does "second cousin by marriage" give "significance"? Really?? Would he still have been "significant" if he hadn't been called by a nickname? Perhaps I used the wrong template - but you still have not indicated why he's sufficiently notable for an article. The reasons for the article's existence here look extremely dubious to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I almost never nominate articles for deletion - I've probably nominated fewer than 10 in almost 10 years, hence using the wrong template. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may explain why you're so unclear on the criteria. For crying out loud, notability (which is discussed at AfD) is a function of coverage, not any asserted fact (which is what A7 is about). For the nth time, you need to review CSD, prod, and AfD criteria and procedures. They're fairly complex, but the solution to that is that if you can't keep them straight you shouldn't be dabbling in them. You're wasting a lot of people's time here. EEng21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Margareta Hallin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that soprano Margareta Hallin could have performed internationally, but decided to stay in her homeland instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margareta Hallin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
My compromise was as follows: take DYK credit, because I put more time in sourcing "her" than in most of my stub+ DYKs. But I removed her from the official opera DYK (where I add when they appear). What do you think of the witch of Pungo? Removed from the Main page, TFA on Halloween of 2010, because of close paraphrasing, then improved, nominated for a second chance, but rejected. Teh witch was pardoned, and a day made in her name 10 July. A gouvernor restored her good name in 2006, 300 years after she was "ducked". I don't think I want to stress the TFA process with another request. What else could we do to keep her memory alive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A great palindrome but also a tax-efficient scheme, apparently… I just love the way that the BBC reports "Mossack Fonseca says it has operated beyond reproach for 40 years and never been accused or charged with criminal wrong-doing". Err, yes, well that'll be because for 40 years no one had proof of what they were up to, and now they do, they've been reproached! JezGrove (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the pundits, the days of the super-rich hiding their ill-gotten gains offshore are over, but personally I think they're more likely to be just, errr, numbered, and that as usual they'll be havin' a laugh at our expense. JezGrove (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope Corbyn asks him to check his long johns for silver at PMQs tomorrow, then! According to the BBC: "In a cartoon entitled 'Offshore' in the [Telegraph], the artist Adams depicts Mr Cameron stood on a tiny desert island being circled by sharks. A similar cartoon by the Times's Peter Brookes sees Mr Cameron as Long John Silver being told by a parrot Jeremy Corbyn: 'You haven't got a leg to stand on, mate!'" JezGrove (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was proud (but mystified) to find I'd been promoted to extended confirmed user status, as have many other respected editors (including yourself and Gerda). What dizzying heights had I reached? What wondrous vistas of editing awaited me? And what had I done to deserve such riches? - 30 days tenure, 300 edits, and the ability to edit in some contentious areas... I feel like I've just received my cycling badge after driving about 500,000 miles over 40 years, and can now join Guy Martin on his Wall of death - doing something I don't want to do with someone I don't want to meet. Harrumph over. Diolch. Taxi for Rob? Robevans123 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t tell me this upgrade doesn't entitle me to some ego-inflating medal that I can award myself (preferably with different coloured ribbons) for my efforts in improving human knowledge about everything from Circumzenithal arcs to Inflatable buildings? What about the poor souls creating WP pages for every cut-and-cover tunnel between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverley – are they to get nothing?! (Sob….) JezGrove (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing Dr. Blofeld's post I'm holding out for the full 'wiki Grand Duchyship’' or whatever, at least! I'm sure it will be well-deserved - after all my latest (proper!) WP page creation has had over 8,000 hits and it's only been up since late on Sunday - still, who's counting? (OK, well… some bot apparently - oh, and me, though I'm the first to admit the level of interest was very unexpected and unwarranted.) JezGrove (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're not getting your 'Blair's mixed up and that really you're after TONY Blair's May 2009 Dan David Prize for "exceptional leadership and steadfast determination in helping to engineer conflict”? (I might have muddled that up myself, I get confused by long award citations.) I'd go for Tony – he won $1m of which he had to give 10% to charity. Lionel would bend over backwards to win a prize like that!JezGrove (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)JezGrove (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia and have difficulty negotiating my way round any type of communications and editing on here. I am concerned that the birthplace of Colin Welland is indicated as Liverpool. He was actually born in Leigh, Lancashire, (Milton Street to be precise), before moving to the Kensington area of Liverpool as a toddler. Colin is one of a few famous people born in Leigh. Along with Georgie Fame, Thomas Burke and James Hilton. If you would kindly rectify this for me, I would be grateful.
[35] MartinEvans? And here I was thinking the name was Martine Vans. But seriously, I get the whole humor thing, but when you have an editor who is clearly taking it the wrong way, please don't escalate the situation. I'm not suggesting a humorless existence, just don't direct it at an individual you know isn't going to take it the right way. NE Ent15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Seriously, you get the humor thing." Martine Vans is fine by me. I continually seek to find the tiniest chink in the armour of wiki-homourlessness. The arrows often rebound. Anyone who comes to ANI saying "there are too many to blame", and talking of "punishment", needs to beware, I think. I also think there was quite a confusion here between the creation of the article, the appearance of that DYK hook and the process by which it found it's way to the Main Page. These might all be reasonably scrutinised, but at the appropriate fora. I had hoped that my last comment to Catlemur contained, for them, the meaning they requested. Not for you, it seems. But I have always valued your level-headedness and good sense so thanks for your advice. Minaret Vans 123 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. at least Catlemur didn't get called "a jerk", eh?[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. You are not a jerk, and I shouldn't have said that, but the directed humor thing is a jerk move. (Not really sure what the relative ranking of "jerk" and "drama queen" are on the pantheon of wiki-insults. Sounds like something we could have an RFC, ANI thread, and arbcom case to determine the answer is No consensus.) NE Ent15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as this evening's episode of The News Quiz noted: "When your party is embroiled in accusations of anti-Semitism, wading in and repeatedly shouting 'Hitler was a Zionist' doesn't really calm things down..." JezGrove (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So according to Ken's thinking, despite Hitler's (original) solution being the equivalent of saying to the Jews "Why don’t you eff off to where you effing came from?” (to which "What? Leipzig?" apparently wasn't an acceptable answer, even if your family had lived there for generations) this makes him a Zionist. And there I was thinking it was the typical shout of ignorant racist thugs to people from ethnic minorities everywhere… JezGrove (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know i'm a few days late, but all the edits involving the DOD seem like sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. The source for the death currently in place makes me skeptical. I'd like your opinion on this matter since you also reverted some edits of this nature. --Saltedcake (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saltedcake. I initially reverted the death as I could find no reliable source he had actually died. I've not really considered the date carefully. I'll take another look. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saltedcake, I have now added this "American Darts Organisation" source, as it contains a date. But I'm really not sure how reliable it is. For all we know, it may be just using the Wikipedia page for its information. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on Dr. B's talkpage. Thanks for checking the Welsh names and also for a few minor fixes that I see you made to the article's text. Anyway, I've sent it to FAC now with fingers firmly crossed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Hi Martin I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you here [37] and wanted you to know this. My stalker will just not quit. Rather creepy if you ask me. Cadencool19:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of his many threads devoted to me on multiple talk pages and ANI boards, but I think you first saw him on the Song project page. Cadencool19:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember now, about a month ago. That discussion prompted some good ideas but it remains unresolved. The word "version" is a bit ambiguous isn't it. But I see that he says he "looked at a few pages where you made recent changes". Well that sounds like going beyond watchlist overlap (I was recently accused of "following" someone around when I made an edit to a second article they had just edited - simply because it popped up in my Watchlist). How very tiresome. I guess Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs is the still best venue to try and discuss it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that discussion prompted good ideas but nothing has been resolved. I did not participate in that discussion because I am so done dealing with that aggressive stalker who will not stop harassing me. He has me on his watchlist, follows all of my edits, and edits pages that he never worked on before until he realized that they were pages I worked on and then suddenly he shows up undoing my work. That is creepy and unacceptable behavior. It's become very tiresome and old. His recent report on ANI where he was trying to get me blocked went nowhere. I have no doubt he will try again but the community will soon tire of him and his wiki games. Cadencool20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does he just revert your use of the word "version" or does he revert all sort of changes you make? You say that "he has you on his watchlist", but I guess this only alerts him if you have something appear on your Talk Page. Perhaps it's just that your Watchlists overlap - mostly songs, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he reverts the word "version" on all my edits and has been doing that for several months now. And yes he does have me on his watchlist since the time of the "You've Lost that loving Feelin" article. He deliberately goes through all of my other edits and often shows up on articles such as "Emotions" where he never edited before but only decided to edit becaause they were pages I edited. I do not believe its a case of overlap and I do not believe his edits are in good faith either. This is a case of being stalked, harassed, and bullied. Cadencool20:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is no way to continue. It's highly unproductive, and demoralising for you. I do hope it can be resolved somewhere. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with using "original version", even in the case of articles like Emotion (Samantha Sang song) where the name of the main artist appears in the title. But I realise that opinions may vary. And of course it's not just an issue with terminology but also, very often, with article structure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Martin it is no way to continue but he just will not stop. It would be great if he left me and my edits alone, and it would be appreciated if he stopped opening multiple threads on me and filing bogus ANI reports. I believe he is upset because I refuse to speak with him any further so he plays the flaunting of the rules game or he tries playing the WP game in an attempt to try getting me in trouble for things I never did. He accuses me of violating rules and guidelines yet he fails to provide me his evidence. He calls my edits "dubious", well how so exactly? He claimed I asked you to be my voice, yet I never did that. He lied about that and it annoyed me. But his obession with me is highly disruptive and disturbing. It's unacceptable and not good. I get the feeling he's trying to run me off the project. Cadencool21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying hard Martin to avoid him for several months now and as you see it hasn't worked because he continues to stalk me and tries to force me against my will to communicate with him by opening multiple threads devoted to me on multiple talk pages where he pings me in his attempts to force me to speak with him again. When that failed, he filed a bogus report on me trying to get me blocked which went nowhere, and next thing you know he's over at the "Emotion" page stalking my edits. A page he he never edited before but did so because of my connection. He's done it at "Johnny Angel" and at "Heart of Glass" (articles he never edited before) and many other pages that would be too long to type out here. Mediation would not work. That man wants my attention and I am done giving it to him. Thanks for trying to help Martin. I really appreciate it. I respect you and I respect your opinions. You are one of the few good people on wiki. And one of the funniest too. Love your edit summaries which are often filled with good humor. We need that around here. It lightens up this dark place so thank you. Cadencool21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting the things people said behind my back. Martinevans123, if you are interested in getting involved, then you should know the background. The articles involved were ones that I looked at at the start of the discussion at WT:SONG, there is no stalking, those were just the articles under discussion. Caden however refused to participate in the discussion, when I had specifically asked him to participate in all the edit summaries as well as repeated direct requests on his talk page. While the discussion was still undergoing, Caden continued to engage in edit warring, not just with me, but with others as well, just some of his edits here - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. If he had continued to edit warring after I had filed the edit warring report on him, he would have received an extended block, given that he already had a block and a topic band for edit warrning - here and here. I'm sure you had not intended it to be so, but your contribution at WT:SONG was used as an excuse for him to continue edit warring while refusing to address the issue. It should be noted that where there is a dispute, per WP:BRD, the ones involved in the dispute should discuss the issues involved rather than delegating it to someone else. I appreciate your contribution, and hope you can continue to engage as a neutral editor, but I hope you can also understand that not participating in discussion while aggressively reverting (and making various odd accusations) as Caden did is not acceptable behaviour, and should not be encouraged. Hzh (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hzh, you're accusing me of saying things "behind your back"? And could you explain what you mean by "delegating it to someone else"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not you, but what Caden said. They were clearly wrong or misleading. Delegating just meant that Caden refused to discuss the issue while getting you involved (although I should say your participation is appreciated by the way). Hzh (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence over Cadens' interpretation and use of the word "version" in song articles. And with the slight restructuring it sometimes involves. Maybe Caden is seeking to reach a level of consistency between song articles that is not really required. I've already said elsewhere that I don't see what he has added as necessarily "wrong". But the place for any discussion is at WT:SONG, not here. Similarly with accusations of edit warring, which belong at WP:EW. I think we can all agree that this is my "private" Talk Page, not a forum for resolving disputes, so there really is no need for you to post 14 examples of what you see as edit warring and the diffs for two previous blocks, OK?? It takes more than one person to "edit war" doesn't it? I appreciate that you want to give "your side of the story" but I'm going to have to politely ask both of you to take your dispute through the appropriate formal channels. I'd still urge both of you, however, to first try and re-engage in that discussion at WT:SONG, where a proper consensus could be reached, not "behind anyone's back." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you appear to agree with his version of events here - "I can see that you are trying to ignore him, as far as possible, but still feel threatened" when he was actually actively engaged in edit warring, I felt it is only right that I should make clear what is actually happening. Perhaps I went overboard, if so apologies. His edit warring was with a number of editors, not just me, some of them issued warning/requests not to edit-warring when I decided to file a edit warring report (I in fact did not engaged in edit-war in the article concerned). Hzh (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point to you isn't about any dispute between me and Caden, but I'll leave it for now even if you missed the point. Hzh (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martinevans123,
Helikopter Service Flight 451 was a stub that I have added quite a lot of information to. I would appreciate it if you took the time for a peer review since you are also active on 2016 Turøy helicopter crash. Both for proper english since it is not my first language and other things I most likely have done wrong since I am quite new to Wikipedia.
Cheers :-) Treehugger76 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and have a look. Quite frankly, Treehugger76, the news that English is not your first language is quite a surprise. Please be assured that the English I have seen you use is just as good as, if not better than, that of many editors who count it as their first language. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article and for the nice words :-) I am Norwegian, but have been working in the oil industry reading and writing technical English for 16 years. I know a lot of words and terms, but the last 5% of perfection for a Wikipedia article is probably only achievable for someone with english as their first language.Treehugger76 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.stmaryhighamferrers.org/music, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facts, eh. So troublesome sometimes. As if my own words would be any better. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. if only there was an easy for me to see where I went wrong. I can't even learn from my mistakes this way. Nor can anyone else, apart from you. I guess I'll just have to guess exactly which were the "55% 121 words".[reply]
I might Diannaa, if I was a user of that application (or if I had even heard of it before now). I wonder could you explain what "55% 121 words" actually means? (preferably in words of one syllable or less) But don't worry, I've already sent my begging letter to Canon Richard Stainer, hoping he will spare me the high court writ. Shucks, the last time I did this I was locked for a month in the crypt. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, once again, to me it just looks like a series of facts. Struggling to find other words for "organ", "choir" and "'end of the nineteenth century" , and for people's names, etc. What does "55% 121 words" actually mean? And how come people with 56% escape? Is this the tool they use in the High Court, or is it all down to the judge? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some judges are very nice, Martin - according to someone I can’t mention who was very appreciative about a ruling to do with a paddling pool and a lot of olive oil. But of course, some are worse than others. JezGrove (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, he came from Snodland, which is just a mile or two from Higham, Kent - I have fond(!) memories of summer holidays spent working as a labourer at Snodland's old Holborough Blue Circle cement factory. (Gap year? What's one of those?! But then again, 'Factory?...') JezGrove (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that track, but a Kent connection seems likely - though maybe just a strange place name that appealed to the band? (We used to joke about 'the land of the Snods' when we were kids.) I remember that when I was a teenager Dread / Hughes replaced loads of public signs in Snodland with 'Dreadland' one April Fools' Day (e.g. the railway station and post office), but sadly I've not found a RS for it, so it will have to be lost to posterity. JezGrove (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, you've presented exactly the same material in exactly the same order using exactly the same words. It's a copyright violation. Please don't do it any more, or you will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well Diannaa, that wasn't my recollection and it certainly wasn't my intention. I had thought I had condensed, and made selective use of only parts of that source - those paragraphs contain 538 words and I used only 233 of them. It looks like my second edit, 1 minute later, described as "trim" in my edit summary, was not the trim I had intended it to be. I also now see that I was distracted by a vandal who popped-up at Anthony Hopkins claiming that he was dead (... and, as if by magic, they have now just returned. How coincidental.) I found this more that a little disturbing and spent a good 20 minutes searching the internet for clues. And I never returned to format the church reference with reflinks and make any further copyedits. Your phrase "don't do it any more" suggests I do this on a regular basis, which I think is incorrect. I'm also surprised that the threat of blocking me from editing is the best way to go here. I'm well aware that every page at that website is copyrighted by the "Church of England within the Diocese of Peterborough", but I'm really not sure that the church would see use of that material, with the correct attribution, as a huge problem. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
Under the terms of the Berne Convention, all literary material is copyright unless specifically released under license or into the public domain. No notice or registration is required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out appropriately above, to emphasise my ignorance. Sorry I didn't get to the convention. Perhaps you can explain the purpose of the copyright symbol, which sounds a bit redundant? You'll see a table on the web page, detailing the specification of the new organ, which I was considering copying into the church article. How would one paraphrase that exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article copyright symbol, the symbol was made optional in the United States on March 1, 1989. Here is an information page from the gov.uk website which states the copyright symbol is optional in that country as well. Other countries will have their own legislation in place. Regarding the table, lists of facts, such as the names of members of a sports team or the list of songs on a record album are not copyrightable, so my opinion is that you could include this material; from a copyright point of view it would be okay. — Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that country. Thank you for the useful information. Not sure I want to risk it, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. why not make the copy-vio check tool more available to editors, so they can check their own work?[reply]
Hi Martin, no need to send thanks for our generosity with our washed-up politicos - you're very welcome! (But some cash in a brown envelope would be appreciated...) Or you could just blame your compatriots and their reckless voting behaviour. JezGrove (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article - but profoundly disturbing when something from the time of your youth is now the subject of a museum exhibition and is being proposed as a heritage site... Robevans123 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I din't know you had snubbed anyone re the Dragon Project. The idea of this one is to have similar rules (as that worked well) but obviously for a different geography.— Rodtalk21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the West Country one too, so not sure why it would be an insult to me haha! I do wish you'd been a bit more supportative of the Dragon one though.♦ Dr. Blofeld06:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like cider on a hot day, I find your constant links to subjects from discussions most refreshing. You're either very well travelled, or you sit on Google, constantly. I really don't know how you do it, but bravo, nonetheless! CassiantoTalk12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, I know we can't all be as gorgeous as Leanne, but for some reason the WP article Body Gossip has been put forward for deletion. I've expanded the page a little but if you get a chance perhaps you could take a look and see what you think? Personally, unless it's a blatant case of self-promotion I'd rather see a rubbish stub ready to be improved than no article at all, and I've certainly seen articles that I consider to be more worthy candidates for deletion. JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick – the article is being kept, and only minutes after I mentioned it here. Your powers are magical, shady deals or not! (Though keeping the rain away during the filming of Y Gwyll must have tested even your powers - I’ve given up expecting actual downpours and am looking for signs of wet tarmac now…) JezGrove (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler alert: nobody drowns - the special effects budget must have been HUGE! (Although looking at the forecast for Aber it will be after the weekend before normality resumes.) And living in a dry county probably isn't so great, anyway JezGrove (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I wonder why Mr Hamilton thinks everyone can be bought? He might have chosen to sell his soul, but I don’t think Leanne 'would' (yikes, that was bad!) But great to see UKIP in Wales getting off to a flying start – now that they've scraped the barrel, perhaps they could have a look behind the fridge! (And of course, the last time the 'cheap date' jibe was deployed in the Senedd it went SO well). JezGrove (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, enjoying a little pruning, are we? It's not garbage. The Daily Mail is not everyone's favourite source, but it has been agreed as being perfectly good for material that is not controversial - that was the consensus from the last discussion at WP:RS. You think a quote from Desert Island Discs and the fact that her father bought her a piano are "controversial"? Words fail me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the lovely "Glitter Snack Kitten". Yes, I saw that video last year when this came up and I'm not sure that anything at YT can be used as an WP:RS. So yes, you're right, but we need a better source. I'll not revert again but I suspect that many others way do. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ... and of course "West End" is not wrong, as Leicester Square is indeed in the West End.... and does the exact location or address of the snack bar actually get shown in the video?[reply]
Ah yes, "the plural verb is used because the context for "none" suggests more than one thing or person." That sounds quite reasonable and makes perfectly good sense to me. Thanks for pointing that out, although I don't see it listed amongst the 77 deadly sins! (yet) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you pick either "A" or "D", at "25%", then it's because there's a 1/4 chance that you're correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
However, if you go with "B" at "50%", then it's because 1/2 of those answers were "25%", which would both be correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
Finally, if you go with "C" at "100%", then it's because any of those answers were correct, and all of those answers imply the previous answers to be correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
Martin. Mom lived a long (93 years) adventurous life, I would write and article about her if I could, but I can't. I already did on pseudo article about Dad and that's pushing it. But it was nice to hear from you, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The number of survivors are shown in many (if not all) other accident articles (Eg. Adam Air Flight 574, Metrojet Flight 9268). I understand that readers are not idiots, but since other article follow this convention regardless of whether there are any survivors or not, I don't see a reason not to include it.
Sorry to revert you. Yes, my only reason is that adding redundant information like that treats the reader as an idiot. If this is a firm guideline for Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence, then I will not revert again. If it is defined as a mandatory field, I think we may need a change in the guideline. I'm generally in favour of infoboxes (even for classical musicians), and I like to see consistency, but I think slavishly following all the parameters in the box every time, just for the sake of consistency, is a bit short-sighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. In the example given in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence on Pam Am Flight 103, number of survivor(s) (zero) is/are shown despite the deaths of all people on board the plane. It seems strange that number of people missing (zero) is also shown. As of EgyptAir MS 804, I would keep the survivors field blank, I guess. This aside, I really wish there were survivors...
Another five minutes or so well spent listening to a joyous feast. I was going to joke about tuning into Radiopedia, and found that there is one (but it's not quite what I had in mind). Robevans123 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Martin, bite, also irony doesn't transfer well on-line unless you know the person. Hence our early protracted wars. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'm always biting off a lot more newbie that I can chew, aren't I. My editing skills transfer even less well most of the time. I have assumed totally good faith with John our family tree man. But thanks for the kind reminder. Would you like me to go and retract all of my comments there? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I enjoy your comments mostly, but maybe you could engage the man, rather than just simply take the piss. We were all nebs here at one stage, perhaps with not such bold claims, but whatever. I fancy he is an older gentleman, and I always think of my own father and if he was to venture out into the deepest internet's backwater sink holes. Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit summary here, "Baffling pigs" was a genuine mnemonic in the financial services industry, for the countries using the Euro (Belgium, Austria, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). Then those pesky Slovakians and Estonians joined up and spoiled it. ‑ Iridescent16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I was going to throw you an Eno tune to throw water under the bridge, but his representatives dont want us listening on you tube, seemingly. I got you this second rate Bauhaus cover instead. Its not exactly a pigs sow, but not the dogs bollix I wanted either. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obv haven't been following my contribs, block log, or the que between here and my inevitable date with arbcom ;) If I tool up I reckon I have a fight chance. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the detail about the inspection is not important. The inspection would have been performed before the Continental even took off and lost its strip, leaving it essentially worthless in this case. -- 143.85.169.19 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take to the Talk Page for such a major change. It's been like that for quite a while? Your edit summary was not sufficiently convincing, for me anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Nott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Nott(pictured) is often styled the "Indiana Jones of surgery"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Nott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Nott), 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.
What actually happened was that I added you and Charles to the credit list in the DYK nomination when you made several edits to the new article. When Casliber cranked the handle to put the DYK onto the mainpage, a bot processed that list to distribute messages like this. The DYK process is quite complicated and there are many such steps in assembling and posting the batches. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about such credit is that it can be multiplied and shared without loss. But if you want more to do, please take a look at this list. You'll be familiar with the issues from our work elsewhere... Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that link. An interesting article which the general reader will probably find fascinating and may well act as a "first step into Wikipedia" for the casual internet browser. I think exactly the same issues apply as at List of unusual deaths, which of course has had some of our "serious editors" veritably foaming at the mouth in the course of its 8+ RfDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is that any editor can remove any content they choose from their talk pages, except for declined block appeals while the block is in effect (and a couple of other minor items). They are entitled to remove block notices. WP:BLANKING
The convention is that blocked editors should only use their talk pages for discussing or appealing their block. You are allowed to discourage the IP from developing article content on their talk page while blocked, although it's normally not worth worrying about.
An IP doesn't have a link to Special:MyPage/Sandbox, so although they can create one if they know how, it's probably not productive to suggest that they should use it to practise editing.
Yes, that's very useful, thanks. I had forgotten IPs don't have a sandbox. I must admit I've seen wide variation in how the Talk Pages of blocked editors are treated. I was rather thrown by the comment of User:Ponyo who said "I pulled their talk page access. It's clear they don't intend to request an unblock". I must have assumed this somehow meant the repeated restoration of Talk Page content had been justified. That was the only reason I intervened. And I made a mistake by restoring content in order to complete my posts - I was trying to engage the IP in dialogue, but I should have just started a new thread regardless. Perhaps I was a little naive expecting any reply. Is User:2001:558:6020:161:25DF:CBA7:CD64:6450 a sockpuppet? Looks very much like it. Hard to know who User:2602:306:3357:BA0:3564:6A6E:3B00:BB6D is. Good luck with those two. I guess trying to deal with the constant tidal wave of vandalism is one reason why editors end up leaving the project, as it often seems to be a complete waste of time. Who knows, perhaps we are short of admins. On seconds thoughts - none of it is worth (me) worrying about. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I usually try to scan everything it does before accepting. I must have missed that. Could you recommend a better/ cleaner tool? It's not good on date formats. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ending up at the same place, it's about not using a redirect when it's not needed. The problem are users not using scripts they way they are supposed to. Just review your edit before saving, simple. Mlpearc (open channel)15:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first use of REFLINKS again there after your polite request of last night. I reviewed my edit. I made a decision that the other changes were not problematic. I judged the second link useful and the replacement of the section link by the redirect as irrelevant. Perhaps we ought to agree exactly which additional actions that REFLINKS performs are a problem. I didn't realise it was such an ENORMOUS PROBLEM. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve it for keeping the sometimes intricate debate on Talk:Death of Jo Cox on a steady course with a cool and clear head. I always enjoy good debates and exchange of ideas, you learn a lot from them if they include civilized people just wanting to do what is best for the article. You are definitely such a person. Cheers! w.carter-Talk20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, W. Carter. And you have the good sense and humility to admit when you've made a mistake, even a very small one. We just don't see enough of that! Cheers to you also. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I'm still not sure whether you actually watched the whole game, as I have not seen anyone use the phrase "like three-legged donkeys on ice-skates". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds better if you say "They played with 0.01% of their adult male population behind the ball". (Really. Do the maths yourself if you don't believe it.) ‑ Iridescent22:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, according to New Scientist obesity in Whales is in decline (I blame the EU's fishing quotas - though possibly not for long...)! Those Icelandic commentators are typical tight-lipped northerners – I’m sure they could learn a thing or two from the stoical and entirely unemotional response of the Italians when they win/lose against Spain on Monday! Speaking of defying stereotypes, of course England won’t be crashing out the same day… well, ok we probably will. But it would be no bad thing if underdogs Iceland replicate the feat achieved by Denmark in the ’92 finals - the amazing breaks made by the Laudrup brothers back then were unforgettable. JezGrove (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On current form, England couldn’t light a fire even with matchsticks. Though they could soon be singing "I ain't got no matches but I still got a long way to go" as they head home. BTW, I’d be happy to see Wales go all the way, too - Gareth Bales' goal from that free kick was worth so much more than the two scrappy ones we managed to scramble into the net! JezGrove (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a performance!! Heavens to Murgatroyd the dream final of Wales v Iceland is still possible!! Likely probably not but possible :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, 'Doc, my brother's crazy, he thinks he's a chicken.' And the doctor says, 'Well why don't you turn him in?' and the guy says, 'I would, but I need the eggs.'" - Woody Allen, Annie Hall. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably regret making this early prediction, but I'm taking off my bra and relaxing (metaphorically, you understand). Forget Brexit, it looks like we'll get Bralaxtit. Of course, we'll soon find out if I lacked support - in which case it will be down to Nige's voters crawling over broken glass (sounds like he must drink in a REALLY classy pub...) JezGrove (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it all back - Vote Leave have delivered exactly what they promised, and on Day 1! "We'll take back control of our borders!" Of course, you sometimes have to be careful what you wish for… ps: I (sort of) understand the reasons for the Sunderland referendum result, but what was going on in Wales? (With some magnificent exceptions, of course). JezGrove (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. You're welcome to the lemmings - although I suspect only slightly more than 50% were stupid enough to jump, and the rest were pushed. Was the image you conjured up of Leanne as "First Dai" intentional? JezGrove (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was reminded of a story my grandfather used to tell, recounted to me by my father, of someone he knew who was once driving his old Morris van, at night time, on the A479. Descending the steep hill on that road, between Talgarth and Builth, he found his brakes had failed and he careered through the hedge and turned the van upside down. As he sat there, trapped in his van, he began to hear the sound of petrol dripping into the interior from the upturned petrol tank. Searching frantically in his pockets, he was relieved to find his pen-knife. He reportedly would later say: "I was so lucky because I knew if the van caught fire at least I'd be able to cut my throat!" Lucky indeed, but he survived his ordeal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
p.s. how much will it cost to change all of these back to that nice blue colour? [reply]
Haha. Yes, I agree, I much prefer the original Swedish version, which just seems more authentic. All that mumbling and hesitation; and the Alzheimer's just makes it worse - he can barely finish a sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a surprise – England's lacklustre millionaire footballers beaten by a country that doesn't even have a single professional team, and which has only one resident who plays the game for money... Still, now that Roy Hodgson has resigned perhaps we could have a job share? It looks like Corbyn could be out of work soon and looking to exploit his experience of motivating left wingers, and though Cameron's attempts to play on the outside-right have clearly failed, he will soon be available to offer his skills (?) as a defensive midfielder. BTW, good luck against Belgium! JezGrove (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Oops! I meant to say "and which has only one resident who plays the game for money in the (English – and Welsh, well sort of) Premier League". Still, perhaps my total ignorance of the game will see me leading the English team to oblivion in 2020? Though not before I’ve got my tax affairs in order, obviously … (I’d brand myself as incurably delusional, but Jeremy 'Hunt' is thinking of running for PM – we need that 'Brexit bonus' invested in mental health services, and fast!) JezGrove (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few bottles of Head & Shoulders may be tipped down the drain over this, and the article Joe Hart is now semi-protected. He let in a goal that a Sunday League goalkeeper should have saved, but it wasn't all his fault that England were rubbish over the whole ninety minutes.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing to think how many people spend their hard-earned unemployment benefit on Sky subscriptions to pay the £150,000 a week salaries of England footballers. Since Italia 90, England have won only two games in the knockout stages of a major tournament (Denmark 3-0 in 2002 [49] and Ecuador 1-0 in 2006 [50]) They lost all of the others, including Iceland last night. On this type of form, Elvis will turn up on Shergar before England win a major tournament.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see Mr Corbyn has finally decided to put up a passionate fight for 'Remain' at last – a shame it's just when nearly everyone else appears to want him to support 'Leave'…. JezGrove (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you act quickly you could get your 15 minutes of time in the shadow cabinet. As long as you are willing to play along and vacate when the music starts up again in 15 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, about that .... If you would kindly leave your resume, I will fast-track it and put it at the top of the pile. We have an opening coming up in the position of "prime minister", and we haven't found a good fit yet. The previous employee is leaving us a bit in the lurch. I think you'd be a good fit, and we're all looking forward to having you on our team. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what this tells us about the next leader of the UK, but one anagram of the Tory party leadership contenders' surnames - Crabb, Fox, Gove, Leadsom, May - is 'Foxglove Academy mobs bar'. Presumably it doesn't bode too well for former Education Secretary Gove? One thing I AM sure of is how glad I am that there's no 'r' in 'Gove', so I'm definitely NOT related (insert your own 'r's hole joke here…) JezGrove (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I'll try and take a look. I don't know that album at all, so that would be very interesting. It already looks very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your polite note, Verbcatcher. And thank you for not threatening to block me, as another editor did a short time ago, for a similar misdemeanour. Thanks also for the reminder of that useful tool. As my edit summary over there may have suggested, I was "having difficulty in paraphrasing what seem to be a set of clear facts". In fact, I seem to have particular difficulty with descriptions of places of architectural interest that can be found at official listings such as coflein.gov.uk. I think architectural terms are meant to be quite precise and cannot easily be paraphrased. And my own personal architectural vocabulary is, in any case, somewhat limited, I think. So I'm going to delete most that description and hope that someone (perhaps your good self?) could demonstrate how the source text can be adequately paraphrased. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My father enjoyed talking about a player getting "faked out of their jock strap" Well Robson-Kanu did that to three Belgians on that second goal :-) What a Friday night it is for the teams fans. Have a great weekend M and other tpw's. MarnetteD|Talk21:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even more comforting that the win over Belgium wasn't reliant on a goal from Mr Bale - the team is stronger than some commentators had acknowledged. JezGrove (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Portugal 2 - Wales 0. Two good goals. Wales, you still played really very well and deserved something on the scoreboard. Da iawn, tîm! Rydych chi wedi gwneud i ni ymfalchïo. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul. Thanks for the note. I must admit I am sceptical. I've seen other material removed by those who think "an opinion piece" is just that and is not of any consequence unless reported by someone notable, or "an expert". I think even broadsheet editorials don't always qualify for inclusion these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess I wasn't familiar with him either. But I've removed it anyway, since really it states something that's fairly obvious. No doubt UKIP would have rallied its supporters to sign the petition had the result been to remain. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that amazing relief carving "first time round", as they say. The Cambridge Singers one has the words and music, which is useful. But I thought this one sounded "more live". (Let's hope there aren't any "unresolved copyright issues" to contend with). A beautiful piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sang under Rutter's (spontaneous) conducting hands once, - look for his name here, 1998. Never managed these so far. DYK that Ferdinand Dugué was written by an author banned on the French WP and working miracles here? So much talent wasted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He introduced the Magnificat to a hall full of choral conductors. We sang the Childhood Lyrics, he made a comment and then - surprise! - started conducting them, all five, in good spirits, and then said: "I completely forgot that I composed them." - Did you know that I wrote the Magnificat article? And the other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
outside
Hi, I'm contacting you (and @Ritchie333:) because I saw the ANI report and because I have the similar case as you.
Apparently, some experienced editors have found a nice loophole on how to ban any editor they wish.
Your ISP uses a certain range of ip addresses. For instance mine uses several ranges, one being 89.164.xxx.xxx. Apparently, the only thing that is needed to block a person is to accuse him of being a sock of someone who uses the same ISP. Then they both will have the same ip prefix and appear they are the same person.
I still haven't figured out the way they find ip behind a username. However, requesting cu until a suitable candidate is found can work, especially if a suitable candidate had used several isps.
I come from Croatia where User:Asdisis is that candidate. There are only a few isps in Croatia so it's not hard to ban a lot of people as socks.
Here's how to ban someone. The discussion [53]. The user that you want to ban [54]. The repeated cu requests outside spi [55].
Look dude, you were suspected of being a sock of Asdisis, and CU confirmed that; no SPI report is necessary for a well-evidenced suspicion of sockpuppetry. Editing logged out is block evasion, and you will not be allowed to do that. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't know, never been there. Sorry if I bothered you, but I noticed that ani report. I don't believe an experienced user like you would edit while logged out with the same ip as logged in. You could always post from different places with different isps. Cu are faulty and abused in some cases. Anyways, it's stupid that someones vote should matter. Consensus isn't established by vote. Well in theory... 141.138.55.81 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a bit boring here without you around. Hope we'll see you around in a few days and that you've enjoyed your wikibreak! If you didn't catch the David Bowie BBC Prom - watch on the iPlayer - well worth it. Have you made it up to Abergavenny for the eistedfodd? Watching the crowning of the bard as I write. Whenever I see all those bardic robes I think it's going to break out into some Dennis Wheatley inspired ritual involving blood, altars and virgins, but you just get the dance of the wood nymphs... Robevans123 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, Rob. I am, in fact, away on holiday. I've missed the Y Fenni grand robing, alas. But I see Llangollen has gone a bit Punjabi this year. Looks very lively. Yes, I did catch the first half of that Prom - Neil Hannon singing "Station to Station" was a particular highlight for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I haven't been around here for a while, so I was very sorry to come back and see you'd been blocked. Haven't a clue as to why - way above my Wikipedia paygrade to understand all that Admin stuff - but very sorry nonetheless. However, the block seems almost to be over, so I hope you have enjoyed your break and to see you around soon. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snap! Incredible, The Must Farm site is very interesting. I've been to nearby Flag Fen. Interesting to see visitors there, but they only seem to accept groups. I feel a Wikimedia meetup could be arranged... Robevans123 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email. It looks like the problem may be confined to some email providers. The original Wikipedia email was sent to a Hotmail.com address, but I didn't receive it. When I get the time, I'll experiment with different addresses to see If I can find one that works with the "email this user" feature. Other people are reporting the same problem.[59]--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
During your break, you may have missed that we had a thread in your name which also shows me pictured with my flash mob. - Your grain of salt would certainly improve the two discussions on Gustav Holst, unless you want to add to ARCA right away ;) - You can rest In a Chinese Temple Garden, and please remember to change your socks daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at who created the booby, that's probably the last opera I should equip with an infobox ;) - What do you think of life is too short? Largest on top of my talk. - EEng's hook is in danger, sorry about that, remember the one about the monster (my heart swims in blood) fondly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see you're back (not to be confused with seeing your back, on which I'll decline any offers). I trust your feet have been warm, but that your new footware will be fully approved. (And aren't you hopeless in any position?) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vell vlight sergeant Oevens, your break for zer vreedom did not vork. Ze Zwiss border you did not reach. Now zou mus pay. A veek listening to a zong of our allies. You vill enjoy! Dismiss! [[64]]. Irondome (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know.I must admit that I didn't check the tags given to all the other images at Wine bottle, with which I had thought this one was pretty comparable. It's hard to illustrate wire netting without showing the entire bottle. Bottles with the label turned away seem far less attractive, to me anyway. By the way, I found this one of Old Beardie's better offerings: "This smooth raspberry and cranberry-kissed wine is a beauty with lithe fruit notes and no ugly lingering tannins or woodwork. If you like unruffled, languid reds with silky notes and haunting mulberry and fresh herb flavours then this is your wine." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Westhoughton Cowshead.jpg listed for discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Putchers.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!10:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. It's now nearly 9 years since Adrian was kind enough to email his permission to me to use that image, which at the time appeared on his webpage here. That email has long since disappeared, as has The Goldcliff Fisheries. I see that the photo was used, by Peter Coates, in his 2006 book Salmon, published by Reaktion Books, ISBN-13: 978 1 86189 295 9, ISBN-10: 1 86189 295 0: see pages 113-114 Coates credits the picture: "photo courtesy of Adrian Williams, Goldcliff Fisheries" (see page 210). Adrian was obviously not the photographer, as the photo was taken, according to Coates, in 1923. I'll try and track down Adrian again, but I don't hold out much hope. It'll certainly take longer than a week to get an OTRS ticket organised. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Gloucestershire is quite big on elvers! It's a great picture of George and I suspect there were probably many more taken at the time. He lived for many years at the tiny Cherry Tree Cottage in the village (he was there when Fred Hando visited for his 1964 Out and About in Monmouthshire) with his six children and his housekeeper Miss Wood, his wife having died in about 1939. In my youth I often used to visit Miss Wood, who lived on in the cottage and survived to a considerable age. She was a fiercely independent soul and always smoked Woodbines. She kept a solitary goldfish, which had lost all of its colour and was perhaps as old as she was, in a bowl on the front window-sill. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful stuff. Miss Wood sounds formidable. Are you sure it was Woodbines and not rollies from smuggled tobacco that the excise men didn't find! I've not got Out and About in Monmouthshire, bit I have his Monmouthshire Sketch Book and Chris Barber's Hando's Gwent. Great artist/historian/story teller (and useful for the odd interesting Gwent factoid). I think Barber has the copyright on Hando's work - I wonder if he'd donate a few drawings to illustrate the article on Fred. Oddly enough I'm looking at a Hando sketch of a Goldcliff putcher...
Been doing some reading/research on fish weirs round Anglesey and Carmarthen. Seems tidal fish traps carried on a lot later around Goldcliff than other the parts of the Welsh coast.
Do you know anything about the "Fred Hando" seats? Erected in his memory at the places of his favourite views of Gwent. I have no idea how many and only a few online references to some locations. Could make a good little list article. Robevans123 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a wonderful sketch of Whittaker on page 18 of Out and About in Monmouthshire (one of my most favourite little books). I suspect Hando's work is far too good to ever appear here. I'm afraid I don't about the seats - Grym Turtle might know more (... if he ever dared to humiliate himself by coming to this sordid and nefarious Talk Page). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have made a few tweaks, but I can't find the second (ref name=Gilman). The url leads to a list of Google search results, but I can't see the 1906 edition of The New International Encyclopaedia amongst them. Any ideas? Also surprised to see no mention in the article of patent leather in the fashion of the swinging sixties, e.g. Biba, Mary Quant, Twiggy, |Nancy Sinatra etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC) p.s. oh, and did I mention that whole second section without any references... which is an "immediate GA fail"??[reply]
Lol. Am shimmying across the kitchen floor, in lurex hotpants, even as I type.... Yes, it's a gem, and generally regarded as the inspiration for "Hot Stuff" on the Stones' Black and Blue. I want to add this to both articles, but the best source I can find so far is this one: [65]. Any help appreciated!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" is one of my all-time-favorites, and we sang the Great Mass, although our conductor doesn't like Mozart, that recommends the piece ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no German article (yet) for the singer, but good reviews. Go ahead, start it, I would help. I think that song is the high point of Lied. He used the material for the Adagietto of his Fifth. What do you think about replying "In meinem Himmel, in meiner Liebe, in meinem Lied" in infobox discussions, to mark some distance? How would you call a template for that text, now that we have {{Fuck off}}? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're back. On the matter of links for the above, neither 26 or 27 are working. Are they essential? Link 12 is fabulous. That altar painting is dirtier now (April '16) than when I was singing Venite Adoramus there as a school boy and I had no idea what it actually depicted. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that sketch! As to Charles Rolls, I think it wise to remove the link to Mo Farah. Otherwise, it might suggest Lady Llangattock was rather free with her favours - this [67] suggests that is unlikely to have been the case. KJP1 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, a worker on her estate was berated when she spotted his bike outside a pub (she was an ardent teatotaller), he replied that he often left his bike under her bedroom window, but that didn't mean anything...
And today's Cornish CoppaFeel puzzler: take a look at this image. Does it look to you like the people there "carried fake breasts pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge", or that they had "removed their boobs pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge", or possibly both? Handy hint: note that word pending. Answers on a less offensive postcard, thanks. Wholly agree with Newyorkbrad on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw my username in the edit summary. If you're in the mode of agreeing with me, I'd appreciate your removing the box at the top of the page, or at least the reference to Fram in it, as uncollegial and unhelpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly safer not to try, isn't it. I didn't realise that Brad had my Talk Page on his watchlist. I'm still totally unable to see why either of those hooks was "less accurate" than the other - must be my "clouded thinking". Yes, an admin made an "involved" revert, but I really think a quiet word to them would have been more effective. I personally don't find use of the word "boobs" offensive, but I can understand why some folks would. It's not just one word, though: knowing several people who have suffered from breast cancer, I can see why the phrase "removed their boobs" might seem wholly inappropriate in that hook. And I suggested at the discussion that there might also have been Eng Var considerations. But we do seem to have recurring problems with that "quirky fifth hook ... that ends up with someone going to ArCom." DKY can be so entertaining these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[68][reply]
Now that the WP:AN thread has been closed, by User:SchroCat, I wonder would User:Fram like to explain here about the "Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!" (emphasis added), and why we got that one-person mini-crusade against Ritchie333? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, everyone at WT:DYK understands why that hook was wrong. Including people who wouldn't hesitate to point out my error. Only one person here who sees Ritchie333 as a holy cause to defend apparently. I've just seen your pathetic attemps to defend him on AN after my last post there, I thought the replies you got there from others would have made it clear to you by now. No idea why you choose to continue this, you are only making a fool of yourself here. Fram (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not just here, but over at User talk:Alanscottwalker as well of course, where at least Alan has had the decency to discuss without insults. Your AN thread was closed as "moot" (with not a small hint of "complete waste of time")? I thought, as did others over there, that both hooks were "wrong", for different reasons. And I don't think small local newspapers are the best source for establishing clear fact for something that happened 18 months ago. But the rules of Wikipedia must be enforced, mustn't they. Better a fool than a humourless overbearing pedant, perhaps. But thanks for the kind note. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC) p.s. the diff you provided was this one which has the magic word "pending".[reply]
Both hooks may have been wrong, although no evidence has been presented that Gatoclass hook was factually wrong, only offensive to some apparently. But I pulled the whole entry, not simply changed it; I did not post or repost a "wrong" version. As for my diff, that was for indicating the involved action. I notice your discussion at Alanscottwalker's talk page, and I admire his patience in explaining the obvious. If you don't think "don't think small local newspapers are the best source for establishing clear fact for something that happened 18 months ago" then please educate Ritchie333 on not trying to do this again in the future. If we can't establish the clear facts on something, then we shouldn't be posting it (in the article, and certainly on the main page) as if it was a clear fact... But you efficiently derailed the AN discussion, congratulations on achieving that. Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary says “What does it matter if both hooks were "wrong", I pulled it, I didn't change it) “ Are you joking?? You described one hook as “incorrect” ... in fact, that was your headline, wasn’t it? I never saw you diff at the ANI discussion for Ritchie removing the word “pending”. Is it there? Re: “someone who likes to misunderstand everything only to defend a wikifriend”, and “pathetic attempts to defend him on AN”, I’m very sorry if it comes as a surprise to you that people can actually make friends while editing at Wikipedia and may even try to support them when they make a mistake. I had no intention of derailing anything, but rather suggesting that your dichotomy of “correct and incorrect” was a false one. If you disagree with SchroCat’s close of that thread, and indeed User:The Voidwalker’s re-close, I’m sure you can re-open it. I think your opening of that thread, in the first place, was wholly over-the-top, and came across as unnecessarily blunt and vindictive. I can’t quite believe the phrase you then chose to use at ArbCom discussion of User:The Rambling Man: “The problem at DYK is... people like Ritchie333... ” Just my opinion of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... I described one hook as incorrect since it was factually incorrect (unsupported by its source). It makes no difference for my actions whether the hook by Gatoclass was morally "wrong" but factually correct or not, so yes, to me and in this discussion, it doesn't matter if both hooks were "wrong" or not, the one I pulled was wrong and that's the one that matters here (and even if that one hadn't been wrong, Ritchie333 still wasn't the one to make the change as being clearly involved). "[...] people can actually make friends while editing at Wikipedia and may even try to support them when they make a mistake." That's natural. What is not correct is people claiming that their friends made no mistake and were correct all along and there is nothing to see here when everyone else sees that a mistake was made, even when not everyone agrees on how big a problem that was. No idea what you are claiming with "suggesting that your dichotomy of “correct and incorrect” was a false one." his hook was incorrect under Wikipedia and DYK rules, as it was clearly not supported by his source. No idea either why you bring up the close of the thread, since when were we discussing that? (it seems you disagree with it though, considering "I'm sure all concerned have much, much better things to be doing than dragging this out any further.") Feel free to indicate which parts of my opening statement at AN were "wholly over-the-top, unnecessarily blunt and vindictive". My supposed statement “The problem at DYK is... people like Ritchie333... ” can not be found in that discussion. Fram (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed I "derailed the AN discussion". If you feel that strongly, you should re-open it, and politely ask me not to contribute. Ritchie wasn't "correct all along", and I have not claimed that he was. The hook with the word "pending" still seems to me to be a perfectly fair and reasonable refection of the sources. I'm sorry, I won't change my opinion on that. But I guess you'll put that down to my "clouded thinking". Sorry to characterise your approach as one which covers more than a single discussion. I'm sure you don't want to give the impression of nit-picking, win-at-all-costs, no-room-for-compromise, my-way-or-the-highway condescending pomposity, do you?. Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, changing your posts after I have answered, making my answer incorrect or meaningless... Yeah, I surely wouldn't want to give an impression of win-at-all-costs to a master of the trade. The hook version you now seem to have made into the cornerstone of your defense was there for one minute[69][70] (the edit summary on the first was incorrect, but as this was corrected in the next edit by reverting back to the one he intended, I didn't nitpick about this). The hook that was pulled, and the hook that Ritchie333 wanted to have, was not the hook you are going on about. The diff was there to indicate the start of the revert and the start of his involved edits, but I'll try to remember next time something like this happens to give a fully detailed step-by-step analysis. For now, unless you have something new or interesting to say, I'll leave you well alone here. Fram (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lovely minute and I will treasure it forever (even though I wasn't there) - I feel you could have helped it last longer. Sorry for writing "AN" when I meant "ArbCom" and thanks so much for pointing out my mistake so soon. I think a "fully detailed step-by-step analysis" was sadly lacking from your AN report, having been already started at the DYK discussion page. Sorry for just relying on the links you provided in the AN thread. I very rarely claim "new or interesting" and usually just make do with "positive contribution". I expect you get folks writing in all the time to thank you for your diligence. You make me feel like giving up Wikipedia altogether, but I guess you'd see that outcome as a minor victory. Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. "good luck" with your new and interesting contributions over at ArbCom.
Shocked and alarmed. As if anyone would want to lurk in the shadows and read this litany of tortuous bile-filled mutual wrist-slapping just for cheap laughs. At least I didn't call Fram a complete dick. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - two great icons, and Nigel is the finest rugby football referee ever! Hope you had your leathers on while you were rocking around the living room. Robevans123 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us all the diffs to these "multiple chats you are involved in". Please stop adding WP:FORUM material to Talk:Traingate, such as: "Corbyn is a massive certainty to win and this trash traingate nonsense will, has made no difference at all - as you can see in the odds, if you bother to look". And please try to stop deleting whole sections of that article, on the basis of your own personal opinion, before discussing at the Talk Page there. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly re-arrange some or all of those words to make a coherent sentence? And what about those "multiple chats I am involved in"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again - you are basically similar to a troll, you put people down at every opportunity behind your claimed internet persona, you should stop that./ Govindaharihari (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for your note. Quite amazing, isn't it, the lengths that some folks will go to get an article mentioned on the front page. Even those who have been faithfully editing for over two years, created 28 new articles and made over 12,000 edits? All those arcane historical tomes, those stuffy unknown sources, those abstruse expert academics. The sort of rubbish you'd have to go to the ends of the earth to read. I am truly amazed. But I'm glad to see an apology was offered, after your prompting, five hours later. Well, at least you've been compared to the handsome and dashing Richard Gere, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to explore your statement that the OTRS process is 'open to wholesale abuse". Per Wp:beans, Please send me an email if you think explaining it online would further potential for abuse.
I would also be interested in your thoughts on an alternative process.
I'd also like to understand why you think there is a problem relating to File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg. The imagesimage has been uploaded, and as soon as a valid permission statement is provided and reviewed everything will be fine. I reviewed the permission statement sent in by the subject, but as very often happens, the subject is claiming copyright on a photograph in which he is pictured. While this may be correct, it is exceedingly common that people are under the impression that they automatically of the copyright holder of photographs of themselves. This is not generally the case so we almost always ask for an explanation. When that explanation arrives, if it is satisfactory the OTRS tag will be placed on the photo.--S Philbrick(Talk)21:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :Sphilbrick. And thanks for inviting me you your Talk Page earlier. Let's explore shall we? I love beans, don't you?
1. Over at Diaanaaaaa's page you said:
"To help make the process easier for them I often fill out the permission statement for them, email it to them asked them to review it and ensure that it is acceptable and send it back to me. I then forward it to OTRS."
I was suggesting that you "forwarding it to OTRS" means you could fabricate their permission. All you need is their return email in the email history (I'm not suggesting that you would, of course, but anyone could).
2. I'm not advocating any change just yet - I'm guessing there would need to be many months of discussion and thousands of megabytes of Talk Page wrangling before that ever happened. I'm suggesting that if the expected process is currently "Upload the image, then get permission" then that's what the description over at WP:CONSENT and Template:OTRS pendingshould actually say.
3. The problem with File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg is that Nathan has sent an email to OTRS with a URL that points to the original image on his website, not the image as uploaded by me here. In fact, the image uploaded here is just a cropped portion of the original (but I'm unable to tell, from reading all the procedural advice, if this is a "problem" or not). But, of course I also failed somewhat at the first hurdle, which was "please do it at Commons, not here"
4. Why have that standard text in the WP:CONSENT template if it does not apply? You've decided that Nathan is not the copyright holder? On what basis is that? How do I find the copyright holder, exactly? How does Nathan? Where is this in the procedural instruction? You say "I reviewed the permission statement sent in by the subject"? I thought there was a 24-day backlog??
There is quite a backlog. I haven't checked to see if it is 24 days but that sounds about right. Agents are not required, as far as I know, to handle all request in chronological order. I often look at recent request because occasionally someone will fill out the statement exactly correctly with no issues that need further study. In such circumstances, the permission request can be handled in a couple of minutes, and in my opinion it is worth handling the request out of normal chronological order if it can be disposed of quickly. I happen to have looked at the Nathan Wyburn request, but I had not processed it as it did not meet my criteria of easily handled, but when I saw your request at the OTRS noticeboard I remember looking at it and thought I would relook at it. Unfortunately, my initial instincts were correct and it was not a straightforward request, but since I had invested this much time and it I thought I would take the next steps.
I have not decided that Nathan is not the copyright holder. What on earth did I say that led you to that conclusion? I've reread my initial post in which I say he may be the copyright holder. But, he may not. Which is why I asked a follow-up question. I havinghave not concluded whether he is or is not the copyright holder.
No, the problem is not as you state "The problem with File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg is that Nathan has sent an email to OTRS with a URL that points to the original image on his website, not the image as uploaded by me here." That was not an issue. The problem is that Nathan sent in a statement in which he claims to be the copyright holder of an image in which he is the subject. This is not impossible—there are multiple scenarios in which this is acceptable, but it is also the case that many people erroneously assume that they are automatically the copyright holder of any photo in which they appear. This assumption is incorrect, so whenever a person asserts copyright over an image in which they appear, we ask additional questions. It is quite routine - happens several times every day. It is not a big deal, but it must be resolved, and has not yet been resolved.--S Philbrick(Talk)00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from your prompt reply, Sphilbrick. I think how OTRS works is a bit of a mystery to those not involved. The order in which requests are dealt with is a particular mystery (from my position of near complete ignorance). Apologies if I have accused you of reaching a conclusion you have not. Would it save time if the first step of the process was to discover who was the copyright holder. I imagine that someone at OTRS (at some time in the next 24 days?) will email Nathan and ask him to confirm he is the copyright holder. That's just my guess. But regarding the standard request wording, you made it quite clear of over Diannaa's page that the URL should be the location here at Wikipedia, not the original one e.g. on someone's website? is that not the case? And I'm also left with the wording of the Template:OTRS pending (my emphasis added):
"An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS."
It's not clear to me who should have sent that email and when. Nor when the URL was (or should have been) added. But maybe that's deliberately vague? I'd appreciate it if you could just tell what, if anything I now need to do. Or do I just wait for OTRS to do something? Will they need to give me a "ticket number"? Do I need to ask for one? And what should I now do with the other three images of himself that Nathan has sent me for upload? Thanks for your time and expertise. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. not sure what you mean by "I having concluded whether he is or is not the copyright holder."--S Philbrick(Talk)12:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my response at the OTRS noticeboard wasn't clear.
I looked at the permission statement provided by Nathan Wyburn on 5 September, as part of my occasional process to look at recent tickets to see if there's any "low hanging fruit". The email from him did not qualify so I moved on. A few minutes later, I saw your request at the OTRS noticeboard, remembered the name, and decided to respond to it. I looked at the permission statement and looked at the image and noticed an extremely common problem — the permission statement asserted copyright by the person pictured in the photo. As explained earlier, this is a "problem" which often simply requires an explanation. In some cases, the person issuing the permission is simply unfamiliar with how copyright works and making the mistaken assumption that ownership of a photo means they also have the copyright to the photo. In other cases, they may legitimately be the copyright holder, either because it was a "selfie" or taken with a self timer, or they may have arranged for the photographer to transfer the copyright to them. Whenever we see this situation occur, we ask a question to ascertain which situation applies. I sent that email to Nathan on 5 September and have not yet received a response.
Regarding your final question, I simply botched the wording and have fixed it. I don't yet know whether he is the copyright holder because I have not yet heard the answer to the question.
There is nothing for you to do except to wait for him to respond to the email. If you happen to know him, you might let him know that he has an email from me with a question that needs answering. Otherwise, we'll just wait for him to respond.
Ah, I see. Thanks for repeating your explanations. Perhaps it might have been simpler if you have explained about the copoyright holder question at my OTRS noticeboard thread? It seems that you don't see any problems with the process and/or the instructions. So perhaps it's just me and my unfamiliarity. What about (my penultimate question) the three other images - shall I uploaded them now? Ask Nathan if he is coopyright-holder first? Get hims to send a permission email anyway? For all three at once? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matt Letley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages O2 Arena and Brunnsparken. 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.
Since I've just asserted that it's a good idea to plaster cucumbers all over Wikipedia in a vain attempt to get them inserted into the MOS (oo-er), we might as well start here Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sca. For some reason (still not worked out why, as I have dismissed all notices at the top), my watchlist jumps just at the same moment I click to view a topic. I have rollback enabled and so if the line below is long enough, rollback gets hit instead, by mistake. I then have to do a self-revert and say sorry. Which I did. Others seem to have the same problem. Sorry that your comment was absent for 2 minutes. I was agreeing with you! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin - you seem to be suffering from premature option selection. Don't worry, many editors suffer from this at some point in their lives, but, if the problem persists, various creams, sprays, tablets, exercises, and talking therapies are available. If all else fails, try taking a cold shower and thinking of the speeches of Maggie Thatcher before you edit. Robevans123 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of see your point; we use "church" interchangeably to refer to both the organized group and the buildings (I think we have had some CfD discussions about that). I think I'll change it to "congregation" or perhaps, in this case, "parish". Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had thought of that. But then had visions of a hundred-strong group of parishioners frantically ushering around a single unsuspecting visitor, Benny Hill-style. No strong view. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, don't go all Julian Cope on me! Although a druid on arbcom is interesting. Sacrifices to please Jimbo - it'll be 2008 all over again! Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Please review the talk page thread. If you wish to post on the RS noticeboard, perhaps you will find editors who agree with you and you will be able to establish some basis for this claim. There's the additional problem that your citation of those lists as references about themselves, the lists, is a WP:PRIMARY source and does not establish that the lists themselves are noteworthy. If you can find a secondary source that refers to those as significant or meaningful rankings, you will have a valid argument for inclusion. BTW look at this ranking to understand hwo many other pianists are ranked among the "greatest" [75] Were you aware of those other names? Finally, I need to ask you: Do you have any personal, professional, or other relationship with Mr. Brendel? Just asking to get that out of the way. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian – many thanks for that advice. This may be worse for the email sender, who might reasonably assume their heartfelt message has been totally ignored.
Jimbo – sorry, I was just declining that "sweetener" of $500 you offered me to stand for Adminship again (and the promise of a crushing anonymous “supervote”). But I wholly support you, of course, in your bid to rename the project “Trump-o-pedia”. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. if I can actually remember what it said, I'll delete most of the swear words and try and send the email again! [reply]
Apparently you don't know when to let it rest either, apparently because you think you're hilarious.[76] That's great. So, your buddy reopened a thread that was last commented on days ago. Three days ago I went to his page not to reopen the thread, but to remind him that he doesn't have the basis to lecture me on policy. He saw it fit to kick me off his page, which is quite typical when you have no clue what you're talking about. Do you know how many admins would love to tell me I'm full of shit? Meh. Clueless. If you'd like to join "us" on my page for a wee policy discussion, please do. Otherwise: your opinion is utterly useless to me. Doctalk14:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cassianto emailed me to say he appreciated that. Didn't realise that you two were such buddies. I think edit warring on a third party's Talk Page is really a step too far, but hey, it's up to EEng, I guess. It's his page. Am keen to learn about correct "piss period" etiquette, however. Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Eight years you say? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A revert isn't edit-warring. Come on, now! No one could change anything otherwise. Edit-warring is multiple reversions, easily demonstrable. Slow edit-warring? Really... Doctalk14:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't look very slow to me. I guess things must move much quicker in your world. As I said, EEng should have the final say about what is or isn't on his page. Within reason, of course. But do tell us about correct insult protocol. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First we probably should get edit warring defined for you. My revert on that page was not "edit warring". Yet you described it as such, twice! Per WP:EW, first sentence: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." "Repeatedly override" is not just one revert. Please tell no one, ever, that it is again. Doctalk14:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like the upgrade. Don't you think you exaggerate a bit, talking to an odious person and infobox mafiosa who drove away all the important FA writers, allegedly? I found the template in a 2012 discussion that was used in a 2016 ARCA. I never saw that discussion before but found nothing new ;) - First support - with the template - by teh user, short and sweet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you can quote the exact letter of policy law there. That must make you very popular, I guess. Perhaps it also makes you "right" here? And how are you on civility? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you told me, six minutes earlier: "Please tell no one, ever, that it is again." Not too sure what you're expecting of me now. But about the "Piss. Off" - are those just two random words you found and decided to tastefully separate with a period? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Doc and I are most certainly not friends, Martin. He is a lowly piece of work for whom I show nothing but contempt. (Btw, check your emails). CassiantoTalk20:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a "lowly piece of work", eh? Why, some would rightfully consider that a "personal attack"! Thankfully, unlike some (*cough*), my skin's a bit thicker than most. I have zero "friends" here: even admins who used to openly agree with me now stay far away for fear of "reprisals" from the herd. See, I didn't come here to make friends. Know this: I'm not a moron, and I will call anyone out at anytime if I see fit to. Chuckles! Doctalk08:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckles are very "old school", pretty decent. Has the party prank of putting out the big bowl of Reese's Pieces, M&M'sand Skittles, all mixed together, been fully explored? It has serious potential... Doctalk08:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When we met, DOC, we mused about a list of enemies for me, and you were on it. Looks like that changed ;) - My most recent list of - how should I call them? - "people who think wrongly think I'm influential and a list of articles causes targeting" is linked above. - As the Coward discussion shows, you best leave the last word to Cassianto, or he will comment again, but I still consider him a friend ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Noël. The first list formed itself, called "pride and prejudice", archived end of 2015, - I seriously thought then that we were done arguing if a FA may at the same time serve idiots or not. Look at Falstaff, TFA on 1 January 2016 as a hopeful beginning of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the opera - with a concluding fugue about nothing serious on Earth and we are all born fools - in my greeting for the new year, DYK? - I wrote an FA for 27 Sep that will not appear that day because something else was scheduled by the time it found support ;) - "sweet" is part of the title, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "here I am surrounded, by sorrow and wretchedness". But I'm sure things will improve, Gerda! Hope we see it sometime later. I must find a copy to listen to. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My last word here: DYK that the infobox for him was first seen in the arbcomcase workshop (guess by whom?), then added to the article as the community consensus by the former arb who had written the case. As I sometimes say: expect any absurdity when it comes to infoboxes. Wonder what will happen in case3 which seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Martin, you are a "very naughty boy" to make that nomination, and I wholeheartedly thank you for it. I feel very honoured that my contributions are being noticed. I sit quietly in my "shed", enjoying myself doing what I do, my wife does not understand it, but as well as pleasing myself, I hope I am leaving behind something for present and future readers of WP. In the nomination you mentioned my work on churches. I am sorry to say that I became a bit bored with churches and have moved on to listed buildings, producing lists for each parish and unparished area, where that had not been done before. Up to now I have ensured that there are lists for all these areas in Cheshire, Merseyside and Lancashire, and I am now working through Cumbria. It's fascinating, and one discovers and learns so much as the work proceeds. It's so pleasurable, that honours are not really necessary, but when they come, wow, that IS a bonus. Keep up your good work, too. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise for you having your good name sullied by association with mine. Your editing epitomises the way I think Wikipedia was suppose to work - diligent, industrious, meticulous and with the minimum amount of fuss. You certainly deserve this award. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well Billy, You Rascal You! Many thanks for that!! (Although it sounds more like an alto than a tenor to me, so maybe it is Bill Blue or even Foots, especially as he probably arranged it?) I see that Cab gets a name check at Nagasaki (song). What a bizarre song. Not so popular after 6 August 1945, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. I see there is an article for Foots, but not for Flat or Bunky. Note: Foots Thomas had his nickname years before Calloway's band, apparently: [79][reply]
p.p.s. and thanks for reminding me, via that discogs page (but where is "Nobody" in there, I dont see it?) that, quite a few years ago, I got to see the wonderful Slim Gaillard at the Brecon Jazz Festival and I well rememeber that he brought the house down with his version of Calloway's "Zah Zuh Zah". He often seemed to be the musical reincarnation of Calloway and it was a real privilege to see him, if only once.
Sorry, buggered up the discogs link, it should've been this. (6-3)
"I didn't get where I am today by not enjoying both series!!" On a different note I am amazed at the length and variety of Frances de la Tour's career. I still think that her teaming with Bob Hoskins in Flickers can be mentioned in the same conversation with Hepburn and Tracy. Cheers to you both and I hope you have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is available for you M. Over here it never made it to VHS so the small group of devotees (of which I am a part) were ecstatic when it finally made it to DVD. It is a wonderful tribute to the early (very) years of film-making with many wonderful performances. The final lines sum up the fun/joy of films for both those in front of the camera and us in the audience. MarnetteD|Talk21:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh it is great to see Le Petomane again. Thanks for the link Cassianto. So in June of 1980 - after a few days of hiking in the French countryside - I take the night train(s) and ferry to London. That morning, while wandering around the west end seeing the sights, I spy the names Leonard Rossiter and Prunella Scales on a theatre marquee. At that point I don't care what the play is I know I am going to see it that night. I buy a ticket in the second row of the royal circle of the Theatre Royal Haymarket and get to see Make and Break. What those sitting close to this slightly ripe Yank in his bib overalls, blue and gold striped rugby shirt and Chuck Taylor high top tennis shoes thought I can't imagine. I only hope they enjoyed the play half as much as I did :-) MarnetteD|Talk23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! As a trombonist, I know that nerves can affect one's performance, but I've always known when to stop playing early and call for a taxi. Robevans123 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In honor of your Talkpage TOC being the coolest thing I've seen on Wikipedia in almost ten years of editing, I decided to take the test on your user page.
This sucks. I dont think even Leonard Cohen felt as sorry in his darkest days. Bleak links pls..Hillybilly also if you are watching. Hit me. I'll start with [80]. Ceoil (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more surreal moment in my Wikipedia history was a (real life) argument with Gina Birch over the quality of her Wikipedia bio (which is still godawful, but probably unimprovable as there's no real biography of her to work from). The odd thing about the Raincoats is that their best songs are probably covers by other people, especially Dan Treacy's cover of 'No-one's Little Girl' and Hole's take on 'The Void'—Ana & Gina's affected flatness is striking at first but gets grating quite quickly. ‑ Iridescent14:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lovely, new to me Hillbilly. Almost as pretty miserabilism [82]. I dont know what she does to sustain at the end of each sentence. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
DPL bot, you're such a gentleman gentle-non-sentient-machine-with-apparently-human-qualities. You never swear and you're never uncivil. I just don't know how you do it. You're our hero!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckstasy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you finally came out of the IP shadows to scold me? But it seems quite a few other editors think exactly the same as I do and reverted for exactly the same reason. Sorry if I took one of my turns too early. Do you think you'll me raising my edits at WP:AN3 and asking for me to be blocked? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Fest got much better (the article, I mean). Next on YouTube: OREYA, samples in the article. Our conductor watched them work, for example having the different elements of a chord expressed with different vowel colour, fifth bright, none dark, etc. Amazing.Watch their development for several years now. They come by bus in several days. We had several American guests, including a choral conductor. She and all others gave standing ovations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Gerda. That looks like an easy one. I watched Cantata Memoria: For the children on BBC Four last night. I suppose we can expect Karl Jenkins to at least be accessible. At first I felt disappointed, as it all sounded a bit too accessible - like a lot of nursery rhymes and Missa bits and pieces stitched together. And a bit hurried. But as it progressed I found it quite moving and unlifting. One doesn't often get English, Welsh and Latin all in the same libretto. Having Terfel there was obviously a big plus. There were some wonderful moments. And none of it gloomy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine: when we sang his Gloria we got applause in the middle of a church concert (!) after the Hebrew Psam 100, both concerts! Yes, uplifting. Now we get ready for the next uplift: Laudato si' by Peter Reulein, lyrics Helmut Schlegel, long discussion my talk, but in German. The only Hebrew in that piece (not counting tons of Halleluja and Amen) is "Shalom elechem", coming with Klezmer music, to illustrate the wedding at Kana, while one Francis sings Tarantella and the other tango. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I really enjoyed the Cantata Memoria. I don't mind a bit of accessibility so long as it doesn't descend into triteness. One of the parts of Cantata is a Bach chorale - not sure which one. BTW the version shown on BBC4 last night was a slightly shortened version.
Here's a list of what is currently available (don't know if these will be much use to Gerda as BBC output on iPlayer can be a bit restricted if you are outside the UK):
Cantata Memoria - the complete work, 63 minutes 15 days left to watch - no download - has to be watched live
concert including Cantata Memoria 83 minutes 15 days left to watch. In Welsh with subtitles - no download - has to be watched live. Concert including Ynysowen Male Voice Choir (formed from the Aberfan Tip Removal Committee) singing with the school children from Aberfan today, Sian Philips, various others and much of the Cantata
Highlights of concert including much, but not all, of Cantata Memoria - 60 minutes 29 days left - downloadable
documentary on Cantata Memoria (in Welsh with English subtitles) - 24 minutes 14 days left - no download - has to be watched live
You're welcome, and feel free to teak tweak away, or wood would you be meaning something else? I'll put a list of the currently available documentaries, along with the Cantata programmes, on to the Aberfan Disaster talk page. I don't have the technology to record from iPlayer to something more permanent, so I think I'll try to do a transcription of the documentaries - there's quite a lot of useful information that could be used in references.
Did you catch Aberfan: The Green Hollow last night? Thought it was very good. The Cantata should definitely have an article of it's own. I'll do it soon-ish unless you want to leap in.
BTW Gerda I've just read that the performance and documentary mentioned above are available on S4C's international site "s4c.cymru/international" if you can't access them on the BBC website. Robevans123 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might appreciate this one. The Miami Dolphins' season seemingly goes "tits down" as two of their granny cheerleaders take off their bras.
You have to make such a song and dance don't you!? Ha ha, no worries, stomp on dude. You've obvously learned how to get my sympathy at this sorry excuse for a Talk Page. To use wholly inmapproprate analogy... I was attempting a few home-made tweaks, whereas you've come right in with the big guns. I see that reception to my RD nomination over at WP:ITN/C has been "less than lukewarm". So it doesn't really matter a whole hill of beans at the moment. By the way - your edits are a massive improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple mirror of the article before your recent edits; it even credits the original article. The site scrapes random images from the Internet, usually 100% copyright violations, to decorate. This is simple content scraper to serve ads. Please revert. Kuru(talk)12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wha gwaan, Martin? Me see yuh mek some wutless links di adda day point fi dis-hambiguation pages. Blood fiah... Dat deh ah fake ting man, dem gi yuh ah baaskit fi cyaary waata, cuz ah dis-hambiguation page him jus ah "Did you mean..." haartical tyital. Why yuh na read FAQ • Man dem cyan join dis chupid DPL WikiProject.
Yuh need fi stap fram bitch up di job an do it propaly. Yuh wan fi stap receivin me message, folla di hopt-out hin-structions. Try cross mi lane an yuh bloodclaat dead. DPL bot (talk)
What ho Marty!. I say, some of chaps are rather confused about whether to insult/inslut/inlsut/inlust you or whatever. Jeeves is suggesting we insulate you on your talk page. Toodle Pip.
I give up. Obviously a waste of your time. To me they're just facts. Yes, they are the same words, in a slightly different order. As ever, I'd be very interested to see how you personally would be able to paraphrase that material, in a way that wasn't "too close". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the Gabriel/Bush number is good, but very much a Gabriel number, and I feel the Bush contribution could have been done by any decent session singer. Could have been better if Bush's amazing variety of tone and colour (as in Running) had been given freer rein. Whispering Bob Evans (whisper) 13:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some further amendments to the prose re-added by Hillbillyholiday about the windows and it sent from nearly complete overlap to nearly zero overlap. Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dianna. That is very helpful and thoughtful advice. I will try and use it, if I ever attempt another summary of a church. It's a great shame that your work is completely hidden at Market Drayton. I'm sure you'll willingly lend a hand if I create a new separate article for St Mary's, won't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
whoaah! that's five!! Yes, I'm sure "creative expression" is the very last thing we expect, like the wonderfully poetic "Its replacement stood for many years in the chancel" or the painfully dramatic "when permission was finally granted by the family responsible". Eat ur heart out, Hills:
Loved the remark from an EU diplomat quoted on Radio 4's PM earlier (if they said who exactly I missed it, and I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist): "When the UK was in the EU, it only wanted to negotiate opt-outs. Now it's leaving the EU, it only wants to talk about opt-ins!" JezGrove (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, that sounds about right. Did you see last Sunday's HIGNFY? I was thoroughly amused at the caption, suggested by "short-haired flat-shoed shovel-faced lesbian" Ruth Davidson, to that picture of Teresa May and the swordsman: "Now that's what I call a hard Brexit!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Radio 4 unattributed (and paraphrased) EU diplomatic comment of the day (in response to Theresa May's "UK expects full EU role until Brexit" stuff, and either towards the end of PM or on the Six o'clock News): "Britain's acting like a husband who has told his wife he wants a divorce but won't say when, and expects to enjoy marital relations in the meantime…". JezGrove (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could we please sort out Jimmy Perry's article, in relation to his apparent death? There is only one source to this right now, and BLP states that information that can't be confirmed should be removed.
Since there is no confirmation from any news source that Perry is actually dead, I propose we remove it, as I'd already attempted to do.
If this turns out to be a hoax, it will be an egg on the face job for WP.
By all means be bold and move articles to the titles that you think they should have (checking whether there's previous discussion and basing your choice of title on WP:AT of course), or raise an RM, but not both at once. That just wastes time.
If you find you can't move an article but think it's uncontroversial, put in a technical request at WP:RM. But please don't move an article to a placeholder. That just complicates things. TIA Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my explanation? As you will see from the history, the first move was a mistake. I would have moved it straight back but was prevented from doing so, because "title already exists". Would you prefer that I had left the title as a spelling mistake? Why shouldn't self reverts be allowed for such cases? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and the time and effort you are putting into improving Wikipedia. I'm a volunteer too. WP:creed#1WP:creed#13
Yes, I read your explanation. It would have been irresponsible not to, considering the (small and easily fixed) mess you had created in good faith and the time I was about to invest in fixing it. Read it, thought I understood it, got a coffee. Did you read my request? Did you (re)-read the instructions at WP:RM to which I linked?
I repeat... please do not move to a placeholder. Just immediately raise a technical request. This sort of situation is exactly why we have technical requests. An admin can then immediately perform the move, without waiting for discussion (or will often raise a formal RM themselves if they feel discussion is required... or take other action, we're not encouraged to be quite as bold when using admin tools, but everything is recoverable... I've had to ask for part of the database to be restored from backup only once in many years of admin work, but a careless admin can cause real mayhem! And occasionally has... the record is about two days' partial downtime I think while things were fixed and recovered... our backups have improved since then... could be wrong, there may well have been more serious glitches I didn't even know about. And half a dozen times I've just had to ask a more experienced admin to fix my mess for me...).
Yes, there is often a backlog of technical requests. You might consider becoming a page mover or admin and help us with it! (You'd want to lurk a bit more on WP:RM before either I think... but perhaps not much more, and there are other things admins do too, and backlogs everywhere.) TRs still happen a lot quicker than full RMs, and take a lot less time for an admin to action on average, and most often nobody else needs to even know it happened.
If the move is very urgent there are other procedures... and procedures and procedures and procedures. WP:creed#13 again! Feel free to raise a section on my talk page anytime (as you have done), but that may take a couple of days... or seconds... to action. It does no harm to ask in several places anytime you are really worried, and I'm happy to be one of them.
I think this discussion is time well spent for both of us. So do you understand what I am asking here, and why I am asking it?
Better still, do you think we can improve on this procedure, or on the documentation? I think it misled you, and if so, now your input is exactly what we need to tweak it so this happens less often.
We are all learners here. Self included. Any suggestion you make may just be thrown back in my face if I take it further and seek consensus to action it. Wouldn't be the first time. (;-> We move on. WP:creed#15Andrewa (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, ok... "I promise I will not move to a placeholder." I repeat, "I promise I will not move to a placeholder.", etc., etc. I'm not sure "Gresford isaster" was really "a mess"? Just a slight mistake. Yes, I considered asking technical request. And yes, the expected wait put me off, yet again. Next time I'll just have to wait. Like I said, I don't see why a self revert, to the original title, should not be technicallt possible, for such finger-trouble cases. I'm not sure the ensuing discussion was a complete "waste of time", as some useful points were made. I tried to make it clear, to all commenters, what the intended move was - a waste of my time, I guess. Just surprised that you closed the move without a clear statement on whether or not "Gresford disaster" should never be considered a proper noun. "Proper noun" appears only once at MoS:CAPS. Why do we have London Beer Flood instead of London Beer flood? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen bigger messes! Agree that ideally, all self-reverts should be possible.
In closing the RM, I was evaluating the consensus rather than deciding the issue for myself. There was a rough consensus not to capitalise in my opinion. But see WP:creed#7 for my take on consensus! I'm supposed to consider the validity of the arguments and discard those contrary to logic or policy, but not cast a supervote. It's a rather ambiguous situation.
I spent a decade in EDP audit. One of my standard lines in presentations was It's my job to give people who don't know as much about computers as they would like valid reasons for relying on the information that the computers are giving them. Problem one is, it may not be logically possible to do this... But it seemed to work... mostly...
We tend to go with usage as an overall principle, preferring descriptive grammar to prescriptive grammar. I can argue the capital D both ways personally, having done some studies of grammar myself, and would myself capitalise it! Just as I would capitalise Brown Snake to make it clear it wasn't just a brown variety of Tiger Snake. But I think Wikipedia is going to regard it as a description rather than a proper name, and we just need to move on from that. Both ways work. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isaac looking down to check we've got his Mum and Dad's details right
I checked on Isaac's Wiki page but now also on ODNB. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/20059?docPos=1. Here's the first few lines if you don't have access: "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642–1727), natural philosopher and mathematician, was born on 25 December 1642 in the manor house of Woolsthorpe, near Colsterworth, about 7 miles south of Grantham, Lincolnshire, the only and posthumous son of Isaac Newton (1606–1642), yeoman farmer, and his wife, Hannah (c. 1610–1679), daughter of James Ayscough, gentleman, of Market Overton, Rutland." Cheers, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Stainland edit - much appreciated. You might want to know that the pre-existing para on the Stainland Cross in that article is in part a copyvio (not your doing, I know) from the book which I've reffed in the William Swinden Barber article (A Concise History of the Parish and Vicarage of Halifax, in the County of York (1836), by John Crabtree, p.498: "Stainland Cross") which is in Google Books. Storye book (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle:
Martin, I wonder if you, and perhaps Ghmyrtle whom I've tried to ping, would be interested in seeing if we could take Monnow Bridge to FA? As the only bridge of its type in Britain, it more than merits it. I think there's plenty of material, although there'll be a temptation to rely too heavily on Rowlands. And it would be a nice contribution to Monmouth and Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. Let me know what you think? Happy to try it alone, but thought it could be a fun collaboration. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I've just gone to check with Ghmyrtle to see what he thinks. If he's on board, that would be great. Otherwise, we'll have a go alone. We need to agree tasks, but it shouldn't be hard - something like Castell Coch would probably do:
Trying to get articles to FA is not really my thing (I'm not experienced in it, I dislike both the process and the concept, and I wouldn't be very good at it anyway), and I certainly wouldn't want to take any responsibility for any part of the article - but I don't want to be unhelpful. I have some sources to hand, but I think most of them have already been used in the article. Just looking at the article now, don't you feel there are too many old engravings, etc. - does each of them add something to the article? As I say, I'm happy to help, but it might be best if those involved ask for any help I can give as they go along, and I will keep a watching brief (copy-editing, asking questions, etc.). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, not a problem at all. Having done a few FACs, I can well understand why they are far from being everyone's cup of tea. I shall therefore have a go tout seul, but shall avail myself of the offer to ask for help as I go along. And, as a starter for ten; yes, there are indeed far too many old engravings. Reminds me of the St. Mary's page when it had the pictures of the vicar and the steeple totally obscured by scaffolding. Shall be in touch. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Martin, hope you're keeping well. I did initially put the date on Speed's map but my concern is it's the only illustration I've got for the 13th - 14th-centuries Section and, at 1611, it doesn't really qualify. But no big deal either way, I suppose. I'm quite pleased with how the article's come along. I don't think there's much left but I'm waiting for the National Library of Wales to get back to me re. Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley's Monnow Bridge Tower as they seem to be the only institution in the whole world that may have a copy. Any and all suggestions/amendments much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Republishers. I feel the need to follow through on this. Any action needs to be taken by the copyright holders (that's us), rather than the WMF, but I need to check when the Aberfan article was copied. I suspect it was before I'd contributed. Just to clarify, anyone can take Wikipedia content and put it into a book (commercial or free), provided they acknowledge the source and contributors. If they don't, its copyvio, and if they claim copyright themselves, it's just adding insult to injury. Robevans123 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems quite paradoxical. I always thought that "copyright free" meant just that - i.e. no-one owns it, and no-one's permission is needed to reuse it. I imagined that these e-book republishers were adding some subtle visual enhancement that allowed them to claim the material was "unique". I also understood that any material that wasn't claarly marked with "copyright free", "public domain" etc., had to be assumed to be protected by copyright - at least this is what I have repeatedly been told when scolded for paraphrasing descriptions of church interiors too closely. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it is a bit strange. What we contribute is not copyright free. The copyright remains with the contributors, but each time we hit the Save button we are licensing it to be used by anyone for any purpose, providing they acknowledge the source and how the material is licensed, as specified in the Creative Commons License and GNU Free Documentation License, and don't claim copyright themselves - they have to make the material free under a similar license. If they don't acknowledge this, then it becomes a copyright violation. In the same way if, for example, we use Crown Copyright material that is past the 50 year limit, we can quote from it verbatim, so long as we acknowledge the source and that the copyright still remains with the Crown. The copyright still remains with the creator, but they've licensed it to be freely re-used with certain conditions.
Anything that is copyright free (material past the various time limits from creation date, or that has been specifically released with no license requirements, for example, anything on Wikidata) can be used without restriction or acknowledgement. Robevans123 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of going to Anglesey next time I holiday in Wales but the strap line to a trailer for this program on BBC Wales read "Anglesey: Nurseries, night watchmen and bananas in back passages" put me off the idea... I suspect a sub-editor on the website is having a bit of a giggle. Robevans123 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for assisting me with improving that page :) I must say, though, that I wouldn't have introduced quotation marks to the text being put in the blockquote - unless they're in the material being quoted, which I assume is liner notes from the ELO II CD. Or do I have the wrong idea? Please come back to me on that. Harfarhs (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assisting you, I'm just trying to improve the page! WP:MoS for blockquotes says "no surrounding quotes", so I removed those. But I'm not sure it has strict rules on internal quotes. Just trying to follow MoS for titles (including the use of upper case), as we might for internal links. I don't see how it affects the meaning, but I really don't think it matters that much - please revert if you think it causes a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I meant only that we'd been editing the page at the same time, although I didn't realise you had made changes until I looked at the edit history near the end. Which probably means we're on the same page :) Harfarhs (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Loved the 'Idiots' ad, and it seems to have done the job! He won’t build a wall, he won’t put Hillary in jail, and he won’t make America great again… it will be interesting to see what his supporters do when that finally dawns on them. Still, at least we can look forward to cheaper Marmite and iPhones in the UK again for a while. JezGrove (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those who knew both candidates are equally repugnant, simply wrote in a name (like me, MONGO...MONGO for President) and cast votes for down ballot candidates and issues.--MONGO02:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should be just one infobox. The Prince infobox is unnecessary unless a dedicated fan of Prince sees the necessity of it? It pushes down another infobox and is already clunky as is. No need to tell readers about less notable songs from Prince album in the infobox. Also, key facts should be summarized, not supplemented, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Facts about the Prince recording are not "key facts". Prince is already credited as the writer of the song, so that is "key" enough, right? And Chaka Khan's version is "key" enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see it would be difficult to fit all that in an edit summary, but some kind of reasoning might have been useful? Maybe you are right. I'm not sure what MoS says about this. But perhaps all the information about the Prince version should at least appear in the article, as text, since he was the writer and is a very notable artist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we add text to make up for it? I won't revert you again if you wish to delete it. Probably best if you open a thread on the Talk Page and get other views? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not worth fighting over very much at Wikipedia, but particularly over something as trivial as infoboxes, and quite regardless of who is "responsible", haha. I've learnt that the folks who accomplish most here just walk away from a fight and just improve some of those 5,317,855 articles that nobody's heard about. Just my view. Cheers!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to remove the infobox or not. I don't know whether to change it either. While Cohen was the prominent figure (may he rest in peace), especially to the song, his recording never hit the music chart. I made additions of dates, making one of recordings more likely to be the lead image. I'm not concerned whether that would make the article interesting. I want to be certain about prominence of one of recordings. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again George. Personally, being a great lover of the infamous "idiot box", I'd keep it and add an image of a Cohen single cover such as the one here, here or here. But I realise that this may be controversial, as he recorded the song only after Collins, and only then for an album. But if we save a perfectly good infobox, I for one would say "Hallelujah". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say remove the infobox and then use an image of a recording release by either Cohen or someone else. Look at Noël Coward and Talk:Noël Coward, where the RfC discussion resulted in "no consensus" to add infobox by default. It is kinda distracting and misleading. George Ho (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was reading the Talk:Donald Trump page and came across your post and thought there's a fellow I haven't seen in a long while. I know you and I have had our disagreements in the past but I've always admired your cool disposition. Anyho.. Happy editing! g@rycompugeek talk15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gary. I have every sympathy for anyone who has to read about The Donald, or even see his bizarre orange-toned image. We had our disagreements? While I do recognise your name, I have to admit I have completely forgotten why. So please don't remind me! As for a "cool disposition", I'm sure most editors who know me would describe me as anything but cool. So I'll regard that as an immense compliment. Many thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m.". I don't see your exact text. I do however see: "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, preceded by a non-breaking space, e.g. 2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm" (emphasis mine). Dragons flight (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you were quoting WP:MOS rather than WP:MOSTIME. However, your quote is inaccurate by omission. You wrote: "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m.". The full quote is "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. or in the form 11:15 am and 2:30 pm" (emphasis mine). Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the form presented first was meant to take precedence. Sorry to have misinterpreted the rules so badly. I'm not sure who has now wasted more time over this non error. I'm quite happy of course, to go back and remove all six of those full stops (emphasis mine). Or would that be construed once more as an "arbitrary change from one acceptable form to the other"? Perhaps we can at least agree that "context has determined use of 12-"? Although I'm not sure why. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't really care (hence I'm not interested in changing it back), but changing style variants is often a recipe for lame edit wars, so I thought it worth letting you know that such changes are at best unnecessary. Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You live in the wrong country. You do not live in the land of the free and the brave, where it is a self-evident truth that all white, heterosexual, Christian men are created equal.[1]
References
^Some white, heterosexual, Christian men are more equal than others, depending on their bank accounts.
Hi, Martin. Sorry to contact you 'out of the blue'. There seems to be dispute on the above talk page regarding what is included in the section regarding Downey's body being identified. I have Ann West's book, For the Love of Lesley. If you need references to settle the disputes regarding any information you'd like reinserted, I can provide them (or many of them). From what I recall, Alan wanted to identify her, but as he wasn't a blood relative, his request was rebuffed. They wouldn't let her kiss her daughter, and her request for a lock of her hair as a memento was denied. She vomited on seeing her daughter's body and the trinkets she wore and was given some whiskey to steel her nerves afterwards. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieron, that's very good of you to offer help with a source. I've seen that book in a number of internet searches and I guessed it would probably support that account in the Daily Mail. That's a very poignant story. But I suspect many of the "regular editors" over at Moors murders would see it as "tabloid sensationalism". To me it's a minor fact, but one that the article is currently still missing, suggesting that identification was made on the basis of some of Lesley Ann's clothing and some of Brady's pictures. I have tried to suggest that using a source that requires membership of Manchester Library & Information Service is less than ideal, but have been met with accusations of not WP:AGF and "blatantly not believing" other editors. The consensus over there seems to be that, once an article reaches FAC status, no more improvements are possible and that every exact word has to be kept in exactly the same order. To me this seems a little shortsighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry has been nominated for Did You Know
"Like Polyphemus blinded, Anthea Hamilton's Brobdingnagian buttocks appear defeated, rendered eyeless and helpless. Forever frozen in a functionless limbo – one immediately recalls Hirst's shark – this 'derrière contraire' arouses not our passions, but our pity. Yet in a world given over to verbal diarrhoea and emotional encopresis, perhaps its reticence, its restraint, its inherent retentiveness should be lauded, as indeed should the artist – I mean, it's not every day one gets to see a twenty-five foot goatse in a gallery, is it?" .micro.dot.cotton (talk)
Martinevans123, I was wondering if you could tell me which newspapers are to be avoided for this article. The Sun is clearly out; it appears that the Telegraph is in. What about the Mirror or the Daily Mail? I've also found this interview, but I'm not sure how reliable blog interviews are considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blue Moony. Well the Daily Mirror is a deffo tabloid and is deffo out. The Daily Mail is less clear - interview sources are generally tolerated. But beware, some editors will not permit it at any cost. Broadsheets are always to be preferred. Danny is heading for stardom now and so sources should not be too difficult to find. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, which I agree not every person who suffered from mental illness should be in this category, Gurney's illness was a part of his notability. His illness predated his war service, and his length of confinement and death in an asylum are key distinguishing features of his career (vis-a-vis other WWI poets) -- without this category, I'm afraid this key aspect of his career will be missed. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clevelander96, thanks for your note. Ivor Gurney's mental illness was certainly a key factor in our understanding of him as a person. But could you explain to me why his own illness is significant to the entire history of mental illness in the UK? He ought to fit a further category at Category:People by medical or psychological condition, but I'm not sure which. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. I wonder if you know who the anonymous ip editor 81.151.38.220 who added that Category might be? I've seen a spate of such additions, mostly unjustified in my view, over a variety of articles, over the last few weeks.[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, thanks for your reply -- I hadn't known the backstory on this category. It sounds as though a People subcategory would be much more appropriate; I will have a look and see if there's one that would be a suitable fit. And no, alas, I'm not sure as to the anonymous user is. A few years back, several members of the Ivor Gurney Society were active on his page, but it's been a while since I first put the article on my watchlist; sounds like somebody who added the cat for reasons other than just this one entry. Thanks again, Clevelander96 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry
Hi Andi, Thanks for your note. Yes, I've left a comment on your web page. I don't doubt your good faith. Creating a new article can be a bit daunting. Take some time to read about Wikipedia policies and procedures first {there are some links in that message at the top of Talk page) and you may find it easier and less frustrating. There is no deadline. Take as long as you need. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that "Old Rambler" has been evicted yet again. I'd like to publicly apologise to him for insulting (albeit unwittingly) the memory of his late grandmother in an attempt to adjust a caption for a picture on his User page last September. And apologies also, of course, for being unaware that he even had a grandmother. And to thank him for not bearing the slightest grudge for the past 15 months. I think I once made a ridiculously outlandish accusation that he was a sockpuppet, but I think I got away with it and it's all now water under the bridge. Sincere apologies if I ever described him as "a bossy self-serving obsessive with an ego bigger than the entire Wikipedia archive". "obvs"
Deepest apologies also to "Mike V Shirt", for not accepting, without a murmur, all those sockpuppet accounts that he said I created in July, but which I had never actually seen before (especially the ones that made no edits). Sincere apologies if I ever described him as "a trigger-happy bully with all the finesse of Wyatt Earp, but none of the boyish good-looks". B. Littler 123 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. note to drive-by admins - angling here for pages of discussion at A/N, AN/I and AE, followed by an indef block here (but two weeks over Christmas will do fine, thanks.) "obvs". [reply]
I assure you my knowledge isn't based on his wording (see here and here - I can add more). They are traits hardly atypical of children who've sadly endured all forms of abuse and neglect. They develop these kinds of disorders. I'll leave it to you to reinsert or morph it into the text. In fact, these links I've provided would be better than yet another page from Sounes's book, IMO....--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieron. They might well be, but we'd be simply replacing Sounes' own original research with our own. And I see no explicit mention of squint in those two. There is some evidence with regard to speech disorder, I think, but I believe squint, which after all is a congenital abnormality, has much less medical credence. Perhaps User:Doc James could advise? Unless we could find an alternative secondary source that mentions the West family, in relation to these supposed "classic symptoms of abuse children", I'd personally be tempted to leave that claim out altogether. Just my view. Maybe worth a thread at the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I've always respected your tenacious observations (no attempt at flattery intended). The primary problem lies with Sounes's usage of a generic term of 'squinting' (which I take as being psychologically and nerve based as opposed to eye alignment)? To negate any WP:OR accusations, we could find a few references from eminent fields mentioning this being a classic/typical symptom? I could find a secondary book source hearkening to this being a general trait in victims of this neglect/abuse, but doubt it'll specifically mention the West family as being an example? Journey into Darkness by John Douglas would likely be a good start. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand "squint" has been used to mean "stabismus"[87]
Thanks. Other sections of the paragraph used in the reference refer to the pathogenic history of the family between the 70s and 90s. I suppose it boils down to how you interpret Sounes's term. I could readjust the sentence to be more direct and with a more qualified reference? Martin, what do you think?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc - many thanks for that very prompt help. But I have to admit that connotation was my own assumption and my link, which I have now adjusted to the more general dab article. Keiron - "a seal squints in the sun", or so we are told. But we're not told anything there about the West family, or indeed about child abuse in general. Checking page 344 of Sounes, he does indeed just say: "Thrush and gonorrhoea had been present in the family and the children were afflicted with speech impediments and squints—classic symptoms of abused children". He offers no sources or explanation for those claims. If you are keen to mention some of the other health issues that the children suffered, there's no shortage in that final Epilogue chapter. Otherwise I can only suggest we frame it as a quote like, "Journalist Howard Sounes, who broke the West story, claims that "the children were afflicted with speech impediments ...". Or else maybe just leave it out? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind either way, Martin. I am practically finished with populating the article. Sounes is an author; he's not propagating his own assumptions, just rehashing extensively reported information in his book. As for the squint link, the "refractive errors of the eye" is the pertinent section of the link for me as he used a general, ambiguous medical term on p. 344--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he is. The Indy article is a good source, which also mentions the "thrush and a minor for gonorrhoea" and also "a catalogue of injuries to tendons, fingers and chests, as well as lacerations between the toes of the children, some supposedly self-inflicted." But no mention there of speech disorders or squint. I'll make a stab of my suggested re-word, but feel free to replace it if you wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it (hope you approve). Was a little contentious to claim even though they are common traits of distress. I'm going to upload a fair use rationale image or two either later tonight or tomorrow. Best regards and have a good Christmas. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Oversight is practically Martin's middle name. I still think my suggestions re splitting the victim/crime details to a separate article, and either combining Rose and Fred, or not combining them and moving Rose-only material to her article, are still pertinent. After that I think what most needs reduction is the minute-by-minute account of the searches and warrants and suspicions and digging and ... EEng23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combining them would need a broader consensus first. When that goes one way of the other, other issues addressed here can be looked into? I'll say again in my opinion they should both be one article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My sister says she would definitely have choked to death at lunch at work one day, had not the sole cow-orker in the room noticed her distress and applied the Heimlich. I'd have posted this in any case, since it was obviously notable, and I was surprised it wasn't up for my support. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to think that until recently, cow-orkers were reviled and persecuted based on some misinterpreted passages from Leviticus. How far we've come. EEng02:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never found the urge to ork a cow. Never even been tempted. And I generally treat any who do advocate such dubious actions with the disdain they undoubtedly deserve. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Season's Greetings, Martinevans123! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk17:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. May you have prolific and honorific editing in your future. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I did not know that one; and I missed it when I read [some] of Love's Labour's Lost. And "It is also the longest word in the English language featuring only alternating consonants and vowels." How cool is that. It would be a great user name. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for general, tireless, objective diligence and an uncanny ability to (with a perfect blend of humour and professionalism), maintain other editors' morale. Seasons Greetings, too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'ello 'ello 'ello Martinevans123, PC White 'ere, informing you that the season of drunken indulgence is upon us, and because my sauces tell me you might've been a bit slack in that regard recently, you are hereby ordered to eat that last mince pie and enjoy it! PC White | The station
Martin, many thanks and all best wishes to you and yours. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]
Blimey, Carrie Fisher, Richard Adams... I thought 'More or Less was tempting fate doing its analysis of whether there had been an increase in celebrity deaths in 2016 in mid-December but this is getting ridiculous :0( JezGrove (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.
If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.
If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Mr Jones. (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stockholm syndrome may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC).jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catlemur (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
yopmail.com that would be great.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm (which I've just noticed has been so whitewashed that it doesn't even call it a hoax). H'mmm. Muffled Pocketed 11:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
wikia.com.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Like the upgrade. Don't you think you exaggerate a bit, talking to an odious person and infobox mafiosa who drove away all the important FA writers, allegedly? I found the template in a 2012 discussion that was used in a 2016 ARCA. I never saw that discussion before but found nothing new ;) - First support - with the template - by teh user, short and sweet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
![[12]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/halleonard-pagepreviews/HL_DDS_1002930dG56BMd32s.png){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i.imgur.com/KBKctaH.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://derekblogster.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hector.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Llangattock_mw59170.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/122086/breastcancerawarenessdayly4leecl.jpg){kind=link}
![[86]](http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/190/1210847724_1.jpg){kind=link}
Hello! Your submission of Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
