And that's apparently why no one has wished you Happy New Year. When we said "All Rules" we didn't mean "all rules". Why is this so hard to understand? Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the shops yesterday looking for a helium balloon with "Happy New Year!" on it, but they had sold out. The trick is to buy them uninflated in advance, then ask them to blow it up when you need it. So we'll have to make do with this photo. The lady in the shop then said "We've got silver helium balloons in the shape of numbers, you could make "2019" with them." This was a clever suggestion which hadn't occurred to me, because it would have required buying four balloons instead of one. They did have rubber balloons with "Happy New Year!" in the shop, but I couldn't be bothered blowing them up.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.
I am slow in noticing ;) - First edit day is a different thing. Can you help me helping LouisAlain finding refs? Several of his articles were made drafts just because refs are missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can go to his most recent archive and look for "draft" in headers, and copy them, but so could you ;) - I took care of Marianne Schech and Hetty Plümacher (who were not made drafts, but tagged citations required). I am slow and go on a pace of one article per day, while he seems to produce five ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. French and German articles have few if any inline citation, - they rely on books. Don't think the one I sprinkled was there before, - you have to find one. To be more precise: the book was there as Literatur, but you still have to find the page number and link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, Martin. Heavens, six years on from you and I arguing with an IP over whether TH was in Monmouthshire, and it remains a p*ss-poor article. I know architecture collaborations aren't your thing, but I hope someone's interested. While I'm here, if you do find yourself at a loose end, Sissinghurst Castle Garden is up for Peer Review, here, [2], and my co-nominator and I would much appreciate any comments/suggestions/corrections. And while I'm round with the begging bowl, Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire is only 8 photos short of a full house. Should you happen to be out with the box brownie. I'm determined we'll have Monmouthshire lists with images and articles for each Grade I and II* - something I don't believe exists for any other Welsh or English county! Not that I'm competitive. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Have just noticed your Category. Why on earth are you looking to be adopted? I'm assuming it is this way round, rather than your offering to adopt? One shudders to imagine the wholly-inappropriate advice you'd hand out to some innocent newbie! KJP1 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our first TV, in about 1951, was a Muntz with a 'giant' 21-inch screen. It worked for decades, eventually winding up in the basement "rec room." Sca (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read what muntzing is in the article on muntzing, and fail to see why changing BBC One or BBC Two to BBC television could be seen as an example of muntzing. Vorbee (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the basic idea was "minimum required for it to function" i.e. we don't need to specify which channel, just "BBC"? I think perhaps SCA was just a trifle frivolous, as is also my wont occasionally. But I ended up learning something, so I'm quite grateful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit to being a bit of a fan of Alice Roberts' documentaries on evolution, genetics and ancient history - it's just the text I took out looked far too much like a personals ad in my view. I just can't see the same being written about, say, Billy Connolly, even though he's got a much stronger association with cycling. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see what you're saying. I'd also want to avoid that Hello-type of sleb trash like "her favourite colour is purple and she loves mango yoghurts". I was just struggling to find actual policy on this. If you wanted to remove again, I will not revert you! Goodness me, we don't want to make it look like we actually live next door, do we. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was more interested in trying to find something to say about the Big Yin and bikes that wasn't that joke, but I'm struggling - wasn't there a film in the 1970s that showed him cycling all over Scotland? It was long before the motorbike trips. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a thread at Talk:Dianne Oxberry to explain/ discuss.Sorry if you feel aggrieved, but non-sources in edit summaries don't really count. Please comment over there? Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. all I can see for Oxberry at Companies House is "August 1967".[reply]
They redact the day of the month nowadays, but PDF scan of Incorporation document gave an exact date and her husband was Secretary. The date ought to be correct, just drill down to Filing history. However, I fail to find any corresponding hit to prove those are her birth name(s). 80.234.255.97 (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. When I said "Most articles" I meant UK bios as a whole. Most articles I've seen tend to omit the UK as a place of birth or death, just listing the constituent country instead. For example, George Best's page states he was born in Northern Ireland and died in England. I don't think there's a particular MoS policy regarding it, just as I said, a matter of consistency. I may be wrong though. Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I would agree with Samuel J Walker, particularly in this case -- "London, England" makes much more sense than "London, UK". Constituent countries seem to generally be listed in infoboxes, particularly in the case of devolved member countries (which doesn't happen to be the case in the current example, but maybe that proves the overall point). Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state; for United Kingdom locations, the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead, when more appropriate in the context."
Generally natives of Scotland identify as being Scottish unless the family moved quickly, or (as an actor or broadcaster, etc.) they moved as an adult and didn't retain their Scottish accent. The same is usually true for NI; I can't speak for Welsh natives but maybe you or Gareth Griffith-Jones can, plus if a town name is clearly in the Welsh dialect language it's advisable to indicate it's in Wales rather than simply "UK". Also, I've rarely heard or read references to "London, UK", whereas references to "London, England" are nearly ubiquitous -- so that's the context for that. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Place-name signs in Wales are all, by law, in English and Welsh. But never in Wenglish. I'd be very surprised indeed, however, to see Welsh place names, written in Welsh, in any infobox on English Wikipedia. I'm not sure if Tommy Cooper ever strongly self-identified as Welsh, or English, as opposed to British. Martinevans123 (talk)
I'm talking about town names like Aberystwyth, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Cwmamman, Cwmbran, etc. It's Cooper's death place (not his birthplace) that was in question here. By the way I think that infobox template documentation is altogether inane; in the body text of most any article anywhere on Wikipedia, biography or otherwise, we generally name the constituent country when referring to any British town or city where we name/add a country; why should that information be tossed out the window in an infobox? It makes no sense (to me). Wikipedia is for readers, and should offer the most specific and informative data possible. In bios, the lede sentence can say "British" (if that's how they identify), but the infobox and body text should specify the specific constituent country. Anyway, I'm trying to find who added or created that wording in the template documentation, but I can't figure it out because it's a transclusion and I can't find the transcluded template. (Also, the language in that template isn't even internally consistent: In the "Parameters" section, "birth_place" says "city, administrative region, country"; but in the "TemplateData" section "Birthplace says "city, administrative region, sovereign state".) Anyway, I think the wording of the instructions about the United Kingdom should be altered to reflect standard common usage. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been considering the fact that the anglification of Aberystwyth never happened. I suppose you could say the same about Abergavenny—but I am guessing that trips off the English tongue easily and the conquering English didn't bother. Nice to get your involvement. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan, anyone?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ... but not sure why we have that jolly Irish diddly-i music going on there, instead of some nice harps or male-voice choirs...... and who did they get to exemplify Llanfair PG ...some Polish guy??[reply]
Stop changing "were" back to "was" in the Talking Heads article. Just because they are an American band doesn't mean it's a singluar name, look at articles like The Doors, The Smashing Pumpkins or Red Hot Chili Peppers, who are all used as plural nouns than singluar, and you think it's not okay to use that example in the Talking Heads article? Well fuck you! 50.250.226.106 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may end badly for you. Especially with the abuse. "Still, I believe what's correct and incorrect over you." isn't the most convincing edit summary rationale, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see some anon IP geolocating to San Jose, California has just added this to the article code: <!-- Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both American English and British English. Please do not change "were" to "was". --> Fine by me, if they've got consensus. And I see that User:Ohnothimagain has also changed The Doors too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The eBay listing definitely says "taking the piss here", as do some of the bids. The people at the Antiques Roadshow would want to know the provenance before giving a valuation. The 1964 car crash is interesting, because cars were much less sturdy in those days and seatbelts were not compulsory, so the Duke and the Queen had a lucky let off.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the ghost of Jimmy Savile should haunt Buckingham Palace and say "Clunk Click Every Trip". Wearing seatbelts became compulsory in Britain in January 1983.[7] At the time that Savile made Clunk Click Every Trip public information films, this was advice but people could not be forced to do it, guys and gals.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. I was unaware that it was "an issue" when I reverted. Not sure what to make of "weqweeqwe". Your Portuguese is evidently much better than mine. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Mogg used the word "prorogue". His choice. He likes old fashioned words. And in fairness, (1) so do I and (2) if he'd used the word "suspend" I'd probably have slept through the whole report .... Charles01 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publications "plural" comes from a google clickety tour. How many sources would you like? I thought the Daily Mail the most appropriate in the circumstances, but if someone (you?) wants to dig out another half dozen it looks eminently doable! Charles01 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that all article claims have to be supported by sources as appropriate. We can't rely on the readers actually bothering to search for themselves. If there really are multiple sources, the hidden note I have added might be addressed and removed, I guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is certain. But it seems likely that if we wait another few hours, the cousins may get out of their beds and we may be able to add a wholesomely American source. Or two. I haven't read your hidden heckle yet (but certainly will): if you expressed doubts about taking an English tabloid newspaper as a reliable source for anything then yes, I share your unease. Charles01 (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ping didn't work (maybe a tutorial would help?), but here I am anyway. Yes, as per my edit summary, this addition as it stands is not, in my view, of sufficient punch and rigour to be included in the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the topic to fix it or weigh in on the facts, but it looks like when you tried to fix some vandalism/sock puppetry on Lady Jane Grey's article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Jane_Grey&oldid=880681345) you might have made some mistakes - the most recent edit shows that she will die in March of 2019 (which won't happen for a few weeks), and that she reigned for 48 years. I don't want to revert to something else that might also be incorrect (but I'm not sure what the correct info is or if there is any legit controversy) - can you check your edit please?
Ironically, the Sky News article about this has a link at the top of the page, saying Why you can trust Sky News. As you've pointed out, Sky News has probably copied this off a press release like everyone else. It would be a brave person who assumed that news outlets do much independent fact checking nowadays. Sky News says "We expect our journalists to be accurate at all times, but they are only human, and sometimes mistakes are made. That is why we have an established process for dealing with factual errors quickly and appropriately. Anyone watching or reading Sky News content can get in touch, with contact details published here". I wonder if this would make any difference, though.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The depressing and worrying thing is that if she had said in the podcast that Jimmy Wales groped her bum at a film premiere, all of the newspapers would likely have reported it by now without any further fact checking. While people have a right to say what they like, journalists are supposed to do some fact checking.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you think you were doing, but reposting a page already deleted for copyvio, with minimal but clearly insufficient attempts to olve the copyvio, is a bad move in any case, and certainly when you already have a history of copyright problems.
When you write (outside of the already too long quote relative to the length of text of the original)
"After returning to France, Chaperon began working with his former classmate Auguste Rubé, with whom he had worked at from Ciceri's workshop at the Opera. Together they provided the sets for many lyrical works staged in Paris. Composer Jules Massenet commissioned them to design sets for his le Cid in the city in 1885. Chaperon could have drawn on memories of his travels in Spain to help evoke the warm atmosphere of the opera."
and the original has
"De retour en France, il s’associe avec son ancien condisciple de l’atelier de Cicéri à l’Opéra, Auguste Rubé. Ensemble, ils fournissent les décors pour de nombreuses œuvres lyriques jouées sur les scènes parisiennes. Ce fut le cas lorsque le compositeur Jules Massenet leur commanda des décors pour son Cid en 1885. Philippe Chaperon put facilement puiser dans ses souvenirs pour évoquer au mieux l’ambiance chaleureuse de l’Espagne propre à cet opéra."
then you are not writing your own text based on the information found in that surce, but you are simply following the original text line by line and nearly word for word, just changing (often for the worse, like with the "at from") some things here and there. Fram (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
".. following the original text line by line" is usually necessary to preserve the chronology? These are basically just facts. And the lines were fully attributed to the source, which had not been the case in the original article. If the above really constitutes a gross violation of copyright, you need to revdel here too? If the blockquote was too long, in your opinion, but not a violation of copyright, you might wish to copy it here and indicate just how long it should be? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atlan says this, at AN/I about my initial respove above "His reply to the block notice is concerning. It implies he should be allowed to add copyright violations and that others should fix them. If that's his attitude towards copyvios a 1 month block might not be long enough." No, that's not "my attitude" at all. I can assure you that I had no such intention. I'm very sorry that you might choose to make that implication. I created that article is perfectly good faith, believing I had done enough to avoid any copyright infringements. I was suggesting that Fram could have easily fixed and kept it, even as just a stub, while still blocking me for not taking "due diligence". Perhaps he's not allowed to by his Admin Ts&Cs? From my point of view the deletion of the article is just part of the punishment. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for telling me, Andy. Thank you also for your kind efforts there. I do apologize for any of my humour that you find particularly grating. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gareth, I've been blocked for a month for poorly paraphrasing three sentences from a fully-attributed non-English source. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. I was about to "thank you" for your comment, but one doesn't have access to the "thank" function when one is blocked. So thanks.[reply]
I think the standard reply is "any amount of article improvement does not make you immune from having to follow policy that applies to everyone". But it does occasionally look like punishing editors for breaking the rules is more important than content creation, or trying to help a fellow editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC) .... I think the more sensible question to ask would be "what percentage of the editor's edits are problematic?"[reply]
I must admit I had assumed Fram would have User talk:LouisAlain on his watchlist and would see my note to him there. I also assumed he would probably take a quick look at my Sandbox and offer any advice that was necessary. Not part of his Admin brief, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm all with you Martin, I know the feeling. Can't say more fear of being blocked until the end of times. Sigh. While blocked I translated The Childhood of a Leader with our common tormentor in mind. But 'nough said.
Ah, it now seems to be "part of pattern" of "troublesome behavior", as at Ben Rich (weather forecaster), which Fran must have been fully aware of when he blocked me? And not dredged up now, after four months, to justify a full month's block. I'd challenge anyone to rewrite a factual statement like this "in their own words": In 2012 Ben joined the Met Office team at the BBC Weather Centre and spent a year presenting UK and global forecasts. Surely, either Rich did this or he didn't? How can one copyright a simple declarative sentence like that exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Martin, and just added you to the "rejected" box on my talk. No time for this, and ANI, right now, for the moment just look at Ray's Rules for "Don't waste your time". - It reminds me of Khazar being driven away by copyright violation accusations, and I tried to fix his articles. A terrible loss that was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My last block from Fram (an indef, that lasted 2 days), a year ago, was for posting YouTube videos "without bothering to check" if they were copy vios. This one is for paraphrasing three lines of French into English. Not really the same kettle of fish at all, really? I do hope this block is not upheld at AN/I. If it is, I'm sorry to say that I certainly won't be around when it expires. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Fram doesn't have a point... But I am saying that his response was totally disproportionate. I'd unblock you myself but I'm biased, both by knowing you and by having had previous disagreements with Fram over his approach to good editors who have fucked up. I'd say wait for common sense to prevail, but ANI is terrible at resolving anything other than simple issues so I'm afraid you might be waiting a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?20:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness I'm not an admin (and never want to be one), or would unblock you and many others. Never understood how a block of a content editor ever made the encyclopedia better. Needless to say I also had my disagreements with Fram, so shouldn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Gerda. No worries. Yes, I'm beginning to also see a pattern emerging, but not the one that Fram is so currently keen on emphasising. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Martin! This page is on my watchlist, so I've seen some of the recent developments. Because of what you wrote above, I looked at Ben Rich (weather forecaster), and was considerably less than encouraged by what I saw. I've suggested at ANI that that page should be sent to WP:CP – it needs to be rewritten pretty much from scratch, I believe. Then, more or less at random, I looked at Museo Casa de la Moneda (Madrid), where it seems that essentially every word is translated directly (and very nicely) from various pages of the website of the museum, with a bit from the FNMT. Do you believe that content to be free for anyone to use? Because I see nothing on this page to suggest that it might be. Sorry ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks for pointing that out. It seems I have a bit of a problem with non-English sources. I'm not sure I can avoid the "translated directly" bit, but I may have to adjust the "very nicely" part. Any suggestions on rewriting any of that article would be very welcome. I'll try and go through it. I seem to have an issue with often seeing source material as just "facts" that can't be rewritten without making them untrue, or at least less true. Feel free to check any of my contributions that you suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JLAN, the Earwig tool (which I have in my Sandbox and use whenever I can) shows "Violation Unlikely 16.7% confidence". How low does that level have to be to assuage your concerns? Is there a project-wide agreed maximum level? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I was careless – I should have linked the tool to the specific version of Ben Rich I'd looked at, which was this one. It's now showing as more or less OK because you and Diannaa have made a number of changes. When you use Earwig's tool it really isn't the percentage that counts, but what the tool has marked as copied. If it's a mass of proper names and quoted material, there can be a high percentage but no copyright problem; if it's running text the page may need attention even if the percentage is low. The museum page needs to be completely rewritten, in words that are not those of the sources, preferably removing all existing text (except the opening sentence) before you do so. Please let me know if you need help with or advice on that or any other page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with other Wikipedias is that they often don't point out that their content is "borrowed" from a site, and here you commit copyright violation when you translated and didn't even know it. Happened to me, too, just nobody saw it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is another pitfall, yes, except that in this case Fram had very clearly showed us the source. I just thought I had done enough to get round copyvio. And there wasn't just one source, there were three, all of which I thought I had attributed properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I've unblocked you. A 1 month block in a situation like this is unproductive, and based on the comments at ANI, I think there's enough consensus about this that I'm not sticking my neck out too far here. This unblock is not because there weren't some close paraphrasing/direct translation problems - there were - but because the block button is a clumsy way to educate a good faith editor, and because this had little or nothing to do with the Youtube issues from a year ago. You've previously expressed respect for User:Diannaa's ability to explain copyright issues, so I'll ping her here and ask her to take a look and talk to you about it when she has time. Until then, probably a good idea to stay pretty far away from translations or rewording... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Martinevans123. Looking back through our previous discussions on your talk page, I found I've already given you my standard advice, here. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any of the source material. 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. Don't look at the source document while preparing your prose, and you will be much more likely to come up with something fresh! then go back and compare with your source and make sure it's okay before you post your edit. 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. It might be worth your while to have a look at and study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dianna. Thank you for that very useful advice. I know you are always very busy. I have made the change you kindly suggested for Ben Rich (weather forecaster). I will certainly take a look at that link. I think the slight difficulty I seemed to have with my wording for Philippe Chaperon was caused by the translation from the original French. I'm sure it could have been easily sorted with just a few tweaks. A great of drama could have been very easily avoided. Anyway, thanks again. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're unblocked, Martin. This is honestly one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time (I say that knowing I've made a few stupid blocks over the years). Nonetheless, take the advice you've been given by Floq and Diannaa (both editors and admins I hold in the highest esteem) and be much more careful in future. Diannaa's point about summarising rather than paraphrasing is particularly worth mulling over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HJ. I can't think of anything I've seen you write that I've disagreed with. I have a great deal of respect for your work here. Likewise with the esteem for those two. Diannaa's copyright advice is always excellent and I will certainly take it on board. She's already given a perfect example of just that principle. Meanwhile, I do hope someone will have anther go at creating a better version of Philippe Chaperon. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. Looks like it's now in very good hands. Still not sure why it had to deleted twice instead of just being retained as a stub, with the "offending parts" removed and/or revdeled. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great to read this excellent result that your one-month ban is quashed and your equilibrium restored. Thank you, Diannaa, for your considerable help here, and for the link to the dashboard training module; I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I chose all the correct answers to the quiz. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the DDT example in "plagiarism", I think I still have a problem with not being able to use many of the same words in the same order for scientific topics. Science tends to be built on facts. And there's only so far you can go with re-writing facts in you own words. The article says quite plainly "you should paraphrase the ideas and concepts you want to share on Wikipedia: present the information, phrased in a new way" which seems to slightly contradict its earlier advice that one should instead rewrite a whole passage, in one's own words, using a wholly different structure. Glad to say I also got all the quiz answers right. Some of those quiz options are quite scary, though, aren't they? e.g. "Delete your Wikipedia account, because you've been blacklisted as a plagiarist." Who would ever be tempted to do that (after a month-long block, for instance)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. I still do not have time to work on articles again. RL will also stop me in the next few months. But I watch what happens. I am glad that you are unblocked. The information from User: Diannaa is very helpful for my planned texts. Especially since I will use English, Spanish, French and more languages as the source of my review of articles. I signed in to Wiki Education - all questions answered correctly. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So glad that you're free again to participate Martinevans123. I feel a tad annoyed that all this melodrama happened because you tried to rescue a page of mine that was deleted. From now on, no more translations from French or German texts, I simply didn't know it was considered copyvios (yes, it sounds stupid now). I'll link to them without any further fuss. May this piece enlight your heart this morning. Some happy triggers are devoted disciples of Discipline and Punish. Yours, LouisAlain (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Clive Swift, which you updated and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Goodness me Gareth. Are you sure that shouldn't be "horse (shit)" or "(horse) shit"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the sarcasm; it makes dealing with a user like Gareth Griffith-Jones easier.TonyPS214 16:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi TonyPS214. Please excuse my typically lame facetiousness. I am glad if you can see the humorous side to this. And I had hoped you might have been able to resolve your differences without recourse to the dispute resolution notice board. I do hope also that you can take Gareth's somewhat strongly worded comment with a pinch of salt. I'm sure no real offence was intended. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. I notice that you have been an editor for some years and I'm surprised that you don't sign your posts using four tildes " ~~~~ " - this is a basic procedure that allows other editors to link to User page or Talk page. Thanks.[reply]
On the article of Eddie Vedder, i made an edit adding a quote box to the Legacy section of the page as it was short of content and a template of 'contents to be added' too was placed there. That quotebox comprises of 51 words none of which has been altered in anyway and so it obliges with all the rules and laws(you can check it). But then a wikipedian RegentsPark was witnessed doing disruptive editing as he vandalised the article by reverting that edit just because i am a sockpuppet. An edit is never a sockpuppet and unless it is non-constructive or disruptive, one should not remove it but he did and will surely do it again thats why i again put that quotebox there to show you that. Also RegentsPark has multiple and last warnings on his talk page which says that if he did edit disruptively again he would be blocked but he is proving to be relentless. And i think this is a time to teach him a lesson. Either his adminship be removed or he gets a block, one of these is necessary. Because this is a case of wikipedian taking the avatar of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Wish you have a nice day brother, Keep yourself up like this. Yours useless friend 2405:204:A418:BF64:0:0:1520:B0AD (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit: One more man, Calton has previously been cautioned many times before for personal attacks and edit warring. And he has just now reverted my edit because "the edit summary doesn't makes sense" as he said about the reason why he did so. Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A418:BF64:0:0:1520:B0AD (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you guys are talking about? Even if you aren't admin you can help me by enquiring about these two guys who are openly vandalizing Wikipedia. These two guys have been warned nor once neither twice but nearly 5 times(calton being subject to personal attacks on other editors nearly 10 times). These two guys should be blocked immediately. Please just go on Eddie Vedder page and see the history and quotebox added by me. It should be there and one should praise me too for perseverance to compete against these Wikicheatians but im not asking for praise. Please stop this Marty. Regards 2405:204:A507:3721:0:0:1C46:E8A1 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are just talking. It is allowed, you know. But you would be wise to seek help from an Admin. My own advice to you is, as before, very simple: create a user account and stick to it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't talking about creating a user account brother. You have a lot of friends who are administrators. For the sake of anti-vandalism you can just address one of them to block these guys. These guys are openly vandalising wikipedia and if not done something now, they will surely cause huge damage to the reputation of Wikipedia someday. I don't need an account because I don't wanna do editing but i saw RegentsPark who has been editing disruptively for many years and this is the time to get that adminship off him or block him because he is too corrupt to be an admin. 47.9.81.186 (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand Martin. They both have so many edits compared to me, an IP address. Others won't give a damn to what I say even if I am right in the situation. I have witnessed it before when peoples like regents park kept provoking and humiliating me unfairly but due to my lack of awareness and no support at all, I couldn't do anything to him. This is the time for the justice and I will do whatever required. 47.9.81.186 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"They both have so many edits compared to me, an IP address." IP addresses can have many edits, often from multiple contributors. Whether this is an advantage for you is another question. There are, however, many advantages to having a registered account. And as far as requesting admin action is concerned, I'm not sure that "friendship" is meant to play any part. But if you are really unable to find anyone to help you, perhaps you could show a diff of an edit here, by one of these editors who have been "witnessed doing disruptive editing", and explain why you think it's "vandalism"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how to give diffs. Can you tell me? And after that i will directly take this matter to administrator noticeboard. Cuz i dont see any hope here now.47.9.81.186 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! I have addressed the problem on Admin noticeboard. If you have time, then go and read my statement and support me if you agree because if you stand by my side then the article will surely get justics. It may sound a bit funny though:)).2405:204:A507:3721:0:0:1C46:E8A1 (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, I noticed you just undid my revert of the edit by IP user 92.22.145.232 (the one who commented "fuck off") in Fish and chips. This is an obvious sock puppet of long-term-abusive editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334/Archive. He has made the same edit many times, and does this disruptive changing of English-British nationality in many articles. The article has previously said English origin for many years, with sources. Could you undo your edit? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IamNotU. Fish and chips originates in the United Kingdom, not solely in England. To suggest otherwise is utterly ridiculous. I'm very sorry if this sockpuppet has caused trouble elsewhere, but that hardly means an article has to remain factually incorrect, does it? I'm sure I can see the proof that the IP is definitely confirmed as the same editor(although I understand if you have been following them you will know much more about their editing habits than do I). I've just searched the two archives there and I don't see any extensive discussion of England vs Britain, so perhaps that is overdue? Looking at the content of that book source New Ethnicities And Urban Cult by Les Back, it's possible that one could base the argument on the claim that London is the capital of England, but not the capital of Great Britain. That argument seems somewhat fallacious. In fact, saying just "England" in the first sentence seems to make the opening section slightly self-contradictory. I'm very sorry if this causes you a problem, I just think it should be properly discussed. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the thing is that it has not been properly discussed, and this block-evading editor is the only one who has made this edit, changing from English to British. He has been causing disruption in this article going back years, edit-warring over this same change ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc.). It has never received support by anyone else, and has always been reverted, including by several admins. Apart from brief periods before his edits were noticed and reverted (the longest one being the recent period since his last edit in December), the article has said "Fish and chips is a hot dish of English origin", supported by the BBC reference ("It is safe to say it was somewhere in England") since 2013. I would like to restore to the previous long-standing version. If you'd like to get a consensus on the talk page to change it, you're welcome to. I don't have a fixed opinion about it either way, but I don't think it's acceptable to allow this person to get their edit through in this way, in contradiction to the source and undiscussed, after so much disruption, see for example WP:BMB. --IamNotU (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you would take a moment to read that source from Les Back's book, you will see how ironic it is that it's been used to support the notion that fish and chips originate from "English cuisine". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that fish and chips 'originate from "English cuisine"'. It says it's "a dish of English origin", which to my reading is a more precise geographical location than "British". As explained clearly in the next paragraph, the constituent parts are likely Portuguese Jewish fish, and French/Belgian chips, so I'm not sure why "British" is any more applicable than "English". To the extent that the combination of the two means the dish can be said to have "originated" in the UK, the bottom line is that it started out in England, not Scotland, Wales, or Ireland. Back's book supports that, and talks about the importance of immigrants' contributions to English culture and society. Thank-you by the way, for adding the Google books link.
Even if the lead sentence was interpreted as giving some indication of cultural rather than simply geographical origin, in my mind at least, the concept of "English" includes very much a long history of immigration. Though I suppose others may think of it as a white Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, one can't speak of "English cuisine" without mentioning curry for example. As Back says, "the historical denial of the long-standing presence of Africans and south Asians has meant that their contribution to English society has been ignored" - to me, denying the possibility to name fish and chips "English", is again to ignore those contributions, though I suppose the opposite could be argued, that if "English" means "white", then we shouldn't call it that. I guess it depends how you look at it. As I said, I don't have a fixed opinion about it, nor do I find it all that interesting or important as a question to be answered. No doubt there's been some relevant discussion about the meaning of "Englishness", and when to use one over the other, probably somewhere other than the Fish and chips talk page, but I'm not sure where.
What I do know is that going around arbitrarily changing them as the blocked editor does, is considered disruptive. You're completely right though, that fish and chips has become an integral part of British cuisine and culture in general, as can be seen by the "British cuisine" template directly below the infobox. If you'd like to change the "main article" link in the History section from "English cuisine" to "British cuisine", I don't see a problem with that - both articles emphasize the many external influences. But changing the lead sentence, even if there weren't already sources supporting it, would require at least a discussion on the talk page first, which I imagine could lead to drawn out disagreements over semantics, identity politics, and national origins of food, and in the end might not accomplish much of anything... --IamNotU (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I probably won't bother opening a thread. I suspect most dishes "new" to British cuisine, and especially to English cuisine, originated in London. The article opens with ".. a hot dish of English origin..." that piped link is to English cuisine. If you think that should be a purely geographical link, then I guess you should change it. Personally I'm not convinced, but it seems now that it's really not worth the effort. In case I wasn't sufficiently clear above, I do not condone "... going around arbitrarily changing links like that blocked editor does". Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note of caution Martin, some admins think all editors are fully commensurate with all long-term blocked, banned and generally disruptive sockpuppets, to the extent that if you restore their edits (in absolutely 100% good faith, of course), you are deemed as an "enabler" or a "proxy" and can be blocked yourself for doing so. I speak of this with first-hand experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thanks. I can look forward to a few more wiki holidays, then. I now see that Panikos Panayi has written a whole book on the subject: Fish and Chips: A History (2014). Surprisingly, there seems to be no mention of his work in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, you're right, I hadn't noticed that piped link. Still, the English cuisine article does emphasize the contributions of immigrants in general, and specifically addresses fish and chips. You were clear that you don't condone arbitrarily changing links as the blocked editor does, sorry if it sounded that way, and I didn't mean to imply that your edit was disruptive. It's clear to me that you were editing independently and in good faith. --IamNotU (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bruno Ganz: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Krenair(talk • contribs)18:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krenair, I appreciate you dropping by, with your first edit in 8 days, to remind me about users' talk page warnings templates (which these days I find the need to employ on an almost daily basis). I'm really not sure if you're a huge fan of that particular goatse.cx image, but I didn't feel overly keen to extend any particular courtesy to that Glasgow-based IP vandal. I was expecting an immediate block which, after 14 minutes, was what was eventually given. I'm somewhat surprised you felt the need to remind me to warn such a vandal when, as far as I'm aware, you made no reverts yourself and added no template warnings yourself. I'm the one who needs the "gentle reminder" here? Really?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't expecting an in-depth debate about the relevance of that image on the IP's Talk page. In fact I honestly believe that adding warning templates in those circumstances is a complete waste of time. I was initially also a little surprised about a block of only a one-week, but I guess these sort of vandals are so well used to IP-hopping, that anything longer is also wasted effort. It's very frustrating to be locked in a vandalism revert battle, knowing that all that is needed is a simple block. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When my attention was drawn to the page, I found the current version was not vandalised (so nothing for me to revert personally) but I did find a lot of reverts without corresponding warnings/reports. Making edit summaries asking for a block is unlikely to result in fast admin notice and action. I recommend AIV. --Krenair(talk • contribs)19:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Krenair. I'm well aware of AIV. I guess it's a question of how long any of us are prepared to tolerate having an image like that one emblazoned across an article. I was relieved when an anon IP joined in to share the continuous revert burden - and believe me this was continuous, hence the urgency. I'm sorry that I didn't find your message above in any way helpful. I'm sure you were just trying to help. Next time I would urge you to not just take one quick look at the current article version, but instead look at the history to see the pattern of what is going on. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. And you thought no more reverts would be needed, no warnings were needed on the IP Talk page, and no reporting was needed at AIV. Just a gentle reminder to me to "please do better"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I actually am English, but I'm certainly not a snob! Further to my comment on the Wales Project page, my great grandparents were a Mr. and Mrs. Evans (!) who moved across from North Wales to the Potteries in the late 1800s (I think). My dad's mum's maiden name was Evans, so you and I are probably related somewhere along the line! And Rodney Baggins is only a pen name I use on here, I'd love to tell you my real name, but I really mustn't... Rodney is my white cat's name, hence the infobox pic on my user page (which I got from Commons but it looks exactly like him) and Baggins is just a comical surname I happened to borrow from Tolkein (who incidentally lived for a short time in Kings Heath, which is where I grew up). As for the Welsh timeline, I'm busy compiling a list of pages to pull facts from and I'll post again with a "plan" and hopefully inspire a few others to help because I honestly can't see me doing it all by myself! Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the flammable accommodation bit, do you remember many years ago one of the TV comedy/current affairs shows, probably Not the Nine O'Clock News, had a brief but funny spoof ad: the NCB campaign "Come Home To A Real Fire" was massaged/segued into "... buy a holiday cottage in Wales!" Etc etc. DBaK (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No end, now André Previn is no longer a BLP. Can we reference "him" together, perhaps? Part of my memories, his violin concerto played by the dedicatee, if my memory doesn't fail me. - If referencing is unsuccessful, I could perhaps write about that piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He deserves, but it's not my kind of article. Why so much about a LA conflict, + the 5 wives, but not a word about style of music-making? Will write about the concerto ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Any old junk can get into main page as long as it's all sourced." (but please don't quote me on that). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC) ... and in 1963, long before Mr Privet: FqHH1UQqIMs[reply]
Well done. A very worthy tribute, as it turned out. I think we rather flatter ourselves that the general reader is ever really directed by what's on Main page. I suspect 95% of traffic for a RD comes direct from Google Search and bypasses Main Page altogether. And of course there's no finesse with ITN - either it's there or it isn't; the process doesn't allow for a posting with a blurb for so many hours and then a demotion back down to plain old RD. All too difficult. Previn may have been "a major transformative world leader in his field", or he may not. I'm not sure I'm very well placed to make that judgement call. I think you'd need an expert to do that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the interim report. The key thing is that the plane was trying to maintain visual meteorological conditions for UK and European Class D airspace by night, which are 5 km flight visibility, 1,500 m horizontally from cloud, 1,000 ft (300m) vertically from cloud. At night, during the winter and over the sea, this may have been difficult. We also know that the flight plan was supposed to be conducted by visual flight rules. I can't help but wondering if maintaining this requirement became too difficult on the night.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the plane turned back on itself in the final moments of the flight (Figure 10). The pilot may have been increasingly worried about maintaining the required VMC minima for visibility in adverse conditions. It will also be of key importance to learn whether he could fly in instrument meteorological conditions. Without the ability to do this, the plane would have been impossible to fly on a dark night in bad weather.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wonder what time he planned to leave? The report says: "The pilot arrived at the airport in Nantes at 1246 hrs on 21 January to refuel and prepare the aircraft for the flight. At 1836 hrs the passenger arrived at airport security, and the aircraft taxied out for departure at 1906 hrs." With the pilot arriving at that time you might have expected a departure of before 15.00? But it was already dark by the time they eventually took off. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We also know from the French media that the original take-off time was 10 AM French time on 21 January.[17] Things would have gone awry if the flight went ahead at night and the pilot could not find Class D VMC minima. It would have been like driving down a country lane at night without headlights. Under these conditions, maintaining the flight dynamics is very difficult as there are insufficient visual references. It is now looking very odd that the flight went ahead after dark.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been reported that Ibbotson aborted three attempted takeoffs in Nantes.[18][19] If true, this is astonishing and would lead to serious doubts about his qualifications for the flight. I thought about adding this to the article, but decided to wait for firmer confirmation from the AAIB.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that Eye piece focuses on the fact that neither the pilot nor the aircraft seems to have been properly licensed, But then it's also unclear if Sala was a "fee-paying" passenger or not. Added to that, there's the Facebook post from Ibbotson about "being a bit rusty" on ILS. And then there's the odd/ delayed timing and the conflict with VFR. And there's also Sala's message, while in flight, about the plane looking like it was poorly maintained. And there's also the likelihood the weather turned bad. Plenty of risk factors/ causes for alarm. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting that no expert has said that flying a single engined aircraft over the English Channel at night is illegal. What they have said is that it is inadvisable, eg Alastair Rosenschein here. Perhaps surprisingly, current CAA rules do allow VFR at night.[20] This may have to be looked at if the plane was lost due to VFR failure.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new piece about Sala in Private Eye 1491.[21] The Robert Murgatroyd case is interesting, more coverage here. Regardless of whether money is or is not involved, it is still against the rules for a private pilot to arrange a flight simply to carry passengers. Obviously once money becomes involved, there is a real temptation to do this. The figure in the Eye article estimating that 10% of flights are grey charters strikes me as somewhat speculative, but there are concerns that some private pilots are bending or breaking the rules. If they get away with it, they may think that it is OK, but if it all goes wrong, it will emerge that they have been foolish and greedy, like Robert Murgatroyd.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Murgatroyd incident is very similar to the Death of Aaliyah, and the prosecution was right that it amazing that no-one was killed. None of this encourages you to take a flight in a light aircraft.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that one, had not seen. I have taken a few, purely as a means of sharing the fuel bill for the pilot in a four-seater, but only ever on round-trips from a single airfield and only ever with an instructor pilot in the co-pilot seat. I'm glad to say all have been wholly uneventful and most enjoyable. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fancy flying across the English Channel, at night, in bad weather, in Winter, with a single pilot who was "a bit rusty", no matter how free it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this. I applaud User:Floquenbeamfor the swift and decisive action. Four years after Percival died and 49 years after the incident in question, one wonders why does anyone really care about this so much. One might guess some family connection to the unfortunate Mrs. Jillian Young. But I guess we will never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhapsody in Blue, Ain't Misbehavin', Black and Blue. The list of his jazz highlights goes on and on. Those TV programmes with Oscar Peterson really were wonderful. They had quite similar playing styles (as I
think Ain't Misbehavin' there (1963?) demonstrates). AP never had the brilliance, clarity or sheer power of OP, but they had similar swing and phrasing. There's something charming about Previn's more laid back, even lazier, touch. Sorry to ramble so.... or even RumbleMartinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RIP indeed. Such a wide ranging career. From his film scores of the 50's through the jazz pieces you mention to his Sounds Magnificent series where he taught me about the history of the Symphony he was wonderfully talented. Best regards to you M (and thanks for the links) and your talk page watchers. MarnetteD|Talk22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes quite. I'm not sure how "major transformative world leaders in their field" applies here. His "field" was really so very wide. There are very few musicians of the past 70 years who have been equally productive and well-respected in jazz, film and classical music. He was a bit of a one off, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. Another great. I had not heard. Another one of my early heroes. Hearing him was a pivotal moment in my musical appreciation. Thanks for the news anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My heart! Today I wanted to expand Loussier, but first write about a woman, Liane Synek on IWD, who took part in the premiere of Die Soldaten, conducted by Michael Gielen. I took that to the lead. He died, as I just found out. During the Gielen era I saw Aida, and heard him say in an interview, asked why - with all these great conducting projects - he also composed, and he said that if he didn't he'd have to kill someone. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This article is almost fully referenced, for a change, but under-facted. So much in the external most of which still existed, - I'm just too tired. Tomorrow. I followed your example and fished an image from the commons ;) - also showing Reimann in 1965, - met him last year (Medea), when he looked more like in his article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, at that time and nowadays Dublin is the capital of Ireland. The UK is made of/constituted by countries, differently from USA, which is constituted by states. At that time UK was composed of the following countries: Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Dublin was never a British city, simply because it is out of Britain, and it sounds completely unfair to say that someone is British if he/she was born in the time of British empire, people born in East countries other than Russia cannot be considered Russian nowadays if they were born in the old Soviet Union state, Portuguese born in the time of Spanish rule are not considered Spanish. You could have left "Dublin, Ireland" and in parentheses have put "part of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland at the time", this nation does not exist anymore since the independence of Ireland as you know. So bear in mind: If you're born in Britain you're British if you're born in Ireland you're Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I seem to have lost the gist of your argument there. My argument was simply this:
However the infobox you were edit warring over has now been removed. So you'll need to take your argument elsewhere or, better still, just forget about it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. you've been editing since 10 February. Could you please start to sign your Talk page posts by using four tildes like this: ~~~~ ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source so describes it, but I think it means "the version/edition of the book held at Dingestow Court". I think your straight link is better. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I was too lazy to even check the source. But I was guessing you had followed source(s). I'm not sure if a piped link, or even a full brief explanation in parentheses, would be any better. I'm sorry to just parachute in like that. The perils of the Watchlist! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As with most of these obscure Monmouthshire houses, you, I and Ghmyrtle are the only ones who ever edit them, so it's good there's any interest at all! Although Mounton House has recently received some attention, I suspect from residents of the school previously located in the house. But they seem rather less interested in recording Tipping's architectural achievements than in creating a list of the members of their soccer team. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it seems I misunderstood. It's oft mentioned that I don't contribute in article space, and it makes me defensive. Thanks for clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm rather guilty of making the odd joke or random aside at ITN/RD, occasionally even in bad taste. But if you felt so very strongly about the mistake made in posting André Previn, you could have made your first comment something other than "-that was fast. TWO dead Germans in the box in just two weeks"?! I almost felt quite jealous. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. no-one's ever going to knowingly want to be seen "pulling a Pell", are they? [reply]
At the time I hadn't read it, it was a legit reaction to the speedy posting. I took at look at the article after and !voted for a pull. FWIW I don't see the importance of George Pell either, but there is consensus to post it and the article is fine so what can I do. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I also often make remarks from a gut reaction and end up looking quite foolish. It often pays to be cautious. But it seems your instinctive reaction here was quite accurate as it turned out. I still wish we could spend less time debating at the nomination and more time just each adding a few sources each. I'm not sure André will ever get back on as an RD blurb now, which I think is a shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that you used rollback on this diff. Try not to use rollback on those situations, since the IP made edits in good faith. The IP thought a British word is spelled wrong, which is certainly not vandalism. Should you accidentally used rollback, you should use a dummy edit. Cheers!INeedSupport:316:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I have no idea what the IP (from the University of Wisconsin) was thinking as there was no edit summary and they have made no other edits to this artiole or any other ever (as far as I can tell). If you are in contact with this anon IP editor I would appreciate your help in appraising them of British spelling conventions. I see you have already given them a spelling lesson on my behalf. Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, long time no see – my apologies! I've just come across the WP article Spanish Archer. It has no references at all, and the British Film Institute's bios for the show's alleged presenters, Rhodri Williams and Ruth Madoc don't mention it. I can't find any reliable sources to show that it existed at all. I'm always very reluctant to suggest the deletion of an article, in fact I can't recall ever having done so. What do you think about this case? Very best wishes! JezGrove (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you look at the whole story about what BBC staff earn then yes because the BBC is clearly out of governmental control and does need to be reigned back in especially because in the past they have been exposed when they rigged viewers competitions and nothing to mention about Operation Yewtree at all...
Re: the salaries then no because it a private matter what you as a member of the public earn as it is between you and your employer and if you go to your Human Resources department at your workplace about "how much Dave Bloggs earns", they will tell you that it is his personal information, they will not release his personal information and that it is none of your business.
These pay salary issues came to light when the British press pretty much had a dry period and then they all jumped on the band wagon and it is a matter of light entertainment history that ITV and other previous UK independent companies such as Lew Grade's ATV - always paid their staff more than the BBC and that is completely ignored.
If you read Jon Pertwee's book "Moon Boots & Dinner Suits" he quotes that if you worked for ITV in the 1970s you earned twice as much for half the filming schedule with ITV than the BBC and when he asked for a little bit more money at the end of his 4th year as the Doctor when he had agreed to film the next series he was told that the fifth series would then be his last and the producers shook his hand and wished him all the best for the future.
HiJuanpumpchump: The fact that BBC salaries have been published in the public domain shows very clearly that they are certainly not "a private matter". I'm sure Jon Pertwee's book may be very interesting, but the addition of individual salary information to the articles in question has nothing whatever to do with the Human Resources department at my workplace, nor "governmental control", nor Operation Yewtree, nor Lew Grade's ATV. It's a simple fact about the individual concerned. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. we need not replicate this entire discussion at both of our Talk pages, thanks.[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to ask about Special:Diff/887290478 to Tom Ballard that removed the source I added. In your edit description, you put "except I don't see it anywhere in that source." However, that source clearly states "Tom Ballard was born in the Peak District of England in 1988." (It is about 2/3 the way down the article, but should be easy to find with a page search). Of course it is hard to scan sources quickly so I totally understand how you would have missed it. Would you mind putting it back or maybe adding a better source? (I realize there may be better sources but I figured this one was better than "citation needed"). I'm not going to put it back myself because I don't want to start an edit war and I just don't care enough about the topic; I was only trying to be helpful when I saw "citation needed." Desertborn (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Desertborn. Sorry. We seem to be editing at cross purposes. Yes, that year is perfectly visible in that source, and thanks for adding it. But I was seeking a source for 16 October. Do you have one? Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your note here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit stuck here. This album, from what I recall, was absolutely huge at the end of the 70s and it seemed my parents and all their friends had a copy and loved to play it at dinner parties. Time, however, has not been kind to it and it has slipped into obscurity as a dated relic of its time, which means no sources cover it. For a number one album, that's pretty unusual. As Shaw Taylor was once fond of saying .... can you help? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Clifton Chenier Bon Ton Roulet excerpt.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Did you see the last 4 minutes of Alan Partridge on Monday? Jeesus he was the head off of him. Went down "extremely" well over here, he had the whole thing down pat, it was very nuanced. Coogan could now run for president of Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine for a moment that you ever find the time to watch the wonderful Eurovision. But when did Azerbaijan get so good?? (well, I guess in 2011, when they won, of course). The production on this I think is just stunning. Must have cost quite a large proportion of the annual Azerbaijani GNP and came a very respectable 6th. The Aussies might have won for that amazing staging alone, but only managed 9th. No Johnny this year unfortunately, but we still had a relatively sober Graham William Walker. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Icelandic song this year is a thundering disgrace ;) is all I have to say on the matter. The whole thing should be shut down, or given over to a nice respectable presenter like, oh I don't know, Alan Partridge. (wonderful yes!) Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no prude, but to be honest I reached out and PUNCHED my television when confronted by the bare arse of that nice Icelandic man. The sorrow and the pity, god help us if there is a war. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wood sorrel for daffodils, Martin and who cares. I updated my playlist (click on April) a bit (including Pärt's Cry), surprised how well "Lord, have mercy" and "the angels' charge" go with the unexpected death of a friend. He is pictured here, only the image - which I thought would be good for Easter - is threatened with deletion, because some artwork is hanging on the walls. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a sign of life!! - Yesterday, three (!) were reported as recent deaths, sigh. I did what I could for Georg Katzer and two others who turned out to have died in April already. What I could was not good enough, it seems. I wrote about his opera then, more pleasure there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, the opera article is now the one place on the web which has the date of premiere right. The obituaries are wrong by two years because they took the planned date (or what?). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great pleasure - I'm very fond of Hando. Do you suppose Ghmyrtle has Rambles in Gwent? It's the only one I've not got and it's damned elusive. But then a nearly 100-year old paperback must be even more worn-out than you or I. KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit "one-feather-short-of-a-War-bonnet" that period, I always thought. Never mind. I always preferred something a bit more anguine: [31]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC) (and yes ... the track that follows that one on the album, "Edith and the Kingpin", is just a 3 minute 34 second poetic and musical masterpiece, in my very humble opinion; just incredible)[reply]
You have thanked me, so nicely! But I am going to try now – famous last words perhaps? – to disengage a little from this lovely place and do something more productive for a short while. Ha – as if anything more productive were even possible! Catch you on the flipflop, dude. (ahem) Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sad. A great loss. Joe Venuti on that track there, another true great in my book. I have none of Redbone's albums, but have been a longtime admirer. Only found him via this guy (but can't remember exactly how): [35]. RIP Leon. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now remembered it was via this song, although I had heard him before that, on the John Peel Show singing this classic - like nothing I had ever heard before. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC) ....there's also a wonderful live version (at the historic Plaza Theatre in Orlando, FL, on 2/19/11) at YT, but it has no copyright permission, alas.[reply]
I'd also recommend that clip of him playing "Ditty-Wah-Ditty" on a US TV talkshow (perhaps you can identify it). It's not dated, but am guessing it was probably around 1977 when Double Time was released. It really rocks from start to finish. He and Cooder were very much kindred spirits, I think. It has been such a joy for me this weekend spending a few hours re-acquainting myself with his genius. A few of his albums are now very much on my birthday list. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the one with the red curtain behind him it is the Tonight show with Johnny Carson. His rendition of Champagne Charlie is a kick as well. I do hope some of your talk page watchers are enjoying the music at the end of these links. MarnetteD|Talk19:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for your edit to Black Shuck. In the summary you state either we can use the Daily Mail as a source or we can't??. While I accept that the Daily Mail should not be used to source just about anything, I believe this case to be an exemption under WP:SELFSOURCE i.e. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for what they have published. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..... so sad, another musical genius taken.... this from two of my mostest favourite albums ever Dr. John Plays Mac Rebennack The Legendary Sessions Vols 1 & 2: [38]
Speaking of Dr. John, I think that the two obituaries I added reliably source a lot of material that is already in (or not in) the article. I'm in transit and am indisposed to edit this much for a while. I'm hoping it gets WP:ITN. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)20:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He appeared a few times on Treme (TV series) - along with many other wonderful musicians. It is worth watching just for their performances if you (or your talk page watchers) haven't seen it before. MarnetteD|Talk21:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly ironic, is it not, that semi-stub articles, provided they are fully sourced, can enable an individual who is barely known to get a link on the Main page, while someone of the statute of Dr John may not appear? I don't see any way round this. Maybe it doesn't really matter as many readers will navigate straight to the article via Google, regardless of what's on ITN/RD and regardless of the alleged "quality" of any article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it is sourced. We've improved it much.
Admittedly, becuser it is a very large article, there are still paragraphs that are not sourced.
but oveerall,this is a surprisingly comprehensive and well-sourced article about a very well known (WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN) and important musician.
ITN is being deliberately perverse.
Notwithstanding, the pages views topped out at 200,000 in a single day. Good job! 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as one of the small circle of cranks who own ITN, I agree it can appear paradoxical that a short RD nom that's easier to source has a much better chance of making it than a more comprehensive article, but linking to a BLP article from the main page (and the recently dead are still covered by BLP) requires an inline citation for every statement that could be challenged. There isn't anything "deliberately perverse" about that - that's policy. If there are paragraphs unsourced, you just have to do the work and source them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Rufus Harley With Georges Arvanitas Trio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Martin,
thanks for all your sterling work on the poets. You are a long standing trooper and I salute your assiduity. Seamus has been pretty stable for the last eight years or so. There used to be long edit wars over the Irish/Northern Irish/Derry/Londonderry questions. This is why the article was phrased as it was. I think the links to Castledawson and Toomebridge, and Bellaghy suffice. As you know there are editors that go hunting for Catholics to edit and Irish politics to get upset about and place names to yell about. Could we revert the mention and avoid getting into all that again? Many thanks. Anna (talk)11:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have reverted. I was really only aiming to locate smaller places in larger places as early on as possible, hence my edit summary "rationalise" e.g. Bellaghy in County Londonderry. But whatever. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of acid-unity, you can keep your spunk, thank you. I hope your dreams are going to find you, shining like the sun and-not-feel-ing blu-ue, like you always do-o. Btw, Glasgow is never a good idea. Anna (talk)12:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for my bad English... I tried to look for English (and an Hungarian - the official website of Hungarian General Directorate of Water Management) source for the crane flow under the bridge... Maybe you can put this together:
"The water level should be more than 4.5 meters under the bottom of the bridge deck for the crane to safely pass, according to the local rescue team. But as of Thursday morning, it was 4.2 meters." http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/06/356_270192.html
"Hungary's water management agency said that neighboring Slovakia, which shares the Danube with Hungary along a 140-kilometer (87-miles) border, would temporarily divert part of the river's flow to a backwater. It was hoped that this will speed up the fall of the river's water level for the time needed by the crane to lift out the Hableany." https://thepublicsradio.org/article/hungary-floating-crane-arrives-to-sunken-danube-tour-boat
"This morning at 10 o'clock the water level in Budapest was 466 centimeters, which is 122 centimeters due to the low more than the southern level of sunday (588 cm). The water level of the Danube is expected to sink below 400 centimeters on Wednesday evening in Budapest." https://newsbeezer.com/hungaryeng/index-inland-slovakian-aid-in-the-danube-decline/
"The huge floating crane, named the Clark Adam, had been docked at a quay close to the accident site for days. The Hungarian government was even considering taking it apart to get it past the bridges.
But that proved unnecessary, so now the Hungarian government can carry out its original salvage plan which was scheduled to take place on Sunday.
"I also believe that it's very important to raise the boat quickly. This morning I talked to the chief of the Counter Terrorism Centre and we agreed to finish plan A by Sunday." " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_U55CwW_no (ARIRANG NEWS YouTube channel: Crane reaches site of deadly Danube boat sinking)
Hi Fauvirt. Many thanks for taking the trouble to do all that. Yes, that make a lot more sense now, think you. I'm sure you could add some more of this detail to make things clearer. I had no idea either that the crane could be dismantled or that the river could be partly diverted in Slovakia. I guess there is no overriding sense of urgency for the authorities now, as the salvage operation will, sadly, not affect the outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some more infos:
"After falling significantly in the first days of the week, the Danube has risen several inches over the past 24 hours and is expected to rise a bit more until around midday Friday — due to melting snow in its upper basin — before falling again." 6 June 2019, https://www.apnews.com/49ff3304a40b416bbc22a4794cca5c48
this snow is now the main problem, because it feeds the flood, therefore divers can only work crawling / lying down - this is not effective, of course but they do what they can.
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams - this explains how they could reduce/hold back/diverted the amount of the river ;o)
Time // Water level (cm) // Water flow (m3/s) // Water heat (C °)
"Water levels, which were unusually high due to rains and melting snow in the higher parts of the Danube basin, were receding more slowly than anticipated, the National Water Authority OVF told the state news agency MTI on Friday. (Additional reporting by Krisztina Than Editing by Peter Graff)" Fauvirt (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oky. I prefer if other edit the article, not I... therefore I tried to write as much information as possible to you... Fauvirt (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! Would you look at this too? I am not sure that "gémnyúlás" means "boom lifting platform" in English... you can see in this document: http://www.sze.hu/~nemethgy/szereles.pdf a sketch and chart (page 10, search: "Úszódaru", "Clark Ádám 120 t-s úszódaru vázlata és teherbírái diagramja") of what I wrote (or I would have to describe it)... Fauvirt (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. this is completely true: "it is not capable of rotating its crane independently of its hull" so I think yes, that's right. Fauvirt (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gémnyúlás... If the Boom (gém) is in vertical position is the "gémnyúlás" zero... if it approaching to horizontal it will be bigger/longer... is it now clearer?... or more complicated? ;o) Fauvirt (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. Similar in English really - "maid" on it's own generally means female domestic worker, but it's an archaic term for "a girl or young woman; "mer" has no meaning on its own in modern English, it's from the Old English mere meaning "sea".... or so Wikipedia tells me, anyway, haha.
Wow... but yeah, i heard that the 'Old English' as if it were a different language, it has changed so far until today. But by the "hableány" hab also means wave as a synonym (because on the top of the waves many times there is some "foamyness" More of a merman, I think[*] ). ;o) Hungarian is a complicated language ... Fauvirt (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a "bit serious backward": if you really have the meaning for "gémnyúlás", can you reword the sentence to be good?.. no urgency... I'm just interested. :o) Fauvirt (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey M. The video isn't allowed where I live. Could you mention what it is so I can try to find it another way. If you prefer to keep it a mystery no worries. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, Sluzzelin. MarnetteD - how very surprising, as it's published by the band's VEVO account and as there's no indication whatsoever of that restriction at this (UK) end. There's no mystery intended. I can assure you it's not Rats, it is indeed PIL with the video of this. Perhaps you can find a locally visible version? I wonder can you see this one, which has not been uploaded by the Official VEVO account, but rather by "MadFranko008 Published on 9 Jun 2013", has had over 2.1 million views since then, and actually has two separate license statements (one of which is a copy of the one on the official one). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the message "The uploader has not made this available in your area" which I've seen a time or two before. Is this the same video or at least the same song. If so your US talkpage watchers can use it. A good choice for the situation M. MarnetteD|Talk22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not over it that he died just days after the legacy, the last comment he wrote on his talk page. Followed by this, - useful edit summary. For WMF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a bit WP:PRIMARY, of course, so not ideal. And that one is in Spanish. But I think Twitter is usually seen as OK, especially when it's the official Twitter channel of a company. I don't see why that source could not be used. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Veale is no longer the record holder for his "120 percent" true allegations against Edward Heath. Jeremy Hunt says he agrees "150%" with Donald Trump's criticism of Sadiq Khan on knife crime.[44] Inflation is taking place here. When will we see the first 200% true statement?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Argentina and Uruguay blackout, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
In preparation for Glastonbury Festival next week a small project has been set up to try to get pictures for acts appearing who don't have photos (or pics are poor/out of date). A list has been started at Wikipedia:Glastonbury 2019. Are there acts on the line up which need pics but aren't included on the list? In addition there has been some discussion about which acts, who do not have articles, would be considered notable enough (in wp terms) to justify one and should be included on the list as red links. If you had any pointers or could contribute to the list that would be great.— Rodtalk19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Kilfinan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 12:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those seemed to me to be plain facts, using architectural terms, in chronological order, that were very difficult, or even impossible, to re-write without changing their meaning, although I did try my best to re-write it, as much as possible, to avoid copyright violation through direct copying. If anyone is interested, the source material is here. I also hadn't realised that I had been given so many warnings, for this kind of copyright violation already, that I was now due a "final warning" with the threat of a block. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Because the headline acts are now playing. Even if there was a complete power failure..... it has now happened. But sure, let's all enjoy the last glorious 50 minutes of present continuous.... just in case some random reader decides they still want to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. You obviously are more used to spotting that anon editor than am I. Unfortunate in a way, as the material they linked to seems perfectly relevant and interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I saw your reply on the "fill your boots" thread. Yes, that was Vote X for Change again, so I've deleted his post. I've also had to delete your reply, sorry about that. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see it go. I guess you'll be deleting that IP's other posts? If I repost that useful comment, but under my own name, will I get an indefinite block? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's like playing whack-a-mole. I and others try and delete them until an admin blocks his IP (as just happened), but I'm sure many get through. And no, you won't. --Viennese Waltz16:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I don't want to encourage this banned user, of course. But if I re-post it, it will be one less molehill for you to worry about. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they'd let me know if there's anything they don't see as an improvement, as you have so kindly done. It all seems very straightforward to me. EEng20:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Used to have a Philips EL-3302 but it broke and went to landfill many years ago. The battery life wasn't very good and it wouldn't have played music all the way to the Moon and back again. Philips must have made a ton of these because there are still plenty on eBay.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sca, and I fully agree! Unfortunately, although that video, uploaded to YouTube nine years ago, by user "fabrizio lencioni", which has now had 11,848,298 views, and has no added lyrics or other "user-created content" (apart from a single still image of the band), and has a clear copyright licence statement in the "Music in this video" section, and even gives a credit to the album from which it was copied, it is deemed unacceptable for Wikipedia as it wasn't uploaded from an "official" source. I searched for an alternative and counted over 100 other uploads of various versions sung by the band (some live) i.e. not covers. But none of these were from an "official" source and so also can't be used! Hoorah!! I can't even link to the very good home-made one by The Redeeeers for fear of another future indef block by indef blocked blocked-for-a-year Fram. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Your edit summary for that edit was just this "https://sacharts.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/29-october-1965/". It's normal to use a source like that to support a claim in the text, not just in the edit summary. But anyway, looking at that source, I see that it shows "Everyone’s Gone To The Moon" was at No 13 and No 19, in the South African singles chart. for the weeks 22 and 29 October 1965. respectively. The following week it went up to No 11 and then 8 and then back down to 19. It was on the chart for a total of six weeks. I think that could be added to the article main body. I'll open a thread to discuss this at Talk:Jonathan King, to keep other editors informed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
just get wound up when people think uk and usa is the world! i see you corrected it in article. thanks. but you quote about a different song from the link already there as 50! very confusing. 196.92.4.47 (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section of any article is meant to reflect the article content. If someone could take the time to look at those other charts, and they show that the single was a hit, there is no reason why they could not be added to the article and the lead then adjusted to say it was a "worldwide hit" (although that is a bit hyperbolic). Many thanks for the links, anyway. And I for one certainly do care that "the world is bigger than the uk and usa". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "Tears for Souvenirs", a teen-weepie classic. A wonderful pop song, it's hard to believe it was written in 1929, but I guess all the best songs are timeless. Dodd had a wonderful voice and many of his other songs show far more depth of expression than this one. I see there are three versions on our sister site YouTube, but safely none that are allowed to be linked here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Tears" isn't even Ken Dodd's best single, but it managed to outsell the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Sonny and Cher in 1965. Dodd isn't usually considered a major recording artist today, but he was huge in the 1960s.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Trouper, I am just putting together a new article on Henry Oberlander and the Hungarian Circle. There is somewhat of an ostensible online black hole around this big 1960s/70s bank fraud. People are complaining there is no write up ("it's been disappeared") so I have written one. I would appreciate your thoughts before it's live. I have been rifling newspaper archives. There is a lot there (some contradictory stories from various bods keen to get in on the tale) but mostly before archives were digitised. Most of what I have found is on microfiche. No big biography or true crime book or film has been published yet, but I will bet you £1000 that one will come out in the next five years once someone grabs hold of the full story. It's a Speilberg romp; a Netflix series; one of those that, if I had the backing or the connections, I should make myself. No doubt. Hey ho. Let me know what you think, if you have a mo or two. If I or the article disappear without trace, you will know the conspiracy theories were right and the CIA are hushing things up. I will leave secret signs in the dust. Anna (talk)23:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Trouper, you are, indeed, Super. A star. Shining like a sun. Thanks so much for your time (esp formatting the refs). I (rather foolishly) overran a 'free' newspaper archive trial period. I would like to share the account with you, if you would find it useful. It's UScentric, but useful nonetheless, full access, and runs for six months. Let me know if you are interested. Anna (talk)11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Henry is live. *Feeling giddy*. I'd appreciate eyes on him, crazy fraud that he is. Let's share some celebratory trifle. (I do love trifle). Anna (talk)11:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There was some doubt as to his birth name, however, as he was caught with approximately 30 passports in various names and nationalities. His aliases included Evans..." No relation, as far as I know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I had asked that my edit be discussed on the TP and I am not rv it again for now but I disagree with your edit because I was not calling Musk a magnet in the voice of WP. Not sure what you mean by "unencyclopedic" or trivial there because to me the statement fit perfectly in the section about the Joe Rogan interview. This is a disputed edit and it should be discussed on the TP but if you insist on your change the TP edit request needs to be changed.
Hi there TeeVeeed. I have corrected the heading of that thread so that it makes sense. But I think Musk's "joke" is pure media trivia that has no place in the article. Are you familiar with WP:BRD? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed that you corrected the header, and yes I am familiar with BVD, and I think WP:BVD says that my change should have stayed while we hashed it out on TP. In any event, what about the request to adjust the edit request data there? I do not want to fix it myself because I am not the one who DENIED the request, (not yelling at you just trying to make my dilemma noticeable.) I CANNOT fix that because I have a green checkmark and it would not make sense for me to mark it DENIED because I approved it-thanks!TeeVeeed (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. You're "stepping away" by opening an RfC?? Hmmm good luck with that one. I think I've made my views pretty clear over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Marty, how are you doing. Lets start with a tea. I was curious to know what your thoughts are on this turn of events. I have not heard assuring things about Boris, but that might be propaganda, who knows. DBigXrayᗙ12:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's pure socialist propaganda, all that stuff. He's actually going to be all lovely, selfless, strong, stable, a bit of a genius too. And he has great hair. There is almost literally almost nothing here to to almost not like, or I am almost not literally the Mayor of Maastricht (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, appears that what I heard is indeed accurate. But to be honest, my level of respect for him has suddenly increased after I read about the number of votes he got today. we can call him clown or whatever, but the man did have a plan to be PM and boy did he realize it, well almost. It seems to be an age of clowns and there is always a bigger one.--DBigXrayᗙ13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bryan Magee, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Thanks Spencer. Not a single glimmer of a BBC news report on Magee's passing. That's a shame. A great many of his BBC television programmes (most quite poor technical quality), are available on YouTube; but we can't link to any of them at the article, or even here, as they are not from "an official source" i.e. the BBC. Perhaps they've all be sold to "Philosophy Overdose"? So here, instead, in honour of Bryan Magee, is Wagner's Lohengrin Prelude performed and realized on synthesizers by Giorgio Costantini [it]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a such a depressing bastard on a Sunday afternoon, but its raining here and I hear ye have a heatwave, ye feckers. First Brexit now this.[49]Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Old flat top? Old rotten hat. I always think listening to early demos and live versions, that Barnie and Hook had a point about Hannet's production; but in the end it did dampen the dynamics, but was next level amazing. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"David's on piano" is one of the most simple, spine chilling lyrics of all time, from a song that just reps with connection to the listener (sentimental crap...passing fad). Caravan do it for me, but re Wyatt, not that I'm an auld red card holding commie or anything. Fessing up to never having heard "Private Life" before, so thanks for that. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned a manatee in a Humanities edit summary today. To that extent, now you're speaking my language! I don't know nothin' 'bout no Snooty, though, I swear. InedibleHulk(talk)00:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M. Re the goings on at Albert Finney's article that person is obsessed with adding a list of films that Finney was not in. Just last week they had a night of his films on TCM and mentioned (as all legit sources do) that The Entertainer (film) (1960) was his film debut. I think the "TCM Filmog" the person uses is just a made up item. Here is the actual TCM page and none of the films the IP adds are on it. An RFPP might be the next step. I'm guessing you knew some or all of this but I'm mentioning it because I am going to be on vacation (the first one in years - yippee) this weekend and would appreciate you keeping an eye on Albert's article. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk17:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that now seems to make sense. I was at first thrown by what seemed to be the addition of two new sources, which I later saw were empty. I guess the size of that addition was a bit of a giveaway. Strangely they have made edits since which appear to be correct. Hope your vacation is great, wherever it is! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The motivations of editors who make both useful and nonsense edits will probably be the focus of a doctoral thesis one day - if it hasn't been already that is :-) Excellent choice for your link. A fine film and another in a long line of Finney gems. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I do wish folks wouldn't go fiddling about expanding stuff. Neat little articles can get into such a mess. If I find out who was responsible, I will severely reprimand them! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. "Ich bin ein Berlinser", as they say in Provence.[reply]
Well, yes "somehow" was just me being polite :) I used to read and enjoy Berlins' Guardian columns many years ago but had completely forgotten about him until you made that nomination. Might go check out his archive now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie? I dont think so. The edit was an disgrace to the eyes of any right thinking, upstanding, saint, whose copy book, like mine, is immaculate. Please resign from your unpaid volunteer work here. ps, [50]. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marcel Berlins, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hey, Martin - is the book, Who's Who of British Jazz: 2nd Edition a reliable source or is it like the Who's Who books in America where you pay to be included? [51] I'm reviewing Draft:Tony Russell and not seeing enough coverage in RS to pass the biography. Would appreciate your thoughts. AtsmeTalk📧12:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme. I would always treat that book, with such a reputable editor and publisher, as entirely reliable. But I have to admit that I can't remember ever using it for any article. You may want to get confirmation from someone like User:EddieHugh, who is a bit of an expert in this area. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some info from the preface, on the entry criteria: "The emphasis is on musicians who work professionally (or who did so in the past)" ... "Brief histories of a number of pioneering local jazz bands are included but it is not practical to detail all of the vast number of semi-professional jazz groups". And on how the information was collected: "Whenever feasible I have ascertained dates by referring to contemporary newspapers and magazines. This has not always been possible and even the most helpful musician cannot always provide an exact sequence of events" ... "Enormous thanks to ... all those musicians who took the time and trouble to check their entries and to offer additional information".
My conclusion: with the caveat that some of the information in the book might be supplied by the subject, it's an RS for our purposes. The same caveat probably applies to even basic 'facts' for all but the most researched biographies – even Louis Armstrong's true dob wasn't discovered until years after his death, so it's just an aside. As Martinevans123 says, the author and publisher are both well known; it's extremely unlikely that they accepted payment for entry (in any case, there's not much cachet in being included in this book – it's for aficionados). EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... I just checked... Tony Russell is listed as having died in 1970, which was more than 20 years before the first edition of the book was published. So it's safe to assume independence from the subject! EddieHugh (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The full correct name of the golf club includes the "The", hence my inclusion in bolding the name, however the existing redirect does not. I have submitted a request earlier today at WP:AFC/R for the creation of a new redirect for this however there seems to be a (large) backlog. Perhaps you could help by creating it? Thanks. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Many thanks for submitting your request. I was wholly unaware of that. I don't see why two redirects would not be possible, although I'm also unsure which might the most used. Yes, that might well be the "full correct name" that the club chooses to call itself. But Wikipedia does have its own Manual of Style, which often differs from commercial, or even conventional, usage. I wasn't sure of your rationale for removing the Golf Club Category. Why was that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of the MOS and think this one may be more of an anomaly than most, but wouldn't argue about keeping/dropping the The. I removed the category from the parent as I had added it to the redirect so that "Rolls of Monmouth Golf Club" is listed there instead, since that is what would be more expected. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently both parent and redirect appear in the category, so there's duplication. Also The Hendre does not really refer to the golf club/course so I think it does look somewhat out of place in that category. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general I see the lead as a place to say briefly what a page is about, with the details following it in separate subtitled sections. Others seem to disagree, though. Please do what you think best. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well my feeling is that "He drowned his mother in a creek.", so to speak, would go in the lead, and the details of that awful act would come later (distressed childhood, water tasted bad for a week, etc.) Here we have a statement that ET wrote children's books, and the books themselves detailed later, but Beatrix Potter has The Tale of Peter Rabbit in the lead, as it's the most famous one, and the others later. I'm afraid none of Emily's children books are widely read any more, although she has other claims to fame as a writer. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was I who removed this material. At that point they were unreferenced and needed to be removed according the BLP. However, I should have checked the (only) reference provided more closely - as you rightly say, it provides a source for these other comments about BB which I hastily removed. It's a shame that I can't corroborate the comments from John Noakes elsewhere (I would consider The Independent as a slightly weak source on its own), but The Telegraph reports Peter Purves' comments about BB: 'She could be very difficult and she caused angst amongst all of us at various times, but she did a brilliant job.' so that's a better source which already exists in the article. [We both know that The Telegraph is in thrall to its advertisers, particularly HSBC and really doesn't deserve the appellation 'Newspaper of Recored', but that's a different story.]
I should have checked the provided reference more carefully before deleting, and moved the citation so it referred to all the relevant comments. Thanks for pointing this out.
Yes, it was me. I think you should go ahead and make that move for Barbara. But I think it's Usher, lol. Many thanks for your note re Baxter. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lol - 'User'makes her a different proposition altogether. Glad you agree about her though - it's a peculiarly Wikipedia thing I think: the refusal to call someone by the name they themselves have chosen. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not deliberate but would have been good, Mensch and peaceful revolution on our national holiday. Siegfried today! Did you know that the peaceful change for infobox opera happened on Talk:Siegfried (opera), in 2013, and hasn't been archived? One of my favourite talks, did you know, Worm That Turned? Or did the arbs never look at educated exchange of thoughts between the key parties of the alleged infobox wars then? - Best wishes, Martin! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I am delighted to see you dropping in, or indeed dropping out, here. I do hope the clinic is going well – how is Betty these days? I am – of course – loving the links. See you around, cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could do GA reviews ;) - I had hoped for one for Jessye Norman while on the Main page but the below pushed her off ;) - well, 4 days was a lot, can't complain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They played her "Hehrestes Wunder" tonight, which made you believe a miracle happened even on radio. Sieglinde introduces the theme which brings the whole thing to a utopia close. Tomorrow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for copyediting the image alts for Clara S. Could you please also go over the wording, - I don't have vocabulary for hair styles and dresses from the 19th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Martin! I heard the news (and some music) on radio travelling, and it's so lovely to see it all done on arrival, not having to dig up refs for another great soul who left us music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
listen! (looks official enough to me) - I had the great pleasure to just have heard his debut in Germany (well, second performance after the premiere last Sunday) and can't believe he has no article, but that will soon change. His Manon - of course - has one. Emotions high! Don't miss that video ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[56] has been on my heavy rotation for most of the week. We all know a lot of people who have died, but its not something rock music has ever been good at addressing in the mainstream, a few recent Bob Dylan records excepted. Anyway, Jim Carroll does it for me, and its nice to see Reed play second fiddle for once...much as I love him, he was an attention screaming f**ker. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used to get stoned to Alpha Centauri when much younger and hashish and mushrooms ruled my musical taste. For out and out weirdness, always liked[58], who make pink floyd look like catholic priests. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Idea, bbc was illegal in 80s Ireland. so that dr who stuff its meaningless to me. But however BBC workshop output is AMAZING, maybe except for ther very early (1950s) synth drones Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always enjoyed the story of the byplay between Ron and Delia “Did I really write this?”, an amazed Grainer inquired after first hearing her version of his most famous melody, with Derbyshire answering the question, “Most of it.” :-) Enjoy your weekend C&M. MarnetteD|Talk18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as po-faced and year zero punk rock as the rest of them, but this hits, somewhat uncomfortably, home. The interviewee looks and sounds frighteningly like a younger brother (and version) of [cough]. ([59]. 02:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
... for comments towards article improvement in Ritchie's case, - nice to be not alone. I typed a lot on my talk this morning, ending on "should be unblocked", - and then found out he was ;) - "don't believe in miracles, rely on them" (Mascha Kaléko). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, thank you for your wholly ludicrous and totally welcome response to my OMG Sad Git Moment™ thing, which cheered me up very considerably, you b*st*rd! I particularly enjoyed reading, or rather looking at, User behavior analytics. I can see lots of words there and if I really concentrate I can make some of them mean some things – albeit mostly the short words like "and", "but", "Marmite", "valve oil", "mute" etc. I see other words there also but they mean to me not much eek wordthing malfunction malfunction beep beep explode. So I'm, like, thanks dude. DBaK (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a refrigerated container, wasn't it? I've been wondering whether the 39 were actually frozen, but that seems to have been media speculation. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think for a certain generation, back in the late 70s, this defined integrity. Things have changed though, right is the new working class left and all that mind bending brexit/trump bollocks, I still listen to a lot Billy Brag albums and interviews, but. ps if its not obvious, I am deeply into Robert Wyatt.Its interesting thoughn how things have changed, back in my day the CIA was known for for its support of Regan re central america, so we had Dead Kennedys; now the CIA are heroes - whistle blowers and bastions of institutional American integrity. Go figure. Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know Brag and Dead Kennedys tried to take down the artist/audience thing, buit still, not better than these guys[60], whose public image is normally quite fearsome. See also [61]. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A major point for me is the inquiring, broad musical taste, and uplifting good humour for a man who has been through some pretty dire times. I know the song "Gharbzadegi" very well, usually have heard early on Sunday mornings; ie late during the night before, alas have been unable yet to track down the BBC4 versions you recommend. On-it though, may god help me. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another favourite - "And thought each little song, Was less than three minutes long, Mike squeezed a solo in somehow". Dry af. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really my thing Martin. I'm about drums and bass at heart, sill looking for Afro-Rock re Ginger Baker in Lagos 1971 type stuff. Here is the electronic version, imm[62]. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martinevans
Thank you also, much appreciated -- just showing my ignorance, but you are quite right in putting the book in Itals -- I just did not know how to do it!
Any reinstating of the deleted 130 Album Edits would be appreciated -- I dare not put them back for fear of being blocked by MrOllie who seems to be a law to himself!
He has now deleted the chat and has not answered my last communication so I am now at a loss what to do -- but it feels good too have support from JG66 and Rlendog though.
RegardsMuso805 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
discussion with another editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
copy of last talk to MrOllie
Would you please respond to my requests. If your reason for not responding is because of the word vandal, then I will take it back, but I am not going to allow you to make over 100 deletes without having some kind of discussion and arbitration from other Editors. I think what you have done was hasty and you are misinformed about the "citations to research published by a small group of researchers". This book was from the then largest poll of votes (as stated on the cover of the third edition). This book is cited on Wiki many many times over many years. The last book was out in 2000. My main reason for adding reference to this book is to get a fair balance between the Rolling Stone Top 500 and Larkin's Top 1000. There is also many references to 1001 Albums To Listen To before You die -- this book is a collection of albums from a small team of writer/researchers - maybe you are getting Larkin's book mixed up? His book is highly regarded and I think it is important to get the balance right between the USA (Rolling Stone 500) and the UK (Larkin's Book). After all the Rolling Stone book was from writers only -- Larkin's book was a much bigger base of people, including writers, musicians and most importantly the fans like myself. Please enter into sensible dialogue as I hope you will see that what you have done is simply not fairMuso805 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC). PS I have just seen from the cover of the 3rd Edition it states "Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics". That I hope you will agree is not as you state "your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers".[reply]
Thanks for the info, Muso805. You may need to take your "discussions" with that other editor to an appropriate noticeboard. No-one can be "a law to himself" at Wikipedia. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muso805 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Martinevans123 and Rlendog -- I am also so sorry to trouble you, but JG66 has suggested further opinion from you and Rlendog - if you have time see the following.
I don't want to stir it up again, nor do I want to break any rules. "paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep" (Stephen Stills)[reply]
JG66, so sorry to trouble you again but your experience and advice would be welcome. Just when I thought this was done and dusted I received a note from Swarm saying:
JG66 is warned for personal attacks and edit warring. Beyond that, from what I can see, the merits of the source in question is a legitimate content dispute, not to be authoritatively decided here but by dispute resolution and consensus at a centralized location. Neither party acted in bad faith, and there's really no purpose in continuing to draw out the dispute here. The fact that this thread has continued to degenerate into shaming and bullying is particularly unsettling, and I doubt there is any good will left on either side after the egregious behavior we've had the misfortune of witnessing. Who's more "right" in the dispute is irrelevant to this board—both editors are warned against continued systematic mass editing until the dispute has been resolved in some way, and JG is warned against continued combative conduct, and if any of it continues on either side, blocking is the next step. But beyond that, keep this dispute on the content side. It's unlikely that there is any remaining good will between these editors, and the hostility and aggression is to blame, not the existence of a dispute to begin with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
From what he says (Swarm) can I just forget it and carry on editing as Jehochman stated or is this the equivalent of it being passed to the supreme court. Its all a bit silly -- especially the slap on the wrists you were given this is power posturing at its worst - - lordy lordy, I really cannot be arsed with going now to a 'dispute resolution' -- surely not? Muso805 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, whoever Swarm is, they seem to have chosen to override Jehochman (power posturing? – could be), specifically the latter's comment: "I am not an expert on music topics, but if people who know the field think this source is good, it's fine to use it. I am satisfied with the explanations provided." Some admins are just fantastic, in my experience; so much so that, when editing articles, it can be a complete surprise to discover they're admins at all. But the ones who don't edit articles, who simply administrate the whole time, well ...
Muso, can I suggest you take this to either Rlendog's or Martinevans123's talk page? My feeling, as it has been from the start, is that the book's absolutely fine and indeed better than so many sources that have long appeared in album articles. Others who weighed in about this at the AN/I supported that view, at least in part, and Jehochman seemed fine with it as a result. I just don't want to lead you astray by saying (again) "Yes, go for it", and you'll no doubt receive less emotive comments from Rlendog and Martin. As you stated early on at AN/I, Rlendog has undone loads of the reverts, yet that too seems to have been overlooked in Swarm's decree. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Muso805 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if my suggestion that you were owed an apology constitutes "shaming". But that question aside, I guess a good place to start might be to ask about the source at WP:RSN. If all interested parties are explicitly asked to offer a opinion, then "dispute resolution" might be needed only if there was any disagreement? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goud moaning Marton. Goud nose. The B.B.G reparts Heavy farting in Nort Africa and I was kopt awoke by the soond if stroong bumming on the chinnel cost all nit. The ollies are whining the ware. Simon Adler (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, your help please. There is a mess on the Fairport - What We Did On Our Holidays - review section. I tried to clean it up but have made it worse. Hands up - my skills still need some sharpening. Ideally I wanted to revert it to how it was before the change yesterday morning. If you have time or inclination could you add your fairy dust?Muso805 (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also - I won't dare put it back in case I am breaking rules - but did you mean to remove the All Time Top 1000 link i reinstated on 4th November after the earlier mass wipeout?Muso805 (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back to the 15:24, 28 October 2019 version as a baseline, with apologies to User:Ronaldo1948. We all now know that the All Time Top 1000 is a very good WP:RS, so please re-add at your leisure, skillset permitting. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most Impressed you got that one! And thanks for reminder, I'm just digging out Martin Simpson's great cover of Blues Run The GameMuso805 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the man is a good comparison to wire. That recording and vocal is tight as fk, and though I've heard it about a billion times, its still fresh never ceases to amaze; the bass line is *just*. To stretch the art history analogy, Soft Machine are barogue, ginger is early-modernism, the velves are picasso, and wire were Black Circle. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pps; pr shoes are late 60S pimp wear. As were big straw hats. I think the point is that the dude was not a junky and intimidating...fashionably decked out and flush with cash. Visually, I think this captures the scene. Obviously Mick was hugely influenced by Lou. I like the stones vid especially because its full of colour, while the Velves were always shot in black and white. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get the same buzz from [64], and yes I know it is all very deliberate and stage managed, with low charisma to us plebs etc, but jasus, that some electricity boy. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can romanticise the 5.2 Lou Reed going uptown all you want, but the skinny jeaned, gaunt, and give a fuck Keef in this junkie vid is where I am at. ps Cale was cooler than either of them ever was c 1968. pps, Thomas Dolbay's autobio, on my desktop, is amazing; *very* bright dude; up there in rewarding interview stakes with Paddy McAloon. Have a podcast where him and Eno are chatting. Hollly....Ceoil (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is geniounly tear jerking.[66] The footage of two hoodie thieving bastards behind sharing their spoils them is icing on the cake. Heroes of CCVT!, although I blame fucking Lars. (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I love the way she is totally the boss; he pimp walks in with his cache, but is pushed aside and a bitch within 4 seconds. But yes, mostly upstanding citizens; Lars has a lot to answer for. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lost in all of this is sax solos in rock; best has to be David Sanborn. Cool looking dude, good lungs, and worked with Bowie. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a great player. As far as sax in rock goes, it's hard to beat "a little bit of this and that a little bit of that, oh-oh!!" who has never cased to amaze me when I've seen him play live. My all-time favorite is probably this guy, but then he covered rock, soul, funk and jazz, and of course blues with the genius that was Champion Jack: mmmmmmm. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, less is more. its like Elgar; bits and pieces are fine, but not so interested in a full blown sax band. In that spirit, here is a nice minimalist tune.[67]. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Many thanks. I see that the BBC tells us: "He photographed the Queen twice. In 2001 he revealed on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs how he had got her to smile during the second photo shoot in 1992 - a year described by the Queen as an "annus horribilis" - by telling a horse-racing joke." Might be worth adding. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sure, om my way to please them, and still not be late, as for Márta Kurtag, grrrr. Can you read this, and if yes add? Because I seem to have just used Gramophone too much, and they want me to subscribe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. Go right ahead, that makes complete sense. Thanks for spotting that and for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. in fact, I've gone ahead and moved it to save you the trouble![reply]
Cheers, that's good of you. It's not an area of music I'm especially knowledgeable about, but Wikipedia definitely needs to improve its coverage of British folk artists and their music, and you and Ceoil seem to be the only ones doing anything in this field, so good work. Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listening to "Hodie" from the 9 lessons: I reverted an IP who added his first wife and 2 daughters without a ref, but it's in the Guardian obit. Too tired to word that, - could you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I translated to German, took a break before turning to recordings, and noticed the next. He composed a mass for us, DYK 2012, everything in the article was sourced back then, but now, some sources are gone. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I remember "Clive James in Australia" in the 80s, it being the first time my father and I shared wry, sardonic humour, it was cannot miss TV, but had no idea until about 20 years later that he was also such a renowned critic. Of everything he wrote however, this middle brow vent is prob my favourite, for its forensic humour. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Just brilliant.... "Daenerys can’t lose. After all, she has dragons for an air force. She also has access to the only reliable supply of artificial fabrics in the realm, and on her form a sheer negligee drapes wrinkle-free, like Ban-Lon on a Barbie doll: the Hollywood concept of feminine allure always did depend on a certain insouciance about wearing nightwear by day.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, the first two F&I books and first GoT tv series are amazing and submersive by any standards. He does rather cut later through iterations I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. One thing about these bios, I don't like a long list of professions. If a comedian, for eg, had a ghost bio, is he a writer. Or is is Coogan now a media critic? Frankly I hve a hard time considering James a poet; maybe he sandwiched that in among other accomplishments, back in the day. Ceoil (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact he published quite a lot of poetry. He speaks about it in that interview with Mary Beard. He said the things he enjoyed writing most were song lyrics! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alarm device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tocsin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Sacre bleu! Les sonneries d'alarme du DPL-bot sonnent maintenant, n'est-ce pas?! "An alarm or other signal sounded by a bell or bells, especially with reference to France, or to the bell itself (see tocsin) Embedded in the DAB page, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Best known for..." 15 years of sockpuppetry and picking fights over nothing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I removed a copyright violation, in which this exact text was reproduced from a newspaper article: "Humphrys denied interrupting Clarke 32 times in the interview, the source of the complaint. Aitken was subsequently jailed for perjury." You restored the copyright violation. Are you aware that you can't violate other people's copyright in this way? Kaerana (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are just facts. If they are not, I think the issue can be easily solved by swapping a few words around. Or even by "a re-write." Your edit summary said "mostly a copyright violation of the cited Independent article." But I assume you meant this article in I-news. The actual ref, placed next to those sentences, was to BBC's 2008 Desert Island Discs which was, in fact, no longer working. So I've updated the url. I'm just re-listening to that programme to see if he does indeed mention the Aitken incident. I can't remember from the first time I heard it. In the meantime, I see that you have just deleted that text all over again, with the helpful edit summary: "do not restore copyright violations. You must rewrite it so that it is not a copyright violation." If you feel it would be more useful to report me to the appropriate noticeboard, for my dreadful misdemeanour, rather than attempt a minor re-write, I guess that's what you'll have to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What possible relevance could it have if they are "just facts"? You can't plagiarise - that's the inviolable rule. If someone removes a copyright violation, don't put it back unchanged. You must rewrite it so that it is not a copyright violation. Kaerana (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly relevant facts. I think any "copyright violation" was extremely minor. I don't see how it was "plagiarism" as the source was very plainly provided, with a web link. If you want to step down off your lecture stage for just a moment, you might want to note that the Desert Island Discs programme doesn't mention the Aitken interview at all, and only mentions his interviewing style in general. Humphreys does speak very eloquently, however, from about 36:33, about his relationship with Sanderson and his son Owen. So that might be worth expanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism is plagiarism, even if you say "here is where I plagiarised this stuff from". Are you genuinely not able to understand that copying text verbatim from a source is a copyright violation? Kaerana (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, plagiarism is "presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own", i.e. not giving a source. But thanks so much for the incessant and patronising scolding. It's great editing Wikipedia, isn't it. We all get to collaborate to improve articles. Even by just suggesting minor re-writes. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. the Aitken topic has been there since this addition by User:Martpol on 14 April 2005.[reply]
I see that you've been blocked before for not understanding what constitutes a copyright violation. It is unfortunate that this problem is recurring. Kaerana (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely of you to check. Why were those blocks given exactly? Perhaps you should compare notes with User:Fram for the indef and month-long blocks he so generously gave me? But the problem with block logs is that they don't explain if and why blocks were subsequently overturned by other more reasonable admins. If "the unfortunate problem" is beyond your powers of persuasion or reproach here, then I guess your duty as a diligent Wikipedian is to go ahead and report me to the appropriate noticeboard. But before we all get sued by I-news (or is it just me, I've never been too clear about that) perhaps you'd better get an admin like User:Diannaa to rush over to John Humphrys and rev-del that dreadful copyvio? Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do explain if and why blocks were subsequently overturned. For example, "User has promised not to repeat these mistakes again" after one of them. But you are repeating these mistakes again. Kaerana (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeating these mistakes again.. "? These are YouTube videos with embedded "Licensed to YouTube by.." statements, are they? Goodness me, I've just been to check on your "past history". What a surprise for someone so clued-up on copyright violation policy. Anybody might think you were a disgruntled sockpuppet of a permanently blocked editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 10-word overlap between the source document and the article. Martinevans123 is not the person who originally added the content; that was someone else back in August. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
20 words were identical, not 10, and the rest was very closely paraphrased. I did not say that Martinevans123 added the copyright violation originally; just that when I removed it, he restored it, and then appeared not to comprehend that it was a copyright violation. Kaerana (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, whose skills and advice I completely respect, doesn't seem to share your view of the seriousness of my crime. I'm sure we'd all appreciate a quick demonstration from you of how that relatively modest passage could be re-worded to allow for its restoration to the John Humphrys article, avoiding any copyright violation. Meanwhile, I must warmly congratulate you on keeping a completely block-free and criticism-free Wikipedia career, for all of its 12 hours and 40 minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's tool shows the overlap between the source webpage and the Wikipedia article at diff#928738341. The words that are directly copied are "...the source of the complaint. Aitken was subsequently jailed for perjury." (it's actually 11 words.) Earwig's tool shows additional overlap, which consists of quotations.— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about that too and also drew a blank. I also have Earwig, thanks to you. To me that looks like a simple statement of fact. But then, it seems, I'm "repeating these mistakes again" and I have a blocklog for copyvio and for sockpuppetry. So I await User:Kaerana's expert "copyvio avoiding" re-word with some anticipation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot copy text verbatim from a source. 11 words (which it is not) or 20 words (which it is), doesn't matter. Statement of fact, or something else, doesn't matter - you cannot copy text verbatim from a source. And you seriously cannot think of any way to write except to copy and paste from the source? That's a serious deficiency. Kaerana (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really know how to work collaboratively, don't you Kaerana. I bet you're really popular amongst your fellow editors. Please show us your suggested reword here and we can discus it. Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin - the guy's a troll. Unfortunately, we've a fair number of them. But we also have a great bunch of editors with whom collaboration can be both productive and fun. Leave Kaerana to the time sink, and to themselves. KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty obvious this person is already an experienced editor, hiding under the guise of a new account. The question when then arises is "why?" I'm tempted to request an WP:SPI. But, as things stand, I really can't be bothered. If they carry on with this level of disruptive hectoring and pointless preaching with other editors, I guess they won't last very long. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious to myself and to Martinevans123 which edit I was referring to. I find that restoring a copyright violation to an article is disruptive and unhelpful, while not providing a diff is not.Kaerana (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing the abuse that one can receive for caring about and understanding copyright. The person previously blocked for sockpuppetry and repeated copyright violations is clearly very unhappy to have their shortcomings pointed out. Kaerana (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked if I gave them precious more than once, but no, just once. Sometimes I wonder ... 3 for the rabbits and 2 for the bishs (intentionally), 2 for the pumpkins (less intentionally). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I feel ambivalent about socking. If folks feel the need to split up their editing by topics using different personas, I'm not sure that's necessarily wrong. Especially in a desperate attempt to keep track of their growing watchlist. Or even to adopt a silly name to add good content "anonymously". I don't see how that impact's "trust" in a big way. Why, some idiots even seem to try and deliberately choose the most ridiculous names possible, in an attempt to make it a bit obvious. "Multiple accounts" doesn't necessarily mean "abuse" to me. If people always just added good content and didn't get into fights about it, I'm not sure there'd be any problem. But of course they don't. On the other hand, actively pretending to be a different user, to stack votes, or avoid a block, or win an argument, is very wrong. And one expects an Administrator to set an example. I haven't really got the time or the inclination to go back through the thousands of edits made by Edgar and his socks. It looks like 99% of them were "good" ones. But if he ever blocked anyone for socking, I'm afraid he'd get no sympathy from me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well, say something on his talk page now? - I didn't. - repeat precious when it comes? - I don't know yet. For Br'er and Hillbilly and Kiefer and some more, all the time, but I really didn't know Edgar that well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your earlier King Curtis link, its just, no words. Ive listened about 50 times today, though the figure is very basic, wow what they all do. Its certainly changed how I see electric blues. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The saxist did a few thing towards the end that made me want to burn the house down. Of course I can'd do that because I'm married and Liz would be annoyed with having no house. Still though, wow. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sniffing out socks is not only a thankless job, it's a stinky one.
Especially for those of us who can't duck fast enough.
It gets even worse when it's a drawer full and the feet they
belong to is someone we once trusted. Kudos to all the sniffers!
Dude, on a talk page, you were freaking out! I was asking a question! Just chill man, chill. From the Jamal khshooki ( forgot his last name) talk page. New3400 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You cleared that up, to me it looked like it was serious, but if so, can you show me an article from the prince saying that? Thank you for clearing that up. New3400 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. It just said that he did not leave. To be honest, unless there is a photo of the body, I don't believe it. Sorry if I made you mad. New3400 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you missed this:
"In September 2019, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated that he bears the responsibility for Khashoggi’s assassination by Saudi operatives “because it happened under my watch”, according to a preview of a PBS documentary. However, he denied having any prior knowledge of the plot.[1]
Whatever you or I might personally prefer, in terms of photographic evidence, is neither here nor there, is it? What would you expect? A neat photo of his dismembered limbs and torso? His decapitated head perhaps? I'm not "mad", thanks, just a little amazed that you should have any real doubts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I missed that. But, later on, it said that the Turkish government had videotapes of the killing, but we don't have it? It could be a coverup... (P.s yes it sounds like I'm a madman, but I'm not.) New3400 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just add an important fact on Daltrey's solo career, which is a coved song by a major French Artist. Why do you keep on deleting it? It does not go against any wikipedia rules...It looks like a useless Tour de Force...Why is this? It's just facts....Documented and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:3FC:8E00:90C8:6295:DB3E:C8B3 (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it once. My edit summary was "unsourced and WP:WEIGHT". Perhaps you could explain why that fact is "important"? And where was the source for that fact, I must have missed it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the reversions, by myself and other editors, were over the lack of any source(s) and a question on the notability of that one song. Many thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sightly less punchy, but quite appropriate for this Thursday perhaps: "It is part of the business of a newspaper to get news and to print it; it is part of the business of a politician to prevent certain news being printed. For this reason the politician often takes a newspaper into his confidence for the mere purpose of preventing the publication of the news he deems objectionable to his interests." -Alfred C. Harmsworth (1903) (... who probably wouldn't get far with Wikipedia today). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, we in the U.S. haven't had the privilege of being exposed to the sagacity of Fleet Street. One more old saying in the news biz: "A journalist is a man who's missed his calling." – Sca (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll ever come up with something as flawed but perfect as that JCC cover, but this later cover is how I first discovered Roy Harper. Oh my. Hits on about 50 levels, it slows down, speeds up, and is utterly desolate, far superior to the Cocteau Twins version. Ceoil (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I was to be honest, I think Roy H would have been deservedly huge, if he wasnt so boring to look at, which is something you cant say about BB, who was strikingly handsome. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but not a fan of bb king and his indeterminant, cleanly produced solos. Like grove and rhythm, which is why to taken by with King Curtis, but bb was too flashy and played too many notes. Amway, speaking of classics - tune [71]. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impressed all the same Martin. My only claim to fame is spending months sharing overnight space in squats with the likes of the brother of the drummer from Ned's Atomic Dustbin. I did meet Stevie Wonder once, working as a concierge in NY. Was behind the desk with a Mexican dude that had almost no English. Wonder was there to meet Oliver Stone....the message sent up was "man in a wheelchair to meet mr Stones". What was the context of your meeting. Ceoil (talk)
I bought a ticket! After the show my mind was so blown that I decided I needed to get his autograph, as it was very unlikely I'd ever get to see him again. A very polite and unassuming man. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for fixing it. Didn't seem to take you so long. Thanks also for making me feel like a 12-year old. You really know how to motivate someone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well M. MarnetteD|Talk22:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing good work on the Martin Heidegger article despite all of the terrible edits that have been happening over there recently. I've lost my patience with all that nonsense but I appreciate your persistence. CCS81 (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that article a bit of a battleground. It seems we have two very committed editors who have the agenda "Martin Heidegger = Famous Nazi" and who won't rest until the article makes that abundantly clear. Everything else seems to have taken second place. I also find it a bit nonsensical to fight over what's in the lead section, when there is so much room for improvement in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We miss now Peter Schreier and Harry Kupfer. (You could say Kupfer is ready for ITN.) - I changed the pic caption to 2020, - click if you want to see a familiar pic, listen to our music, get a preview of the calendar images and to music we are going to perform (Bach - Haydn - Schubert - Bernstein - Duruflé, to name just the biggies), - plan your vacation and come over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for seeing to the List of In Our Time programmes again, putting in the details for the programme on T.E. Lawrence. I see the article needs to be updated again - there has now been a programme on W.H. Auden. Are you a member of WikiProject BBC, or WikiProject Radio? In the past when this article needs updating, I have mentioned this on the talk page of WikiProject BBC, but I believe this project is believed to be semi-active. Vorbee (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this too but the swing depends on which way the vote has turned out, I am only familiar with when the top two parties remain the top two parties in that vote if that makes sense. So like if Labour goes down by -5% and the Conservatives go up by 5% then it is a 5% swing, and if there is eg a -9.6% Conservative drop and a 5.4% Labour increase then the swing is 7.5% to Labour, because you use interpolation. If one party climbs from third to second place, I am not quite sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 December 2019(UTC)
Labor Party 51% (this year) less Labor Party 41% (four years ago) means the Labor Party saw a swing of 10 points (this implies in their favour and can also be published as +10 points)..
No, that is just the percentage change in a party’s vote. You must have heard the commentators on election night when looking at a result saying something along the lines of “Labour up 6%, the Conservatives down 4%”, then they show you the swing? In that case it would be a swing of 5% to Labour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme, good to see you! I'm really not sure. Towards the end, myself and HillBilly got a series of semi-coherent messages about somebody taking over his computer. We both thought he was getting a little paranoid. But it made The Trial sound like an episode of The Archers. I've heard nothing since, I'm afraid. I miss his wonderful pictures and sense of fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to find weddings, after the actual wedding, get a bit dull, but then I'm a curmudgeonly old git. What a shame you couldn't have sloped off for an hour, say during the father of the bride's speech, shot 3 miles down the road to Caldicot, and got me a shot of Church Farmhouse. Never mind, shall just have to make another trip to the old country myself. Pip pip. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh joy. Inevitable, I guess. I will try and make an input, although I see that User:VeryRarelyStable will not be participating until about a week from today. "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." - some other German guy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robevans123 - It is indeed a lovely collection. If you ever need a cite until, as I did, you bully your nearest and dearest into buying you the full set, just give me a shout. KJP1 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, thank you for the work you do, and for all you’ve done over the years to build a quality encyclopedia. And a special thank you for helping us see the humor in it all!
2020!!
Out with the old, in with the new!! I'll remember 2019 like it was yesterday!
Remember, a New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bruno Ganz: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Krenair (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Fauvirt (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Fauvirt (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you look at this too? I am not sure that "gémnyúlás" means "boom lifting platform" in English... you can see in this document: http://www.sze.hu/~nemethgy/szereles.pdf a sketch and chart (page 10, search: "Úszódaru", "Clark Ádám 120 t-s úszódaru vázlata és teherbírái diagramja") of what I wrote (or I would have to describe it)... Fauvirt (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
but I hope the illustration figure helps. 
Fauvirt (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Your addition to Kilfinan has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 12:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
The almighty rule book trumps logic again. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Done No worries. A few links still needed, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Just curious...what ever happened to Hafspajen? Do you know why he retired? Atsme Talk 📧 17:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
